User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 228

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 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

→

Four cents to deanonymize: Companies reverse hashed email addresses

"Your email address is an excellent identifier for tracking you across devices, websites and apps. Even if you clear cookies, use private browsing mode or change devices, your email address will remain the same. Due to privacy concerns, tracking companies including ad networks, marketers, and data brokers use the hash of your email address instead, purporting that hashed emails are 'non-personally identifying', 'completely private' and 'anonymous'. But this is a misleading argument, as hashed email addresses can be reversed to recover original email addresses. In this post we’ll explain why, and explore companies which reverse hashed email addresses as a service."[1]

I realize that the Wikimedia Foundation does a really good job of keeping user information from leaking, and I assume that this includes hashing where appropriate, but do we use Salt as a countermeasure against this sort of attack should our hashes ever leak? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: without going in to tons of detail: "hashing" is a one way function, given an input you get an output; you can not give the output and get the input. You can use various ways to guess inputs that generate the same output (a "collision") and one of them could be the original input, or it could be something else. Hashing (with salting you mentioned) is useful for things you don't have to later know the actual original value for, such as passwords (when entering the password it is just re-hashed and compared to the stored hash). It is not useful for things you have to know like email addresses. So we have to store this in a readable format in the database , see mwuser table information for an example of how we salt things like passwords. Hope this helps! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all aspects of cryptography, including secure cryptographic hashes, so an explanation is not needed in my case. I am also aware that we don't hash email addresses, nor do we use them for secure authentication. I was speaking of things that we do (or at least should) hash, such as the passphrase I use to log on to Wikipedia. If the WMF hashes it in a stupid way by simply feeding it into, say, SHA-3, then a malicious website where I use the same passphrase (not that I would do that, but some people do) could also feed it into SHA-3. Then if our hashes leak, they could look for a match and thus know what my passphrase is without ever having to reverse any hash function. If, however, the WMF hashes it in a less-stupid way by using salt, such an attack would fail. So my question remains unanswered; for those things that we hash, do we use salt?

Committed identity: c0c5e71bca550e99a8ae6641e66c428e232051bade39cd47355634ff159c9475fffa1d12eee339aa401bfe5b31ff7fc352c2b9c6f002bfe82d03a6b3f9e40047 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Cancel that last bit. The link you gave above says that salt is used. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly the right way to do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

In the news today. A Great Western Railway account uses an email address [2] which illustrates the point about the dangers of reusing the same email and/or password on different sites as creating a gift for hackers. Access one of them, access all of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a political issue that we want to take a stand on?

I am generally opposed to Wikipedia taking a stand on political issues, but I make an exception when something has an effect on us as an encyclopedia. Is the following such a case?

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think deliberately abetting copyright infringement is the place for Wikipedia to make a political point, no. I don't think an attempt to change copyright law here would be useful, either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- The first link (EFF) is about supporting Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), which is just saying that research supported by US taxpayers should be published openly so that US taxpayers (and the rest of the world) can access the results. That's not "abetting copyright infringement." I've never understood what Elsevier and the other journal publishers do to justify the large profits they take out of academic publishing. They don't do the editing or reviewing. I support FASTR and think Wikipedia and the WMF have good reason to support open publishing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  - We have an article on this: Rent-seeking. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"...rightsholders will not be able to waive the right to be compensated under the Link Tax. That means that European creators -- who've released hundreds of millions of works under Creative Commons licenses that allow for free sharing without fee or permission -- will no longer be able to choose the terms of a Creative Commons license; the inalienable, unwaivable right to collect rent any time someone links to your creations will invalidate the core clause in these licenses."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

China to rival Wikipedia with own version of online encyclopedia

"Unlike Wikipedia, the new encyclopedia project, which was approved in 2011, will be entirely written and edited by professionals. Wikipedia can be written and edited by laymen. Over 20,000 scholars and academics have been enlisted by China to roll out the project, which aims to have more than 3,00,000 entries, when it launches in 2018, according to AFP."[3]

That "3,00,000 entries" look like a typo to me... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's standard usage of commas in India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it certainly wont be "free" by any means, those "professionals" are either written as they are told or they get imprisoned for life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Net neutrality

I'd like to brainstorm a bit and talk to people about net neutrality by email. Let me know if you're interested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Should the Trump–Russia dossier article allow any space for the POV that Trump might not have conspired with the Russians?

Apologies if I'm being presumptuous by posting a content dispute on your talk page.

The article on the Christopher Steele dossier predictably gives a lot of space to people opining on the various claims made. Since there are plenty of published viewpoints in reputable outlets disputing the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians, shouldn't some of them be mentioned? In my opinion, allowing a lot of material that presumes or implies Trump guilt, without anything in response except some odd statements from Trump's lawyer, tends to present a picture of guilt that I don't think is warranted under NPOV.

Separately, this same article includes extremely lengthy quotations of numerous accusations from the dossier, slathered with citations to (1) low-quality partisan blogs; (2) an inexperienced "political writer" for Business Insider, a business-focused website founded in 2009; and (3) unusually sensationalist news coverage by a couple Guardian writers that doesn't seem to be buttressed by any serious discussion in American sources.

Should the dossier allegations be laundy-listed in great detail simply because they exist, or is this a gray area wherein WP:EXCEPTIONAL counsels us to limit our discussion to claims that have been discussed or at least repeated in multiple high-quality sources? If some of the more serious accusations—Trump paid the Russians to hack the DNC, it was Carter Page's idea to dump the documents to Wikileaks, the "golden showers" tape was motivated by Trump's hate of Obama, etc.—are not discussed anywhere but partisan blogs, are they really encyclopedic material?

Cheers. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That article is a shit-kabob that I avoid as much as possible, but I'll comment here. I don't think there's a need to go into great detail about this on the dossier article (and I remind people that "dossier" is simply the French word for folder, and doesn't imply secret government knowledge). The general topic that many of the claims of the dossier are disputed must be mentioned, but it's not an article about "all the Trump-Russia noise". The piss-tape in particular, despite the limited credibility of the claim, has enough coverage that it must be discussed in some form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should not have included that reference. The pee tape was indeed widely mentioned. The claim that Trump arranged and paid for the DNC hacks himself... not so much. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Check for more balance re Trump-collusion page when "Clinton email controversy" clearly explains she handled most confidential documents in hard-copy format or had assistants post replies via ClassNet. Try wiki-search: Special:Search/Clinton hard+copy. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors are welcome to find and suggest RS and content based on those RS. That obviously includes views by those who doubt the allegations against the Trump campaign. We already include some strong statements of doubt.
Complaints won't get us anywhere. Actual content suggestions, with the RS which back them up, that's what we'd all like to see. Some suggestions have been made, and some rejected, but that's a matter for the article's talk page. Better suggestions might succeed, but so far suggestions seem to be rooted in conspiracy theories found in unreliable sources. If content suggestions can be based on RS, then we can all make progress. We can even document these conspiracy theories, if they have received attention in RS.
Forum shopping this content dispute to Jimbo's page is not helpful.
Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans",^[1] nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these Trump-Russia-investigation articles shows that we must be doing something right. While his words were directed at quackery and pseudoscience, they apply just as much to fringe political POV and conspiracy theories. Instead of allowing your thinking to be influenced by the Daily Caller, InfoWars, and Breitbart, get your information from RS. If the information they present becomes the subject of RS coverage, then, and only then, will we present it as sensible content, and not as fringe content with little mention. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what's happening here. Those who object the most are editors who refuse to accept the RS-based conclusions that the Russians did interfere in the election. They think that the Mueller investigation is a corrupt deep state plot to unseat Trump. To them it's all a nothingburger without evidence. To them, Breitbart, Daily Caller, InfoWars, Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Trump, and Putin are the only arbiters of "truth", and they use Wikipedia as their battlefield to fight for their "truth". Their efforts are literally an extension of Trump's real world battle against all forms of information and honest journalism which dares report anything negative against him. Wikipedia is not free from such efforts to promote his agenda against accurate information.
They also believe that accusations against Russia and Trump are all a conspiracy theory concocted and sold by the mainstream media, which they consider fake news. They believe it's all a witch hunt against Trump and his campaign, not serious journalists doing their job, which includes documenting Trump's myriad self-inflicted wounds. They believe that the FBI, CIA, James Comey, and Robert Mueller are totally evil, corrupt, and engaged in a coup against Trump. This is the extreme right-wing view.
These are the types of editors who object and obstruct the most on all our Trump-related articles. They are fringe political editors, many of whom should be topic banned. They operate with an ad hoc, policy-violating, "Trump Exemption" mentality, which means that anything negative about Trump, no matter how reliably sourced and notable, is fake news and must pass a much higher bar for inclusion than for any other public figure, politician, or president. This is the reality on these articles, and much of their argumentation is actually IDONTLIKEIT wikilawyering.
It's rare that they actually make substantive attempts to present actual edit suggestions. They just complain....endlessly, and now it's spilled over to here. Mind you, there are a few Trump supporters who make serious attempts to edit collaboratively, but they are few, and they actually succeed in getting change because, rather than just complain, they use RS and follow policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're unlikely to get any consensus to balance the article, due in part simply to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia articles about current events (especially related to Trump) are simply collations of news articles. There is no scholarly analysis present in such articles. Since there was a lot of reliable source coverage (a lot of them just said things like "Buzzfeed is reporting about a Dossier"), then naturally that's what the article will say. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you make a good point. Some deeper analysis has occurred, and we use it, but much more will be coming, and it too will be used as it becomes available. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:
Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

I protest for attempt to delete Macedonian Portal

IP is a globally locked account, nothing useful likely to come from further discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2018 (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.

Dear Jimbo, I strongly urge you not to Delete Portal:Republic of Macedonia. Your Wiki in English for 15 years created damage by falsifying history by statements that Alexander of Macedonia was Greek, and that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. That is a lie, as you probably know. Thanks!178.222.116.152 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

More WP:CANVASSING regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you waiting some private Macedonian companies to sue you, even Mac co. from USA. Or you will face actions of Turkish type, as it was already proposed by the opposition in Macedonian Parliament. As for negotiations of Macedonia with Greece, I could inform you that theses negotiations failed again, after 6 months, and it will be official announced on July 12. or day before NATO Summit. Macedonia could not accept condition to change its Constitution and the new elements of its (new) Identity as demanded by Greece. As for Wiki I strongly advise you not to continue with propaganda that Alexander the Great was Greek, and that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks.178.222.116.152 (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition I strongly recommend here co create BLP for Igor Janev (I am no spammer). This person brought negotiations between Greece and Macedonia to its final END.178.222.116.152 (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a "no legal threats" policy. Not that your threats are credible. Take your imaginary history elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Be serious, people, Companies, and Macedonia can sue Wiki, and no one is interested in your own "no legal threats" policy. Stop falsifying history.178.222.116.152 (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Once you ring that bell, you will be put thru hell to unring it. Retract all the threats you've made. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition, you will face Turkish admin. style measures of Blocking Wikipedia in Macedonia!178.222.116.152 (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

JIMBO, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.90.197 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

OP blocked for disruptive editing, and is a likely sock of a globally locked account. Unless anyone else has something to add, suggest we wind this section up. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Might wanna hit that new IP as well. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:31, 18 April 2018 (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.

Google again - now using "mentioned in Wikipedia" in google ads

User:Smallbones posted a note at COIN about Google ads now saying "mentioned in Wikipedia" and linking to us. Smallbones posted a link to this post at Search Engine Marketing News.

This is really blatant abuse of WP for advertising which is just ick, and on top of that is likely to draw yet more SEO/spammers to abuse WP for promotion.

I wonder if a) the WMF can ask Google to stop doing this; b) if there is any sort of legal recourse to make them stop if they won't do it nicely. Pinging User:Slaporte (WMF) just to make them aware; am not looking for a response. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I share your concern. As proud as we are of the great work done here, and at how accurate many of our articles really are, we all know that Wikipedia is not a RS in the technical sense. We document what RS say. That's it, and it's not good that confusion on this becomes a marketing tool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Sure it's another reason brands will want to be included here, but all they are doing is serving users with a list of articles that they might be looking for so that they don't have to look in "list of X" etc. themselves. Isn't this the intended use of us being free? We can't control how others use our content. Oh and they're not ads - it's equivalent to Knowledge Graph. SmartSE (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

hm. perhaps I don't understand this well enough. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this so I've just begun to think about it. I don't think "advertising" is the right word to use here, so let's avoid that for a moment, as it may cloud our thinking. I actually think it would be less problematic if it were advertising.

I tried the example from the Search Engine Marketing News. "dog food brands". When you search that in google, at the top is a carousel of corporate logos which are generally famous dog food brands. Above the carousel, it says "Dog food brands mentioned on Wikipedia". Clicking those words takes you to our dog food brands category page. Clicking any one of the logos does not take you to the Wikipedia page about the brand, nor to the website of the brand, but to a google search for that brand.

Now, if those logos were there for brands who paid Google, I don't really have a problem with that. If google wants to charge dog food brands for having their logo at the top of a search for dog food brands, hey, that's fine.

My concern is that this looks like a very easy to (try to) game organic search results page. If I'm the PR manager for a small brand of dogfood which is not mentioned in Wikipedia, then I have a new and very strong incentive to get a page in Wikipedia, not in order to get exposure IN WIKIPEDIA per se, but to have my logo at the top of the page, linking to a search for my brand, a search for which I'm almost certainly the top result. (Or the 2nd result, after Wikipedia, which appears to happen fairly often of course.)

Of course it's nothing new for brands to want pages in Wikipedia, and that's often quite annoying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I too have lots of questions about this, which is why I asked at the more focused WP:COIN Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#"mentioned on Wikipedia"_carousel_on_Google, but most of my remaining questions are more general, so this is as good a page as any.

It isn't Google advertising per se, just a colorful search result that could be used by black hat SEOers. And the linked article shows that the SEO folks have already noticed it. This means that we should expect more paid editing - advertising articles - which I find much more than annoying. BTW an annoying aspect is that it seems to take away from similar carousels that link to the reliable source Consumer Reports

Two big remaining questions are how exactly it works? and how often is it going to show up in search results. My guess is that Google gets the list directly from our categories (the output from the list of ... articles looks a bit different), and ultimately it will show up whenever anybody searches for anything commercial that has the same name as one of our categories.

@Smartse: is right when he says that we license anybody to use our articles (and categories) this way. But that doesn't mean we can't ask them not to do it in this case. I'm sure they don't want to contribute to the commercialization of Wikipedia, and there are other things they'd prefer we do, e.g. screen conspiracy videos and fake news. They've been using us too much as a crutch to deliberately ignore a polite request from us.

Another question: shouldn't _NOINDEX_ and/or _NOFOLLOW_ stop them from getting info from our categories? This issue seems to go back to at least 2007 and something was implemented to stop indexing and following for the same reasons mentioned in this case. Unfortunately, I couldn't follow all the arguments and the technical detail. Does anybody know how NOINDEX and NOFOLLOW might affect their carousels? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping Google fetching category members through the API like any other bot. MER-C 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A less particularized question: Google (and various of its properties, like YouTube) has made a number of decisions (some explicit, some implicit) that make Wikipedia a major feeder of content for certain Google products. Does anyone at Google reach out to discuss this with anyone at Wikipedia or Wikimedia? Is there a person at Google who could be reached out to?

The point of my questions is that no one knows how Wikipedia works, and so presumably no one at Google knows how Wikipedia works. It is possible that, for example, no one important in the search engine division has ever thought about the potentially distorting effect that they have on WP. Now, maybe they won't care at all; but possibly they would care, and would be willing to think about how to draw information from WP in a way that plays to our strengths, rather than our weaknesses.

Anyhow, just a thought. --JBL (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major problem. At a high level, it's good that Google is attributing results based on Wikipedia data to Wikipedia. A larger problem is that Wikipedia often acts as the fount of neutrality for the internet and doesn't have the resources to handle it. If we magically had 1000 new editors working on the project full-time, most of the problems relating to promotionalism in brand articles would be easily fixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything was a major problem; I inquired whether there is any contact. It is an interesting question (at least, to me). Maybe, you have nothing to say about this question (and that is fine), in which case it is not directed to you. --JBL (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Arguably WMF could have some lawyers look at this. "Wikipedia" is, after all, a trademark, and it might be that someone, whether the company or Google, is implying endorsement by Wikipedia. See [4] for example. Now I certainly don't know this law, nor believe in it, and IANAL, but if something seems out of whack to you I suspect it's because you're noticing some sort of breach of rules you've grown accustomed to seeing the effect of, even if you never knew about them. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The thing I am interested in (although, maybe no one else is!) is whether there is someone on the technical side at Google (or YouTube, or ...) who has ever had a conversation with anyone at WP about this. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of Google, I just searched Google for "wikipedia" and the first result was a Google ad for Wikipedia that links to wikipedia.org. [5] Seems a bit redundant to me since the second result is en.wikipedia.org and the third is wikipedia.org, at least here in Australia. It's hard to imagine there's anywhere in the world wikipedia.org or the local Wikipedia won't be the first or second result for that search, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

So am I the only one who reads the words "Dog food brands mentioned on Wikipedia" & thinks it means these are dog food brands Wikipedia endorses? That implication bothers me, especially as Wikipedia does not endorse any product or belief, & were we to do so our endorsement would mean practically nothing. (For example, I know nothing about which brand of dog food is best because my family has no dogs as pets. Only cats.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact-checked encyclopedia

The Google ad I mentioned above calls Wikipedia the fact-checked encyclopedia. We used to call it the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The latter seems much more honest than this new formulation which (to me) implies a degree of reliability and oversight I'm not sure we can honestly assert. I missed the discussion about this new self-description. Did it happen on meta? Is anyone else uncomfortable with this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hugely concerned, because medical misinfo is rife on Wikipedia, even at the FA level. There is no routine process at WP:MED to review and keep FAs up to snuff, and that's without even mentioning what goes on at every other level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A fact checked encyclopedia is an overarching statement for an entire encyclopedia. I doubt if anyone has ever even read the entire encyclopedia to know whether facts have been checked and are accurate or not. And I don't think the editing platform on Wikipedia is designed for checking all facts to make sure they are all accurate. A collaborative encyclopedia that can rely on consensus for its contentious content also means that agreement can exist for inaccuracies; I know of some and I'm sure there are many. As Sandy Georgia says above, in our MEDRS articles content can be, in addition to any other problems, outdated. Also any one could come in "off the street" and change content in those MEDRS articles without anyone knowing; no one can oversee everything. Those changes in content, and I don't think this is hyperbole, could be life threatening if readers are relying on the articles for health related information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

Until we start adding some level of stability and protection to GA and FA, we can't make this claim. Editing to those articles should be under semi-protection control: only experienced editors making direct edits, and controversial edits by everyone must be discussed before installation. Unstable content can never be considered reliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also prefer that no one refer to us as "fact-checked"--it's usually not accurate (as a description of WP, I mean) and it seems to clearly contradict our own disclaimer. Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Fact-checked implies a level of editorial oversight that Wikipedia just flat-out does not have. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, in the popular media, "fact check" is often a code word for "say it is true if it matches our political bias, say it isn't if it doesn't". I have seen both sides use it this way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the bigger question why WMF are paying for ads? SmartSE (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused - is the WMF actually paying for ads promoting WP as "the fact-checked encyclopedia"? That is an outrageous and simply inaccurate claim.Smeat75 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what the screenshot that Anthonyhcole posted seems to show, but I can't be sure... Can someone else take out ads for a site they don't own? Or does Google make up their own ads? (I checked myself and can't see the ad, and as adblock is normally engaged, I never see them, so aren't sure what is typical). SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I just googled "wikipedia" again and that ad is still coming up. screenshot When you click the link in the ad it takes you (via 3 or 4 redirects) to wikipedia.org with the word "paid" in the search field. screenshot When you click the Google maps link below the ad text it, strangely, takes you to the location of a suburban Kmart store.

I've raised this on wikimedia-l and that's probably the place to resolve this, since the relevant WMF staff are more likely to respond there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That wikimedia-l conversation hasn't been acknowledged by WMF yet. (Another wikimedia-l thread I'm involved in - questioning why Alexa is quoting Wikipedia without attribution - has been ignored by WMF for six months now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference. I'm in Argentina at the moment and searched on google.co.uk (my default) and google.com, and no ad shows up. I am unaware of any purchases by Wikimedia for advertising on the keyword 'wikipedia' and it strikes me as highly unlikely. (Paying for advertising to promote something like the endowment might be "profitable" but for the keyword "wikipedia" makes zero sense to me. Wikipedia is the first link anyway. But I am not making any definitive comment on it, as I am very far from having all the facts!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this (which is what I for one expected), but it would be good to clarify in due course that "the fact-checked encyclopedia" was not a claim that originated with the WMF. The English WP (let alone other languages and projects) can't and shouldn't make this claim, as the many fact-checking efforts we do make aren't nearly complete and thorough enough. Making an unjustifiable claim would just draw attention to this. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Censorship article -- shockingly bad

Not sure where best to post this. I was double-checking censorship with regard to photography. My college-level text speaks of the pervasive censorship of photography during war. Unfortunately, the mostly unreferenced section Censorship#State_secrets_and_prevention_of_attention makes it sounds like only the British censored during WWI--clearly not the case! I don't even know where to begin to clean up the mess there. I don't mind adding some references from my text, but it looks like article needs a big overhaul. I'm posting here because it seems like such an important article that we could do better. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You might be reading too much into the text. It looks to me as if the section merely gives a few examples of what wartime censorship involved. It's not a "list of all occurrences of censorship". The gratuitous mention of Trump is absurd and should be removed but the rest look OK. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many pages too narrow and need globalize

In general, I see people put tag "{{globalize}}" in page sections, until perhaps 5 nations are mentioned. But there are hundreds of major pages which have needed massive improvements, often about recent phrases, such as "Internet meme" or "Repurposing" or "Downsizing". Part of the problem has been excessive deletions as words to be limited into Wiktionary, where common phrases have been continually merged or deleted from Wikipedia. Hence, such pages might be delayed 5 or 10 or 15 years from being added or expanded after threats of deletion.

Templates shockingly bad: Beyond the numerous poor pages about common topics, the range of Wikipedia templates (or Lua script modules) has been relatively stagnant for years due to repeated deletions or other thwarting of new ideas for how templates could be used. The physicist Albert Einstein had warned, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" but Wikipedia has thwarted many new ideas. For example, images should be displayed through cropped, magnified "viewports" as common in computer graphics for over 40 years; many wp:edit-conflicts should be auto-merged as stacked additions (even weave merge); pages should have protected sections of fact-checked text which few editors could alter (per access control lists, ACLs); pages should allow paragraph-section edits to open a section at the current paragraph. Fortunately, some new ideas have succeeded, such as templates now processed 6x faster than in 2013 and edit-pages are preformatted when typing edit-summary text, to allow "2-second Wikipedia" display of Saved pages. Once more new inventions are allowed, then the further enhancements tend to skyrocket, as each new invention begets more inventions as a synergistic spiral of massive advancements. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the stuff you've talked about (weave merge etc) have nothing to do with templates and can't be done with them. Would need changes to mediawiki Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you've forgotten how templates can invoke Lua script modules, which can be very powerful, rapid and dynamically process other Lua modules depending on parameter values. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I write and edit lua modules. Still don't see how weave mergers would work - maybe you could do it with javascript, but lua modules can't do anything but generate page content. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

- And remember, the media wiki team is the same team that once promised merging software that the CAP theorem says is impossible to create. (There have been a lot of personnel turnover since then, so we can hope that the current team isn't insane... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you can explain that to me. I thought you were wrong a long time ago when you said it, and I think you're wrong now. I definitely think you are wrong to call people 'insane' but I also think you don't understand the theorem and how it does or doesn't apply here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the limit would come when expecting merged text to be 100% "perfect" but instead, the auto-merging of inserted text could be allowed as "98%" perfect, where occasionally someone might insert a new comment which refers specifically to the line immediately above, but meanwhile another user also replied at the same line, and in most cases a reader can see that both merged replies were intended after the prior comment, now 2 lines higher. Another example might be 2 users update a list to have new entry "7b" after prior entry "7a" which merges as 7a-7b-7b but since our lists are typically auto-numbered, then the generated sequence would become 7a-7b-7c. In that new world of auto-merged text, the Editors Guide could warn: "During busy edits, another user's input might be auto-merged above the first user's added text, so be sure to proofread when warned at Publish-Save that another user's input was auto-merged at the same spot". The edit-save always knows if another editor was editing at the same lines.
For weave merge, some paragraphs can be moved while another editor changes the wording in them (yes, wow), so the warning could state paragraphs were changed while also moved. I think that miracle merge can be accomplished by assigning unique line tags when comparing texts, and spotting the moved paragraphs by matching the line tags to merge the updated wording of paragraphs. The point to remember: The world has so many brilliant people, that we haven't seen nothing yet. Note how the U.S. founding fathers originally defined the presidential election to put runner-up as Vice President, so if the President were later impeached, they would get the other as president. Pure genius. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Pompeo

On 1 December, 2016 an IP added this to Mike Pompeo:

As a teenager, he enrolled at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He graduated first in his class from West Point in 1986 and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the Fourth Infantry Division. He served his last tour in the Gulf War.

with no sources. The claim that he served in the Gulf War has been widely repeated since then. That claim was challenged by Ned Price yesterday on Twitter and then debunked by the CIA in an email to splinternews.com. I've been unable to find an instance of this claim anywhere prior to 1 December, 2016 - using Google web, scholar or book search. So, I think we're responsible for this. (Though Pompeo has surely seen and heard the claim on numerous occasions and has not corrected the record.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed in this Quartz article.

The situation shows how much major media outlets have come to rely on Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit that employs less than 300 people.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is rather scary. According to Quartz, mainstream media that repeated the fake news included the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail. My feeling is that there must have been another source. All these news organizations wouldn't have just followed Wikipedia IMHO. Where else would it have come from? Perhaps from Pompeo or his staff? maybe from the CIA? A Pompeo related source makes sense in that Pompeo never corrected the mistake. Either way whether it came from us, Pompeo, the CIA, or really anybody else it makes the concerns over fake news seem understated so far. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We are the only publication to make the claim before the Washington Post - six days before them. I don't see why you feel there must have been another source. If it were Pompeo or his people who fed it to WaPo, WaPo would be saying that now - Pompeo is facing Senate confirmation right now. As for the CIA seeding it: huh? "All these news organisations" are not following Wikipedia. One followed Wikipedia; the rest followed WaPo and then each other. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not the Kremlin? 174.16.108.221 (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, he was nominated at the time to be Director of the CIA. They have occasionally been said to do propaganda and secret operations. As far as I know, Pompeo has never been nominated to be director of the Kremlin, FSB, or KGB. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see Reuters about Wikiscanner and CIA and FBI edits and CNN October 19, 2017 on Capitol Hill editing here. There's a lot of evidence that this type of thing is happening. For "Kremlin editing" see Trolls from Olgino. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I concluded it was most probably just an IP misreading a 2014 Wichita Eagle article, as did the authors of the Quartz article. It could have been the Queen, the Pope, the Russians, the CIA or you but it actually looks like a simple good-faith mis-reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What the hell happened to "Trust, but verify"? This smacks of journalistic malpractice. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Never trust Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What the Quartz article doesn't say is that in this edit on 2 December 2016, Rms125a@hotmail.com added an unsourced template to the section, so it was flagged as unsourced very quickly. What is described here is covered in WP:BLPGOSSIP, which says "Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit." Since the claim that Pompeo served in the Gulf War isn't libellous or completely implausible, it may have gone unnoticed that it wasn't correct. If it had said something like "Mike Pompeo is a *%$!" it would have been reverted much more quickly. It's well known that some people make Walter Mitty-esque claims about their military service, so claims in this area need to be checked out and not allowed to go unsourced for any length of time. The Quartz article appears to be suggesting WP:COI here rather than vandalism. "In the Gulf War" could be read as meaning that he was in the Gulf at the time, rather than the period of time of the Gulf War. The CIA said that he "was in the Army during the Gulf War, but he didn’t deploy to that theater." I don't think this is the greatest disaster in the history of BLPs as there have been bigger cock-ups than this. Nevertheless, it shows that material has to be checked and verified. It also shows that the mainstream media often uses Wikipedia articles as a crib sheet, but we know this already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not defending inaccuracy because I agree that this incident, in particular, and other such incidents are bad for Wikipedia (and beyond) and by policy should never have been inserted or it should have been removed, but it's arguable, without stronger evidence that there is not a rather more innocent explanation - 'it didn't matter', in the sense that no one was getting into the weeds of what went on 25 years ago - so, as Time and others wrote, 'he was an Army officer during the Gulf War', which could have been elided by whomever the Wikipedia editor was to 'he was an officer in the Gulf War.' Why it's never been publicly corrected by him, if it hasn't, we don't know. (It is almost certain, that his actual CV was made public to Congress, during his last nomination). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles regarding Trump cabinet members and nominees should be protected indefinitely due to both simple malicious vandalism and attempts by partisans to influence the upcoming midterm elections by inserting untrue, salacious, provocative, speculative, synthetic, etc. text. We cannot, of course, protect the articles of all US Senators and House Representatives but we should be vigilant, especially on those pages in the coming months before the November elections. Quis separabit? 23:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course we should be vigilant about biased editing in political articles during elections. Perhaps I misunderstood though - did you just propose that only articles on Republicans should be protected? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones -- Yes, but only to the extent that "Trump cabinet members and nominees" [the pages I suggested protecting, a very small number overall, not all elected officials] would be, necessarily, or at least nominally, Republican. I oppose all forms of political vandalism on all articles, especially if designed to affect upcoming elections, which will likely intensify as we approach November. Quis separabit? 01:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

? None of them are in an election. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

? And how many current Trump cabinet members and nominees are expected to have the same job in October? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales on "stable" articles

I have previously addressed this matter as a factor in editorial dissatisfaction and sense of futility. Working on articles where our good faith efforts get trashed is very disheartening:

"Until we start adding some level of stability and protection to GA and FA, we can't make this claim. Editing to those articles should be under semi-protection control: only experienced editors making direct edits, and controversial edits by everyone must be discussed before installation. Unstable content can never be considered reliable." 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has also proposed a similar idea:

"Wales also plans to introduce a ‘stable’ version of each entry. Once an article reaches a specific quality threshold it will be tagged as stable. Further edits will be made to a separate ‘live’ version that would replace the stable version when deemed to be a significant improvement. One method for determining that threshold, where users rate article quality, will be trialled early next year." Source: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, Nature, by Jim Giles, 14 December 2005. "UPDATE 2 (28 March 2006)."

When can this be effectuated? Once an article has reached GA, and especially FA, status, increasingly stringent efforts should be made to limit amateurish and destructive edits. If there was ever a place where WP:PRESERVE should be strictly applied, it's on these articles. We need an increasingly growing number of "stable articles" which are truly reliable.

Wales's suggestion is excellent, and I'd sure like to know if anything ever happened to this idea. This would be a radical quantum spring in the right direction. We should be able to make the claim that certain content is truly reliable, and the world needs to know that. Press coverage of such a move would be welcome and notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. Step hen 23:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia mentioned something along thhese lines recently. From memory, she proposed a level of protection for FAs as well as a link at the top of the FA to a diff showing the reader how the article has evolved since it passed FA. Have I got that right, Sandy? We do have a problem when writers with an interest in a topic take an article through FA and then move on from Wikipedia, leaving the article to languish in the hands of uninterested, uninformed or agenda-driven editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, Anthonyhcole. I wanted an explicit medical disclaimer on medical articles because they are so often so dangerously bad.

Semi-protection of FAs would be a good thing. But I do not support stable versions of FAs, because most of our FAs ... are not-- what do we protect? And these days, with the decline in editing, I am not sure what being promoted FA (on three supports) means-- I've seen plenty that aren't, and would not suggest the promoted version should be considered stable. Featured article review has been moribund since Raul654 was run off; because FAs are being promoted on increasingly less support, but not subjected to regular review and demotion when they fall below standard, my guess is that at least one-third of our current FAs do not meet standard. And possibly even half. If the main authors of an FA move along or lose interest, they tend to fall out of date. Protecting a "stable" version of outdated info would not be a good thing, IMO, and we cannot necessarily consider the promoted version as being maintained to standard.

A worse problem is that we have some really poor medical FAs that are being maintained by good editors, and they are STILL outdated! It might be good to get some outside help

As to GAs, I don't think there is anything stable or worthy of protection, because GA has little meaning; they are one editor's review.

As to seeing a diff of changes since promotion, the promoted version is accessed by clicking on the date in the Article milestones template on the talk page.

In short, per BullRangifer's suggestion, I don't believe our content, even right out of FA, is "truly" anything that the world needs to know about. Most of our readers have no idea if they are reading an FA, GA or stub ... they don't know how to access that info. What we need is a prominent disclaimer about how dangerously bad our medical info is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand the intent, but this sounds uncomfortably similar to Citizendium's "approved articles" which turned out to be a colossal failure. User:HaeB pointed out that the approval process had the unintended effect of locking in errors and not just locking out vandalism and dodgy edits. We might be able to do better because we have so many more editors, and we have Citizendium's experience to learn from. But we'll need to be careful. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a clarification. Neither Jimbo's nor my suggestions involve locking an article or no more editing. Not at all. Real improvement, corrections, and updating can still happen. Currently articles just churn through constant changes and edit warring, with good content being deleted and constantly being replaced. Often no real progress happens for years. It's like watching the clothes churning in the washer; no real and lasting progress.

PRESERVE is generally ignored. If it were respected, we'd be building content, rather than trashing and replacing in an endless cycle toward a different, but not necessarily better, version. When one sees that happening year after year, one begins to realize that much of one's efforts are just wasted time. Editors leave for that reason. The fringe editors are winning this. They wear us down. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should focus on articles such as Scarf or Farm, which don't have that problem. Perennial battleground articles are perennial battlegrounds for a reason, bureaucracy is not going to solve that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For once in my life I agree with power~enwiki! Wikipedia is full of articles on smaller "basic" topics with highish views that have barely changed their text in years, despite ranging in quality from downright terrible to merely mediocre. The edit histories tend to be very misleading; when you look in detail the many edits are all messing with formatting, links and so on, with few or none actually altering the text in a significant way. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Very true. Some things are just facts. Once they are defined and described, the article is pretty much finished, unless some event or change in knowledge impacts it, and then we need to update it. That can always happen, even if it's a semi-protected "stable" article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that at all. We have tons of articles on classic encyclopaedic subjects that are very poor and have been completely neglected for years, and are not in the least bit "finished". But very few WP editors look to improve that sort of article. Even at better quality levels few GAs should really be "preserved" in their current state. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My current thinking is that such a scheme would be a very bad idea indeed. I am a supporter of some form of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions but for slightly different reasons. The idea that most new edits to article that have achieved GA or FA status are, on average, destructive, is not backed up by any actual evidence, and in my view is probably false. Thoughtful openness to further improvements is essential, even if it is sometimes unsettling to those who have a stake in the status quo.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. FYI, "most" new edits is not a concern, at least not mine. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, can we safely assume you have abandoned, or radically simplified, your original proposal? It sounds that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. The interview with Jim Giles was in 2005 - 12 years ago. I have read how he reports on the idea back then, but I don't recall at this time precisely what I was thinking nor precisely what I said. I think that my general outlook has not changed, certainly not regarding the goal of Wikipedia, but it's important to remember that back then there was still a common idea that we would be working towards a "Wikipedia 1.0" which might be printed or similar. That never really happened, and unless you're going to print, the need for "stability" is a bit lower.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The WP1.0 and similar curated collections were used for offline media and several generations of stand-alone hardware readers. 174.16.98.178 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Think there is some sense of having historical time versions of WP. For instance. In engineering, the practice goes back many decades. When the first Spitfire fighter aircraft was ready to go into production the engineering drawrings stamped as 'frozen'. Meaning that no alteration could be added. That was for the Spitfire Mark (designation) One. Subsuquent improvments created Mark 2. Then those drawings were 'frozen' and so on. Every Mark/version being better than the last. We/and the World now have a downloadable WP. If the software geeks can find a way to enable us to 'freeze' good articles for download, yet at the same time alow the 'live' versions to get further improved (or trashed). We are more than halfway there already– many talk pages have templates indicating the importance and quality etc of the article on that date. Think this debate should go on further to gain the wisdom of the crowds rather than resting on our laurels. For we don't want to go down in history, in a hundred years time, to be viewed as a quick flash in the pan. Organisations that blossom quickly, often die quickly. Something I think JW appreciates, as he is adding 'fat' to the WMF for any lean times ahead. Although we are not a print encyclopedia it may be worth concidering if we could benifit from clearly declaring 'editions'. Aspro (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget about Template:Stable_version everyone. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou Emir of Wikipedia for making us aware of this template. This maybe the way to go. However, as I have not been aware of this template before I guess that many others are not either. Can this be married up with Wikipedia:Good articles ? Many 'good articles' listed there have been subsaquently delisted ( maby becuse of trashing). Yet, their is no suggestion nor guidance on Wikipedia:Good articles that these can be noted as Stable Versions. Can anybody think of a way to build upon what we have already and inform all editors that Template:Stable version exists. I spend more of my time now wading through a mulitued of policy to help out new editors, than doing any editing myself and yet I didn't know of Template:Stable version. There has to be a simple way of informing all editors that grade the quality of articles on thier specialst subjects, that they also have the option of declaring a Stable Version. Aspro (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say the easiest way be to mention it a GA and FA probably. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

Discussion report: The future of portals

Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Monkie Selfie Redux

(This refers to Monkey selfie copyright dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC))

Given the Appeals court shellacking of PETA and the awarding of attorney's fees to David Slater, are you, Jimmy, prepared to apologize to the photographer of the Monkie Selfie for the copyright violations and the tactless gloating at Wikimania? 65.113.30.141 (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see the case doesn't actually change the copyright status of the image. An opposite ruling would've meant violation of the copyright rights of the monkey. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That would likely be no for the time being. The court dimssed PETAS’ claim that the monkey held the copyright to the image and Wikipedia has always held the view that the circumstances regarding the picture meant no one held copyright and therefore the image was free use. This particular case had nothing to do with wether or not the photographer held a copyright. Ironically, PETA winning would have established a copyright For the image and therefore would have been more damaging to Wikipedia.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PETA's action against David Slater has nothing to do with Wikipedia's use of the image. It was always unlikely that a court would decide that a monkey could hold a copyright, and it was pretty much frivolous for PETA to spend money trying to establish this when the money could have been spent in ways that actually did benefit Celebes crested macaques.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting side issue: PETA asked for two things in the lawsuit. [A] They asked that the court recognize the monkey as the legal owner of the copyright and [B] they asked that PETA be declared the sole legal representative of the monkey. The court could conceivably have said yes to [A] and no to [B]. Having said no to [A], there was no need to rule on [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Set limits for autofixing templates

Just FYI. As we discussed years ago, it is easy for templates to autofix some misspelled parameter names, such as auto-correct "titel=" to be treated as "title=" but a template's logic could get complicated when handling hundreds of misspellings. A very simple control would be to limit the auto-fixes to a few dozen misspellings and list those in related documentation where both users and template editors could see the alternate spellings.

For example, the Template:Cite_web (majority of cites) has been known to have over 200 common misspellings of about 70 parameter names. However, per the 80/20 Rule, about 20% of misspellings actually do account for 80% of cite errors. As a control tactic, perhaps limit auto-fixes to a list of 30 common alternate spellings (such as treat "ulr=" as "url=") and list those in documentation to inform users what auto-fixes could allow. By that compromise tactic, the complexity of checking 200 misspellings could be reduced to just 30 common forms which other users could expect to find or Bots could expect to handle as the alternate spellings. Also, with warning messages, the template could display the actual spelling as used, as with:
Invalid month 23 in date "datr=2018-23-04",
where the warning message could show the actual alternate date spelling "datr=" as used inside the wikitext. Finally, Wikipedia would be more flexible about auto-fixed templates, correcting 80% of typical errors, without having to handle hundreds of alternate spellings in Bots or the wp:VE Visual Editor. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals

Hey Jimbo, would you like to weigh in on this matter in any way? I am not asking you to vote in said discussion but it would be nice to hear if you have any ideas on the matter or a response to some of the proposed ideas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary: As of 26 April 2018, for that Portals RfC (permalink), begun on 8 April, the central issue was if portals are worth the maintenance effort, especially with new fringe portals, and the RfC had over 930 comments then, with 27 separate discussion topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm well positioned to offer any opinion, other than this very mild one. My belief is that Portals are popular and sophisticated and useful in German Wikipedia, and so before deletion, it might be wise for someone to do a bit of a research project examining how Portals work there, versus how they work here, to determine if rather than abandoning the idea entirely, there might instead be things to be learned from the Germans. Going one step further, I have exactly zero idea if there are portals and how they are used and how popular they are in other languages beyond German, but that might be interesting to look at as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you for your input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Joint project with cryptocurrency "Request Network" and WMF?!

Lots of news about this but it doesn't quite ring true. See Wikipedia Announces Partnership With Request Network which says

"A trend to donate in cryptocurrency is becoming increasingly common as news comes in today of a partnership between the Request Network (REQ) and Wikimedia, the non-profit foundation behind the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia."

Wiki tatoos?

Jimbo, do you have any wiki-oriented tattoos? 184.96.253.8 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any tattoos actually.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What would it take to make you get one? Inquiring minds want to know! :) --Xover (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

TIL that the WMF has a YouTube channel.[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Tiny autofix for cite language keyword

Tangent: "/Archive_228#Set limits for autofixing templates"

Just FYI. Yes, there is a small autofix being implemented for the wp:CS1 cite parameter "language=" to allow "lang=" as a short-form alias sometimes coded in less than one-third of 1% of cite errors. In the next release of {cite_web} or {cite_book} (etc.), the spelling "lang=" will be a valid option.

The most-frequent misspelling for "language=" is "langauge=" (reverses 'ua' as 'au'), but the reduction of errors could be improved by telling editors to use short form "lang=" and thereby avoid the reversed letters as in "lagnuage=". During the prior year, the longer parameter, "language=" also had various punctuation errors (with '+' or '-' or '=='), and I suspect such an error (as "language-") would be avoided because "lang=" is mentally much shorter to type without g/u/a/g/e letter confusions.

As a rule of human nature, longer parameter names are more often misspelled than short keywords, and hence "accessdate=" is often tried as erroneous "accesdate=" (with one "s" or "c") or similar variants to cause 10% of all cite errors during the prior year. Similarly, the keyword "publisher=" is often misspelled as "pubisher" or "publihser=" (reversed 'sh' as 'hs'), which numerous people seem to overlook. Among other very common errors are invalid capital "Publisher=" plus capital "Date=" or "Website=" or "Title=" or "Author=" or "Last=" (now demands lowercase "last="), etc. Soon the errors add up to over 50% of typical cite errors.

However, the other major cite errors occur when users omit keyword "url=" or "title=" altogether, as putting just plain text URL "|http://mysource/xx.html" or "|Heading of Page Alone" and a cite would need to autofix a bare url as the missing "url=" or extra text assumed as the missing "title=" to allow a cite to keep functioning with typoes. Anyway, for now, the new cite shortform "lang=" hits a major concern about long, mistyped keywords and can provide valuable case studies of reducing future errors about cite "language=" data, currently causing ~1% of cite errors. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Alias parameters are a limited autofix: Just to clarify, an effective autofix of cite parameters needs more than alias spellings (such as "lang=") and would need to correct for typical missing keywords, such as "url=" omitted. For example, allowing alias capital "Publisher=" for "publisher=" would reduce some errors, but far more errors omit "=" where "publisher" spaced would need to be handled as if being "publisher=" when equals sign "=" was omitted. I think a long-term solution would separate "autofixing to format a page" versus "autofixing for bots to spot invalid parameters". If a user misspelled "author=John Doe" as "auhtor=" then the autofixed page could show the extra parameter with colon as "auhtor: John Doe" to allow readers to consider what that data means, even if the internal cite author-data parameter was not set by using spelling as "auhtor=". The underlying problem is the cite templates have insisted that most internal validated data and displayed data be the same, and would not show the contents of an unknown parameter "auhtor=" as if in the mode of 1950's software saying, "DATA 'auhtor' DOES NOT COMPUTE" rather than show a cite with added text, "auhtor: John Doe" and let the user decide what that means to them. In the 1960s, some software began autofixing typo input, in the manner of "publisher Acme Printing ('=' inserted)" to indicate the computer assumed the form "publisher=" and then continued processing. The goal was to avoid "fatal errors" (would halt processing). By the early 1970s, computer time (crucial term) was very expensive (backlogged), and it saved $$ money to assume a missing "=" (or comma) for input parameters. In recent times, the issue has become "dynamic publishing" where people can't afford the time to "re-publish" a live view, where the user might never see that page again, so autofix the obvious for the user's first view (or only view). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer on Wikipedia

https://www.csicop.org/SI/show/is_wikipedia_a_conspiracy_common_myths_explained

Nice article. Key quote:

"So allow me to set the record straight. First off, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is trying to be the repository of all knowledge; it is not Tumbler or Reddit or some other social network. Wikipedia has rules. Some of them are open to interpretation a bit, but for the most part the rules are discussed within the community of editors and usually enforced evenly."

"There is no 'they' on Wikipedia, only a 'we.' There are a few admins and senior editors who usually have the last word on an issue, but more often rules are enforced by consensus. The idea of a conspiracy of people who edit with an agenda (pro-skeptic or otherwise) is just unwarranted."

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Fool some of the people all the time: If that author really believes there's no "they" deleting pages on Wikipedia, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell her, on layaway at US$1,000 per week; I'll even spell it with wiki-dashes as "Bridge–I–own–in–Brooklyn" so she knows it's official consensus. Too funny.-Wikid77 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We even have an article explaining why the above argument is a fallacy: Appeal to ridicule. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, I thought the key quote (above) was a joke. I thought you already knew wp:DASH was forced by false consensus, like 8-7 !votes, and then "they" wp:Topicbanned the grammar expert whose vague !vote had been corrupted to support marginal majority. There's no way a large group of Wikipedians were so stupid as a real consensus to force dashes into hundred-year-old hyphenated terms. When seeing a bizarre policy, that is proof how a limited "they" group forced a false consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't believe the CIA, Mossad or KGB has infiltrated Wikipedia then you're naive! Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt the KGB has infiltrated Wikipedia, given that they ceased to exist in 1991. As for the others (and the KGB's successor agencies), I assume they are basically competent. Thus while there is no direct evidence it would be more of a surprise to find they did not take a role in shaping the content of a highly influential and openly editable source of information than to find that they did. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I always wondered who was that user who removed the word "Jew" from hundreds of pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. There is no cabal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of a cabal manipulating an article to make people who deny the Jewish Temple was not on the Temple Mount look stoopid. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty standard discussion among a group of editors about sourcing, weight, and relevance. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For superstitious reasons that part of the world has always been the cause of (edit) wars. Maybe we could nominate the best arbitrators for ambassadorships to war zones. 75.166.121.67 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The editors deleted a paragraph I wrote citing reliable sources that don't believe the Jewish Temple was on the Temple Mount. It's like saying Holocaust deniers believe the concentration camps didn't exist. (They don't deny the existence of the Camps, they deny that anyone was gassed and that 6-million Jews died.) It's absurd to think the Roman's Antonia Fortress was attached to the Temple rather than it "dominating the Temple" as Josephus said, i.e. took up the entire Temple Mount. The article as it exista makes Temple deniers look stupid. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ask other users who created many pages: I've only had a few thousand pages deleted which I created, but ask other users re deletions (check their "contributions" and then click at bottom "articles created"). After deletion of a page, it is difficult to show the page had been acceptable for a notable topic. For example, WP notes that I created a page, later deleted and re-created, as "Occipital condyles" (crucial in physical anthropology, plus fovea, to distinguish human fossil skulls from fossil chimps), but I do not remember what the original page said, nor why deleted as a crucial topic in phys. anthrop. (versus cultural anthropology). Among 555 pages which I created, I typically create pages for major topics (not garage-band songs), so the deletions are a warning for other users to beware false consensus to delete pages. Ask other users about deletion problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Whether you think there is a "conspiracy" depends on whether you think collaborative efforts by skeptical editors who happen to believe (correctly) that evolution and global warming are real, vaccines don't cause autism, etc. (I'm talking about WikiProject Skepticism and Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) qualify as "conspiracies". They're certainly pretty out in the open by conspiracy standards, but they do have a clear goal--to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and make sure they don't pretend both sides must always be equally valid. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Need policy wp:DUMBNOTCONSENSUS

Over the years, we've seen several people who are fooled into thinking some bizarre wp:guideline or even a peculiar wp:Policy is the result of large-scale community consensus. It is not; instead a head-strong group of people has manipulated the system (wp:GAME), canvassed support off-wiki or such, to claim a false consensus often less than 20 people to force a peculiar rule. If a rule seems really dumb (or "stoopid with 2 o's"), then it is almost certainly some type of forced, false consensus. The community at large is not that stupid; that is why assume-good-faith wp:AGF works so well for a large group responding in an wp:RfC proposal. There is, indeed, "safety in numbers" or when the community decides not to favor a better idea, then it is often a case of confusion over too many choices, as in a survey of suggested improvements with a hundred choices to prioritize. Otherwise, a dumb idea is not consensus, but rather proof of a forced false consensus somewhere. If unsure over a complex issue, then ask some subject-matter experts for their expert opinions on whether the ideas would be foolish. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Is anything you've written in this thread intended to be comprehensible by other people? If not, then carry on, I guess. --JBL (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so there are other reasons why some people have trouble deciding consensus discussions. For that reason, I think some wp:RfC discussions should run 90 days, rather than 30 days, and an admin candidate's wp:RfA should run 3 weeks in a low-key manner, where the first week would discuss issues, rather than dogpile !votes, and allow some "vacation" days where the candidate is not pressured to reply 14-nonstop-days, but skip weekends or other normal day-off time. The current bizarre 24/7 (24/14) discussion schedules are freakish, and a wp:SNOW close is often considered a liberation for users caught in the current 24/7 decision discussions. WP is really sending a message of freakish obsession to imply such discussions are expected to run 24/7, and a decision which ends on Sunday would somehow indicate the OP doesn't care "enough" when not online all-night Sunday. Perhaps the prior 24/7 discussion mode should be the subject of an wp:RfC to allow XfD discussions to run 11-day spans across weekends, or hold an RfC to extend RFA as 22-day, low-key discussion with delayed !votes after several days of think-first time. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:43/12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Except on Tuesdays. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess RfA could be compared to the Star Trek fictional "Fizzbin" game, with so many other complex issues, so I warn candidates to expect to be rejected on 1st RfA and then plan extra months to try a 2nd RfA. Perhaps a better guideline would be wp:EXPECTSCIFI, where users would expect WP editing to seem like a Sci-Fi universe with many alien rules! Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Anon the movie

Its already out on netflix which says something about its commercial appeal and I can see why after watching it, however, there are a few thought provoking aspects to it like;

1: Editors are the most important people in this future world as they edit physical events 2: Nobody is legally anonymous in this future world 3: The few who become anonymous are feared and hunted 4: Transparency is a beloved by all tool used to justify completely eliminating every single remnant of privacy.

The transparency vs. privacy framing as being, in essence, mutually exclusive aspects of human life, is the concept that has a ring of truth to it which I find unsettling. Hopefully its just an "everything in moderation" solution to this discomfort I'm feeling when thinking about our current rush towards evermore transparency.

lynch mob mentality/ metoo nexus

There is, imo, a lynch mob mentality, feeding off the otherwise valid #metoo movement, appearing and overtaking American society (thus spreading to some others) overnight...guilty and punished upon accusation, assumed innocence or trials be damned.

Jimbo, how do you see these 2 things in western society, including Wikipedia, unfolding? Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

lol, I read 1 chapter, in order, per week in the gospels, then I go back to Matthew 1 and do it again. This AM it was John 7, wherein there is this, ironically or timely or divinely intervening or coincidence (not my choice), written one hellova long time ago:

"50: Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)51: Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?. as I say, lol. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Some weeks ago I warned Jimbo how U.S. culture had become even more judgmental, lately, as perhaps fake news re "inappropriate" behavior, where flirting by playboys had become "abuse" to many people being judgey; in prior years, if a man tickled a woman (or another man or boy), then that wasn't groping but rather the playful nature of outgoing people (extroverts) who enjoy horseplay without intending sexual hookups. A risky line is crossed when workers are directed to meet in a private apartment or motel room, versus public meetings in the workplace or a hospitality suite in a hotel. In the U S., when a person directly touches your leg, then you either excuse yourself to call your spouse or make the decision otherwise. Anyone who simply asks for another beverage shouldn't complain what happens next; it's called "flirting" and not "inappropriate behavior" even if repeated with 30 people. We need WP pages to explain these issues (in "Flirting"). The discussion now separates touching versus giving drugs.

Re: Bible verses, it does seem the Bible gives some advice when wanted. In fact a person might receive guidance from reading advice in the Bible that isn't really written there, if they expect a written "sign" sent from above, but I'm not sure if WP has any articles about that type of premonition. One guy told me a hospital incident where he was still bleeding, internally, requiring a 2nd surgery, when an intense warm light came to his side, so he told his doctors not to operate, and the severe bleeding had stopped by coincidence; I think that is called "witnessing for the Lord" in Christianity. -Wikid77 (talk)`

Youtube links

On a BBC comedy video [10], I noticed a new section below the video that says "BBC is a publicly funded British broadcaster" with a Wikipedia link. Perhaps this is a test for the "conspiracy theory" links that were discussed at SXSW [11]? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally didn't see that when I clicked the video, but that is probably what it is power~enwiki --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC); edited at 16:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC) for grammar

I did see the link to WP. I does seem incongruous. What's next? Maybe a link on a video from Whitehouse.gov: "The White House is the residence of the U.S. President." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I see it, and it's definitely bringing in a lot more views to Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For those interested, pageviews analysis for the BBC article. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked out a bit farther. Any idea what happened about Feb. 1, 2018? Before that, for a full year at least, the page views seemed pretty steady at about 3,500 per day. After that they became much more variable and trending up, averaging about 7,400 per day. I'll give 3 pure guesses: 1) something special is happening in the UK (maybe in politics or the broadcasting world); 2) the BBC has started some marketing program, or 3) the video links to WP started about then and pageviews are dependent on the popularity of the programs linked to. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Links likely to have been placed there by YouTube, to help people assess the cultural standpoints of different news video providers. Jheald (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality closed with no consensus. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am supportive of this effort. I have been in contact with Senator Wyden, and he believes that our action could be decisive here. I won't directly !vote because I think my role here precludes that, but I am happy to see this discussion take place seriously in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Jimbo!

Jimmy,

You seem to be the headliner at a blockchain convention convention in Berlin at the end of this month. See BLOCKSHOW EUROPE 2018 WELCOMES WIKIPEDIA FOUNDER JIMMY WALES TO THEIR MAJOR BLOCKCHAIN CONFERENCE, Irish Tech News; and [ Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia, Will Speak at Major Blockchain Conference BlockShow Europe In Berlin], the Merkle. (blocked link)

"BlockShow is delighted to welcome Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and one of Time’s “100 Most Influential People,” to the conference. Jimmy is a huge influence and proponent in the crypto sphere. Jimmy first started toying with the digital currency back in 2014, when in March of that year he tweeted that he was “playing with BTC.” He also attached his wallet address to a following tweet, where he received 5 BTC worth of unsolicited donations. The rest, as they say, is history.

"Since 2014, Wikipedia and the rest of The Wikimedia Foundation have accepted Bitcoin as a method of donation, helping drive usage of the digital currency." (Irish Tech News)

Of course you can have your own opinions and speak where ever you want, but these blockchain folks end usually end up pushing bad or illegal "investments" like cryptocurrencies, and initial coin offerings. They waste huge amounts of energy in "mining". They sometimes seem like religious cult followers, speaking in "bafflegab" and putting misleading interpretations on what might seem to be simple facts. Just for example, are you a "proponent in the crypto sphere?" Is Wikipedia and the WMF "helping drive usage of the digital currency?" If so, we may have a lot to answer for.

Respectfully,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

PS - one of the links is blacklisted and I can't save the page with it included.

Should we expect the launch of JimboCoin sometime soon? Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Um ... this should not be confused with the Wiki Token (WIKI) Now Listed On HitBTC.com. I understand that the WMF doesn't have a copyright on the name "wiki", but JW might want to consider copyrighting "Jimbo" if it's possible.

BTW, bitcoinwiki.org are going to use the WIKI as part of "Crypto University: an educational space completely free of propaganda, censorship and political bias, and up to speed with rapidly evolving technologies such as blockchain." In other Wiki-blockchain news Edit wars prompt Bitcoin Cash Wiki page lockdown. The edit war doesn't seem to be between experienced Wikipedia editors, but rather between adherents of 2 "coins", BTC and BCH, that both call themselves "bitcoin".

Related story - Unicef calls on consumers to donate compute power for cryptocurrency (take it will a grain of salt). How is this related? Cryptocreeps latch onto a non-profit to promote their own for-profit enterprises. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Trademark. The proper way to protect something like "Jimbo" or "Wikipedia" is through trademark, not copyright. You might find these two videos to be of interest: Copying Is Not Theft Credit Is Due (The Attribution Song). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

When money was invented 7000 years ago there would likely have been critics of that as well, and I'm sure they would have pointed to the bad things that happened thanks to money and argued on a "I told you so" basis. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So are you saying that I should not complain that cryptocreeps are saying that Jimbo and the WMF are somehow endorsing bitcoins, when I don't believe that they are? Most of the clearing up of this matter should be done, if needed, by Jimmy and the WMF, but I do want to be sure that they are aware of the situation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For creation of the Platform, I am awarding this user the Special BarnStar. JuniorRocketScientist (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikitribune

I just read this review of drones. It is beautifully written and informative. It's the first Wikitribune article I've read and it won't be the last. There are several enticing headlines on your home page at the moment. Thank you.

And I love the plain, elegant presentation. It is so much more readable than any other knowledge source I use. It reminds me of when Google arrived, so plain and simple beside AltaVista and the rest, with all their flashing ads and links. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is beautiful - but it will be (at least temporarily) dramatically changing, although the sort of things that you like, plain and simple and without ads, won't change. The biggest change is really to become dramatically more "community forward" - right now I feel that participation is lower than it should be because we have not been, to date, "wiki enough".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity. Otoh, its super cool what you are producing conceptually and physically. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom in the news

See this recent Wall Street Journal article: [12] (paywalled unless you have a WSJ subscription) Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other"^{[citation needed]}. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised its about infoboxes; also Newyorkbrad, what are the perks of being "chief-justice" :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, if use your link it's paywalled. If I google "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other" and click it there, it's readable. Google-membership discount? Also, I think both comments they quote were from the same editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what's up with the paywall. I could actually read the whole thing on my iPhone yesterday but I can't read more than the first few sentences on my laptop, even though I don't have a WSJ subscription... Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Non-subscribers visiting WSJ.com now get a score, based on dozens of signals, that indicates how likely they’ll be to subscribe. The paywall tightens or loosens accordingly." [13]. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to find this published somewhere without a paywall, no luck. Otherwise the moths would have to be blown off the wallet to pay to read it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd never get paying moths to read it, blown off or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can read it on my phone without a subscription. Infobox wars on WP get a long article in the WSJ! Hilarious!Smeat75 (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just when you thought the infobox wars couldn't get any more absurd, I guess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness The Wall Street Journal has an infobox (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC) I've waited 11 years to talk to Bizarro24 or Swampboy, but they're never around!

Trying to read it with my computer causes the browser to crash. However, I found a link on reddit that strips off all of the jscript poison & allows one to read the entire article. (That ought to be enough hints.) If anyone is still interested in reading it. (Basic points are: average article about a Wikipedia institution, mentions a certain long-time ArbCom board member by his real name, notes number of cases submitted to the ArbCom are way down from its first years.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can see the article without any trouble and good to see they don't name anybody. it's too bad this high-profile article is affected by the isolated group. That said they do great work and should not have to endure the harassment they receive by sockpuppets and new editors. Luckily very few editors and articles are affected by the debate. --Moxy (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Heck, I ain't subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, to read that. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say that a Google search for [ rodexo "Let’s call it the Wikipedia Supreme Court" ] is rather interesting, Know what I mean? Wink Wink, nudge nudge. Know what I mean? Say no more. Know what I mean? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry Guy, I won't tell "Scott-of-the-Sahara" Fram, you've posted an obvious copyvio by YouTube user "Chadner". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

[14] allows one to read the article regardless of the paywall on the original site — F R ⁺ 10:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here in UK I could read the whole article with no restriction. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a propoganda fluff piece to help the WMF raise more donation dollars. These reporters at the WSJ are just taking people’s word and not doing good journalism and checking their facts. The Arbcom is a joke run by mostly unqualified children with no experience in law, arbitration or mediation. #fakenews2600:1003:B125:F0EA:90:9E05:A268:B23D (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time a piece of good journalism came out of the USA....oh yeah...the Pentagon Papers....but even that was just a Wikileaks type event. USA mainstream media is worse than useless....total bullshit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Compared to..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

CBC, BBC, Guardian, Reuters...interesting you ask that question, I would've thought by now that all the subscribers, even Americans, to the global propaganda/branding that American stuff, including media, and especially American democracy, is somehow "may not be perfect, but better than any other", would have been gone the way of the flat earth thinkers...obviously, with respect, I was wrong. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So you're comparing "USA mainstream media" to specific Brittish and Canadian media companies. That about as valid as comparing WaPo to The Daily Mail. How does one compare "USA mainstream media", "British mainstream media", "Italian mainstream media", "Russian mainstream media" etc? It can be done, sure, but "USA mainstream media is worse than useless....total bullshit." is making it too easy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Or, maybe it is too easy because its too obvious, obvious to the point of insult; at least I feel insulted whenever I watch CNN or Fox News or read the NYT or WAPO...especially WAPO etc. I mean, seriously, the bias and incompetence, not to mention self contradictory sentences and basic grammatical errors and brainwashing fillers like "of course" and more ass-covering "apparently"s than anyone can swallow, not to mention the dead-wrong assertions like "Iraq has WMDs". I actually think we'd be better off starting at zero with RSs and have a RFC on them 1 at a time for any of them to be accepted as a RS. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IntelligenceSquared Debate on Net Neutrality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAJabAjoK08

The Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision to end Obama-era net neutrality regulations has sparked contentious national debate about the future of the web. Is net neutrality necessary to preserve a free, open internet for all?

For the Motion:

Mitchell Baker, Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation & Mozilla Corporation
Tom Wheeler, Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School and Former Chairman, FCC

Against the Motion:

Nick Gillespie, Editor at Large, Reason
Michael Katz, Professor, Berkeley & Former Chief Economist, FCC

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn it Guy, you just don't know when to quit....must be some Winston Churchill in you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You're hurting yourself, Nct, please Stop it. I, for one like good sociology. Thanks to you, I found a reason to look at the FCC decision at least. Your haunted mind is over now. If I remember well this is really about money --Askedonty (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing someone to Churchill in terms of "never quit" is a compliment. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

While I do not agree with any criticism of Nocturnalnow (I think I know good-humored kidding/praise among friends when I see it), I do find it to be really strange that so many net neutrality proponents refuse to even look at the arguments from the other side.

Opponents to net neutrality include FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai,^[1]^[2] the FreedomWorks Foundation, ^[3] the Reason Foundation,^[4] Intel, IBM and Cisco,^[5] and by ActiveVideo Networks, ADTRAN, Alcatel-Lucent, Arris International, Asurion, Broadcom, Ciena, dLink, Ericsson, Harmonic Inc., Humax, Juniper Networks, Netcracker Technology, Nokia Networks, Panasonic, Prysmian, Qualcomm, R. L. Drake Company, Sandvine, Sumitomo, Synacor, NS TiVo^[6] (none of which are ISPS). Net neutrality is also opposed by VOIP pioneers Daniel Berninger and Jeff Pulver, Electronic Frontier Foundation founder John Perry Barlow.^[7]^[8] and Citizens Against Government Waste.^[9] Prominent opponents also include Netscape founder and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen^[10], co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Bob Kahn^[11] , PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter Thiel,^[12] MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte^[13], Internet engineer and former Chief Technologist for the FCC David Farber, and Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker.^[14] And yet to hear some people talk, the only opposition comes from a few money grubbing ISPs.

Extended content

References

^ "Oral Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai". Federal Communication Commission. February 26, 2015.
^ Tribune, Chicago. "The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it".
^ "Net neutrality is bad policy for the U.S. and bad policy for the world". Freedom Works Post. July 16, 2012.
^ "The Fear-Based Campaign to Control the Net". Reason Foundation. May 4, 2017.
^ "Intel, IBM and Cisco team up to fight net neutrality by reclassifying the internet". The Inquirer.
^ http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf
^ "Internet Pioneers Decry Title II Rules – Light Reading".
^ Jenkins, Holman W.; Jr (February 27, 2015). "The Net Neutrality Crack-Up". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "The Sky is Not Falling, and the World isn't Going to End". Citizens Against Government Wast. December 14, 2017.
^ "Marc Andreessen on net neutrality – Marginal REVOLUTION". May 23, 2014.
^ Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (January 9, 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn. Computer History Museum. Archived from the original (WMV) on September 28, 2012. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Partial transcript: Hu-Berlin.de Archived September 28, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
^ "Back to the Future with Peter Thiel".
^ Negroponte, Nicholas (August 13, 2014). "Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense".
^ Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare faculty.chicagobooth.edu

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You convinced me Guy to watch the debate tonight...I saw a bit of the intro and it does look as interesting as all hell. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: Anyone who plans to watch the debate may not want to read my opinion, below, of the debate before watching it yourself, as I would urge.

Thanks Guy, it was very interesting and surprisingly completely understandable of the arguments both for and against net neutrality, although, imo, Mitchell Baker is far more knowledgeable about the issue than any of the other 3. The bottom line for me was the point made by her partner that when he was head of the FCC so many individuals who were just starting up a business urged him to keep net neutrality so they would not have to worry about getting an ISP approval and/or paying an ISP to get their new project/company online. This point outweighed all the "against" points, imo. Thanks again Guy, very cool debate. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The obvious counterargument is the complete lack of any evidence that anyone had that problem prior to April 13, 2015 or has had that problem since May 18, 2017.

Although I am firmly in the against camp (mainly because of the "general-conduct" provision which makes it illegal for anyone who runs an ISP or even a web page to do anything that the FCC believes will "unreasonably disadvantage" any Internet user, application, or content provider and because I have a basic problem with the US government controlling what someone in Australia is allowed to access) I am not one of those idiots (they exist on both sides) who pretend that the other side doesn't have any good arguments -- or even worse who refuse to even find out what the other side's arguments are. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes to the moon in 2020

No, it's not a Wikimania announcement.

Verge - "This nonprofit plans to send millions of Wikipedia pages to the Moon — printed on tiny metal sheets" reports that the Arch Mission Foundation plans to send 50 million pages or so to the moon, much of which will be the English-language Wikipedia. Apparently it's fairly easy to print all these pages on tiny nickel sheets - the sum of all knowledge will fit in a package the size of a CD (and worth every cubic centimeter). It will only take a week to print.

Since most of the cost is likely to be in the trip to the moon rather than the printing, I'd like to ask the Arch Mission Foundation to send a copy to the WMF. It's more likely to be read there than on the moon and would make a very interesting piece of art for the waiting room. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that would be something that would be cool for the office. Hopefully they are able to do that. I agree that the cost would most likely be in the transport. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We should also consider sending Wikipedia to ET. This is best done using a transmitter that repeats the same transmission over and over again. Count Iblis (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC

A citogenesis variant

For your consideration: the article Shaggy defense (which was created as a redirect in 2009 but has had content since January 2017) has on-and-off been used to host negative information about James R. Fouts; Reattacollector in particular is the key editor responsible for both writing the content of the article and including Fouts. Mentions of Fouts have been removed at various times for two reasons: some removals have been due to the negative nature of the content, while I've removed it at least a couple of times because the sourcing did not connect the Fouts story to the term "Shaggy defense" nor to the general concept this term represents. The most recent addition cites a local TV news station linking the Fouts story and the phrase "Shaggy defense" via ... the fact that Wikipedia's article Shaggy defense had been edited to include the Fouts story. What do we think about this? --JBL (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the first editors to remove the Fouts content back in Feb 2017 was either Fouts himself or someone connected to him, given the way Fouts responded to the the scandal and how ip that removed the content said they were removing "lies and slander" from the article. Reattacollector (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is probably true, but it hardly seems relevant. --JBL (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are certainly some problems here. The use of the term (in quotes) of "Wikipedia official" as an adjective rather than as a noun, particularly caught my eye. The other side is that some legal (or other) techniques are derided with a funny name, and that name becomes widely used. We can have articles with names like these, but we should be careful. A couple of finance articles I've edited Jawboning and the Nancy Reagan defense might illustrate when articles with funny names might be used, but we shouldn't be putting in real people's names (especially when they haven't been convicted) in the legal cases. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Let us not forget Chewbacca defense, Twinkie defense, and Dead cat strategy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused with a Dead cat bounce. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that we don't have an article on these are not my pants and that isn't my purse.[15][16] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The section about Fouts is definitely a problem. Wikipedia makes an unfounded claim, a newspaper repeats the claim literally saying "it's Wikipedia official", then Wikipedia references the newspaper to support the claim. Crappy Wikipedia editing used for really crappy journalism used for more crappy Wikipedia editing. I have removed it. Deli nk (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good call. [17] removed a clear violation of WP:CIRCULAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I disavow the inclusion of Jim Fouts in the Shaggy defense article. It was very bad judgement on my part and I know better that content like that is not appropriate in this encyclopedia. Reattacollector (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The disavowal would be more impressive if it hadn't been immediately preceded by your attempt to ensure that Fouts is still linked to the article. --JBL (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page, 24 archive pages and related links

Jimmy Wales, please read this. The normal policy is fine, but very unusual activity requires special measures. I want to reduce the targeting of the trolls both to myself and the project and hope I can return to the site soon. I also want to quash the potential for them pressuring me to respond. Putting it another way, I don't want to see any "diffs" for a while. Thank you for your time and involvement in Wikipedia. Andrew Philip Cross signed in Philip Cross (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Twitter comment by Jimbo: [18]

Twitter comment by George Galloway offering a reward for outing the Wikipedia user using the username Philip Cross: [19]

Blog post by Craig Murray: [20]

Article in Russia Insider: [21]

Note: The above links are to give a quick overview of what this is about. I am not implying that anything in the links above is or is not true. I think that the best way to get to the truth is with a careful examination of the edit histories of those involved. Those are facts that trump opinion and surmise. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, on 12 May 2018, Philip Cross removed his longstanding claim to have made "over 130,000 edits to more than 30,000 pages on the website since October 2004." Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia could somehow conduct "a careful examination of the edit histories" of Philip Cross? I'd volunteer to help, but that scope is daunting. KalHolmann (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall crossing paths with Philip Cross, but if RT and Russia Today have it in for him then I'll assume he's a solid editor until proven otherwise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I always assume that everyone is a good editor until proven otherwise.

He started editing in 2004, has made 133,612 edits on 30,874 pages. During this time he has been blocked ZERO times.

Of course if he has enemies -- and if there is anything to find -- they could find the bad edits and post diffs to them. Yeah. Like that is going to happen. I figure that if they had any real dirt they would have posted it already instead of calling out the RT attack dogs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I suspect from Twitter discourse that most of Cross's critics have no clue what a diff is. They are not Wikipedians. However, lately one particular diff has been tweeted several times, and it is troubling. Notwithstanding its ensuing Talk page discussion, the "perverse narcissism" quotation remains in full at Piers Robinson. It may not violate our rules, but inserting arguments by proxy—however well sourced—expressly to discredit the BLP subject does seem to be a type of advocacy. KalHolmann (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I found it interesting to read the above right after I decided to unwatch a page because the editors working on the page keep inserting arguments by proxy to discredit the BLP subject.[22] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

He must be brave, I would be scared if people like that were offering large cash for my identity. As editors , if you're editing controversial topics you need to take care. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, I take your point and it is a valid point, however, I'm not sure that being careful and doing your best work are not mutually exclusive. I prefer a "fuck the bastards" approach; no cause for fear in this case, that's for sure. Step 1 is to get pissed off...anger will overcome fear any day. Ironically, I saw a guy, in the gym yesterday, a heavy metal looking guy, with these words tattooed on his back: "Anger is a gift"....I'm still thinking about it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer that any editor who brings a "fuck the bastards" approach to Wikipedia please find a more appropriate outlet for your rage. KalHolmann (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That also is good reasoning under ideal societal environment, and I should have qualified my opinion to being only in relation to people like the politician above who wants to bring fear, intimidation and harassment to any of our editors...we have extremely good internal disciplinary systems and don't need extreme politicians offering bounty for the heads of any of our editors....so, exclusively with regards to people like that, the bounty placers, I say "fuck the bastards", and that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. If, somehow I miscommunicated that selective nature of my opinion related to this topic, and you read that the "fuck the bastards" approach is something I feel towards a broader spectrum, then that is just a "failure to communicate" either on my part, or yours, or both. Also, although it is , I admit, nuanced, I am the most rage adverse person I know. Anger, however, is different from rage..."controlled" anger that is..it creates the energy necessary for some of us to get off our butts and get more involved in constructive discourse and activities about important stuff. But, yeah, I do not think that any editor should alter our editing behaviour one little bit in reaction to any public threats or bounties, especially in relation to controversial topics. There is no Spanish Inquisition or McCarthyism going on right now, so I reiterate to Govindaharihari, don't be worried about getting scared or "being careful" when editing other than in realtion to our own policies which I imagine you are following anyways. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Big brash tough comments from someone not under attack, Philip has cut and run https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_Cross as would have been my advice. If you edit here with a strong opinion but within wiki policy and guidelines although you are technically editing according to wiki policy you will create anger and enemies in others, what they will do is up to them and for you to take care of. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I am surprised that you have been targeted by RT and Russia Today. Per the above, that means you probably are doing some good work around here

and it must've been a slow day in the news cycle. With that said, I hope the heat dies down soon for you and (seriously) stay safe. Wonder why the heck they want your identity. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Point of wtf

Dear Jimbo please https://m.soundcloud.com/scifri/does-the-iss-have-a-future-among-private-space-competition what the heck happened to Ira at 4:10? 184.96.249.55 (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding Dungeons & Dragons (album) featured today, is its alignment {Good.. Evil} x {Lawful... Chaotic}?

Conduit and Sink OFCs? 184.96.249.55 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Net neutrality coming back?

maybe? Nocturnalnow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. The Congressional Review Act is quite specific: it only empowers Congress to review and overrule new federal regulations issued by government agencies. Nowhere in the CRA is there the slightest hint that Congress can force a government agency to pass a regulation that it doesn't want to pass. That would be like Trump trying to using his veto power to pass legislation that Congress is unwilling to pass.

Besides which, Congress doesn't have the votes to pass the joint resolution that the CRA requires, and if they did have the votes it would be vetoed by the president.

The CRA does allow Congress to review and overrule new federal regulations issued by government agencies, and in the process of repealing the Obama-era net neutrality rules the FCC did create a new regulation -- the transparency rule. So If they got the votes needed and if there was no veto, passage of this resolution would nuke the transparency rule. When that rule was passed, ISPs were already required (by the FTC, not the FCC) to disclose performance data, terms and conditions of service and certain network management practices. The transparency rule added disclosures for blocking access to content, applications or providers, throttling; prioritization of affiliated content and paid prioritization. I personally think that forcing ISPs to disclose those things is a Good Thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The "Internet" has never really had "international net neutrality". In the old days, ISPs "cached" pages - and AOL actually altered images to conform with its own space-saving system. Today, the EU actually bans true "neutrality" by virtue of banning information about people who seek to be "forgotten" online. "Net Neutrality" sounds nice but it does not exist over most of the entire world, has not existed over most of the entire world, and can not truly exist under EU law. Collect (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If one defines "net neutrality" as "lack of censorship" (As I have documented several times, the recently repealed Obama-Era Net Neutrality rules actually increased the ability of the US Government to censor content) then the EU rules you mention violate it, and the great firewall of China violates it a lot more. But we have never had a complete lack of censorship, as anyone who has ever posted child pornography on their website will tell you (assuming that the prison allows visitors...) The US government (and pretty much every government) censors that sort of thing, and rightly so. Another example is spam, a lot of which gets censored by the ISPs simply because they don't want to pay the money it takes to deliver it and because their customers are not exactly clamoring for more of it.

That being said, much of the discussion I am seeing about fast lanes and caching servers completely misunderstands how the Internet works. See What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality for an overview, but basically Netflix, Google, and Facebook spend a lot of money placing servers close to you so that when you access their services you don't clog up the rest of the Internet. Anyone who has enough money can do the same, and Wikipedia will do it if we ever get to the point where most users find our service to be too slow no matter how fast our servers are -- unless the US government makes doing that illegal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to read the Wired article ( thanks, Guy ) and then do a thought experiment about this, and in the meantime move my "for" net neutrality opinion to neutral. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

More ISPs in Canada than USA

With 1/10 the population, Canada has 43, USA 34 ...re:, from the Wired articles "We shouldn't waste so much breath on the idea of keeping the network completely neutral. It isn't neutral now. What we should really be doing is looking for ways we can increase competition among ISPs—ways we can prevent the Comcasts and the AT&Ts from gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for internet bandwidth." Also, John Oliver and Eric Schneiderman are for net neutrality. so, all of the above is pushing me Guy's way, but still reading. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that thinking about how to increase competition is important. I think a particularly fruitful area is to think about the ways that existing government regulation having nothing to do with net neutrality per se can give rise to "last mile monopolies" that don't have to exist. Let me give one example that I heard about in London. This was a few years back and the situation may have partly changed, and I'm telling the story from memory.

In many parts of London, there is basically only one set of lines - we have fiber in some parts of town but not others, etc. Due to regulation, all the ISPs do share the lines and therefore there is a kind of "competition". But the speeds are slow, and the reason is that getting permits from the local councils to dig up the streets is hard to get, because digging up the streets for months at a time is a big deal. However, the view of the councils is out of date: you don't have to dig up the streets for months. The technology of "microtrenching" is cheaper and faster. So there isn't a good reason for us not to have fiber everywhere or even multiple fiber everywhere, if the councils would wake up to the new way of doing things. See [23] for a quick overview of microtrenching.

Now, I heard this in a meeting a few years back, and I heard it from a provider who was frustrated at not being able to lay cable as fast as they would like, but the specific example isn't as important as the principle: one tool for increasing access to the Internet is to realize that governments too often stand in the way of competition.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

For balance, I would counter that the cable-laying firms can be their own problem: Virgin Media fined £385,000 for breaches of street-works safety rules in Carlisle... "Residents living in 15 properties on the street were unable to get into or out of their homes because of the cable-laying excavations." and "They were not providing suitable and safe alternative walkways for pedestrians,". There are only two providers of infrastructure for land-line internet in the UK: Virgin Media and BT and the latter is forced to compete for customers on its own network whereas the former has a monopoly on its network.

Before I moved house, some years ago, I phoned Virgin to see if they could offer me a deal at my new house. They were unable to confirm that my street even had cable nor if it did, that they could actually install it at my property. I would have to wait till I moved before they got a surveyor out to check, and then arrange for someone to come and install it. Thus I would be without telephone/broadband for nearly a month. Needless to say, I went with the other company. When I did moved house, I noticed that on the pavement right outside my drive was an access cover labelled "CATV". There was in fact cable to my property.

So that provider might conveniently blame government, but it sounds like even in 2018 they are still laying cable the old expensive and disruptive way. And once they've laid it, they sometimes forget where. -- Colin°^Talk 13:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both Jimbo and Colin have hit upon what may be the elephant in the room regarding this issue, as well as many others, which is a widespread incompetence (or often times inability to keep up) among people, including politicians, government people and company people....especially incompetence in knowing the basic details of what they are involved in or talking about. However, Wikipedia and educational YouTubes (info about how to repair plumbing, autos, how to select and prepare healthy food...stuff like that) are simultaneously giving individuals alternative and sometimes more reliable sources of information than the politicians, governments or companies, so, in a way, many people may becoming more self reliant and aware of details than ever before. From that more individually empowered knowledge base the individuals, and/or groups like FB friends, if energized to do so, can put pressure on politicians, civil servants and companies, via direct internet or social media contact or indirectly (via purchasing or voting decisions) to increase their levels of competence. Maybe, we may be in the midst of an increasing knowledge spiral? If so, Wikimedia may be one of the lynch pins of it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I would note that "more ISP articles in a Wikipedia list" is not actually the same thing as "more ISPs". (I note also that the Canadian list is nominally of "ISPs" whereas the U.S. list is of "broadband providers", which may not be an apples-to-apples comparison anyway.) If someone has some good information on the amount of choice available to U.S. consumers compared to residents of other G7 or G20 countries, that would be meaningful; counting bullets in these Wikipedia list articles isn't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, TenOfAllTrades, I also found this, which states; "The following table summarizes residential broadband offerings in Canada." Perhaps you could use this one to do an apples to apples comparison? I'm still learning the technical differentiations and even definitions re: internet access, so maybe its better for you to do the apples-to-apples comparison and/or source the good information which, as you say, would be meaningful in your eyes. That would be great, if you could, please. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Should articles detailing Trump collusion accusations mimic the caution that RS's use in discussing evidence?

Greetings, Jimbo. This is just a request for some outside opinion/informal comments by you about a content dispute. I am not asking you to get involved in the content dispute or make any specific pronouncements--just state your general opinion on these matters.

Some weeks back I posted on your talk page seeking your informal opinion about whether articles detailing Trump collusion accusations should mention mainstream POVs suggesting Trump might not have colluded with the Russians to manipulate the election. My comment was quickly archived but I was hoping to press you for a response. FWIW I've been editing WP over ten years and this is only the second time I brought a content dispute to you.

(1) Without commenting on specific weighting and balancing issues, do you feel that POVs such as the following, which suggest in various ways that Trump might not have colluded, are of a generally encyclopedic nature—and do you feel that such POVs are relevant to articles that feature the opposing POV that he probably did collude? Isn't this just a straightforward matter of mentioning multiple opposing viewpoints that have appeared in the mainstream commentary?

Various sourced POV commentary skeptical of Trump collusion claims

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

Commentary skeptical of collusion claims

Jason Kirchick, a Brookings Institution visiting fellow, wrote in Washington Post that "Trump's Defense Department in 2017 proposed a boost in financial support for [NATO]; he's announced the sale of antitank weapons to Ukraine; and, according to reports, U.S. military forces recently killed 'at least 100' Russian mercenaries in Syria. Yet so attached to the collusion narrative are some Trump critics that their theories are impervious to countervailing data."^[1] Richard A. Epstein, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, law professor at New York University and senior lecturer at The University of Chicago, wrote in Newsweek: "I agree with the Hoover Institution’s Paul Gregory, who has extensively studied Russian propaganda tactics, that the Russians knew that they could not influence the outcome of the election with a few well timed tweets. But they understood that a disinformation campaign could raise the specter of collusion with either party, which would then weaken the presidency no matter which candidate won."^[2] Jonathan Turley, a law professor specializing in public interest law at George Washington University, said in The Hill that "[i]t takes willful blindness not to acknowledge either the lack of direct evidence of collusion or the implausibility of many of the theories abounding on cable news programs."^[3] Writers for The New Republic and The Atlantic suggested that it was likely Mueller had not found evidence to implicate Trump.^[4]^[5] James S. Robbins, national security expert and member of USA Today's Board of Contributors, called the dossier a "sketchy gossip-ridden anti-Trump document paid for by the Clinton campaign and compiled with input from Russian intelligence sources" and said its use to authorize surveillance on Trump campaign members "was an unprecedented investigative intrusion into the American political process that makes Watergate look like amateur hour."^[6] Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson argued in National Review that "[a]side from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a few minor and transitory campaign officials have been indicted or have pleaded guilty to a variety of transgressions other than collusion."^[7] Aaron Maté, writing in The Nation, argued that officials had acknowledged they had seen no evidence of collusion or wrongdoing, and that "[w]ell-placed critics of Trump—including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein—concur to date."^[8] "[T]he relentless pursuit of this narrative above all else has had dangerous consequences," he later wrote.^[9]

Sources

^ Kirchick, James (March 29, 2018). "Commentary: The Trump 'collusion' narrative is doing the Russians' dirty work for them". Chicago Tribune. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Epstein, Richard A. (February 13, 2018). "Did Clinton or Obama or Comey Know the Steele Dossier Was a Dud?". Newsweek. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Turley, Jonathan (February 27, 2018). "There is still no evidence tying Trump to Russian conspiracy". The Hill. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Heer, Jeet (April 16, 2018). "We Are (Probably) Not in the "End Stages" of Trump's Presidency". The New Republic. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Graham, David A. (March 30, 2018). "Why Is Trump Turning Against Russia Now?". The Atlantic. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Robbins, James S. (December 11, 2017). "Suspend Robert Mueller's politically tainted investigation into Russia-Trump collusion". USA Today. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Hanson, Victor Davis (April 12, 2018). "Mueller at the Crossroads". National Review. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Maté, Aaron (October 6, 2017). "Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact". The Nation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Maté, Aaron (February 9, 2018). "What We've Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate". The Nation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

(2) Separately, if top news desks consistently report that there is no public evidence of the various accusations against Trump, even as they speculate about what evidence Mueller might have—doesn't NPOV push us strongly in the direction of at least mentioning that? In other words, shouldn't we try to mimic the caution that mainstream sources have used in discussing these claims?

News reports discussing lack of publicly known evidence of various accusations

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

E.g., the following: 1^[1], 2^[2], 3^[3], 4^[4], 5^[5], 6^[6], 7^[7]

References

^ "Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation". May 16, 2018. A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump's advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government's disruptive efforts.
^ Grier, Peter (March 29, 2018). "The perennial presidential urge to bring FBI 'under control'". Christian Science Monitor. There's no public evidence that Trump is connected to any collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 vote. There's no proof, as yet, that he knew about any illegal activity on the part of his campaign or governing staff. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "US House Republicans find no proof of Trump-Russia collusion". BBC. March 13, 2018. That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed.
^ Bump, Philip (February 23, 2018). "Mueller is about to take a big step closer to Trump". Washington Post. We hasten to note that there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Fandos, Nicholas; Rosenberg, Matthew; LaFranier, Sharon (January 9, 2018). "Democratic Senator Releases Transcript of Interview With Dossier Firm". New York Times. Since then, investigators and journalists have developed extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump's associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives, but as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Savage, Charlie (July 11, 2017). "Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says". New York Times. There is no public evidence, as things stand, of any clandestine discussions between Russian officials or surrogates and the Trump campaign about disseminating the emails of Democrats that American intelligence officials say Russia hacked. In July 2016, however, the elder Mr. Trump publicly urged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton's emails; his spokesman later insisted that was a joke. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Parker, Ned; Landay, Jonathan; Walcott, John (April 19, 2017). "Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 US election - documents". Reuters. Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

So far this has mostly provoked grumblings that I am dishonest for attempting to discuss such things, and should be topic banned or indef blocked. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeeed, either of those sanctions wouild be justified, considering your POV-pushing behavior on this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think it makes sense to track what RS's say about the accusations.. generally, that although Mueller is reliably speculated to have at least some evidence proving or at least suggesting collusion/hacking/interference/whatever, nothing linking Trump to anything or linking his advisors to the hacking has surfaced. Actually the NYT itself gave great material on both these points. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Aaaand you've now asked I be topic banned. Classy, totally above-board. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how the actions of User:Factchecker_atyourservice are relevant to the question of whether articles detailing Trump collusion accusations should mention mainstream POVs suggesting Trump might not have colluded with the Russians to manipulate the election. If nobody wants to answer because F.C.A.Y.S. asked the question, well now I am asking the question. I haven't looked at the articles in question (a list would help) but if indeed they document that some commentators think Trump is guilty, they should also document that some commentators think Trump isn't guilty. And if reliable sources have commented on the lack of evidence so far that should be included in the relevant articles as well.

I would like to invite some of our editors from the UK and Australia who have no opinion one way or the other concerning US politics to review the artifices in question for WP:NPOV. Some time in the future we should return the favor for UK politicians. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much Guy. To clarify, I have been active almost exclusively at the Trump–Russia dossier article.. the reason I worded my question to include a larger pool of articles was that some people had suggested, in various ways, that content about collusion evidence belonged in some other article, e.g. the Special Counsel Investigation article, instead of the dossier article. (But, as my post implied, the overwhelming response was that the material didn't belong anywhere, would be undue, would mislead readers, etc.)

So I was just trying to phrase the question in a way that did not demand a specific response as to which article it might go in, or the organizational reasons for that, or other nuts-and-bolts issues. I should admit that I did not actually try to shop this content around at all the different articles; but based on the response I had gotten, it did not seem like those at the other articles would be more receptive, and coming to Jimbo was, I suppose, just a really presumptuous way of asking for a 3rd opinion.

Edit: (But, FWIW he had obliged me with an opinion in the past and although I could not get anybody to resolutely agree with Jimbo's POV, which I found surprising in its own right, nonetheless it helped resolve a content dispute, sort of. And I feel certain this would be an issue he would have an offhanded but informed opinion about and thus his perspective on the purpose of WP policies would be uniquely helpful.)

Perhaps a better way of phrasing my question would be something more like, "Surely these POV and fact sources have got to have some relevance and encyclopedic value somewhere on WP?" Factchecker_atyourservice 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves

Your move of Meghan Markle blatantly violated talk page consensus and WP:RM#CM. Consider self-reverting in good faith and joining the talk page discussion. James (^talk/_contribs) 11:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the talk page, there appears to be quite a strong consensus in favor of the page move.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am also asking you to self-revert. Your justification here, that it was "fun", (I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. when there had been intensive discussion to which you paid no heed, is not OK, nor is this game you seem to be playing of being The One Who Moves Royal Bride Pages. Like we need some Archbishop of Wikipedia to crown princesses. Blech. The action and justification are indefensible - this is desysop worthy. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a valid issue, but might I suggest that if you bring this to WP:AN, you suggest a type of page move ban, instead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

~~Tad overreaction here I reckon; the move was very inadvisable considering the discussion, but anyhow it'll get resolved in ~7 days with the RM. Certainly not desysop worthy~~; also considering less than one move per year there is no real disruption meriting a page move ban Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Strike that first part as I forgot there had been move protection Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the editing through protection that is the admin action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Archbishop of Wikipedia sounds very exciting. Don't worry, there have been one or two Sir Jimmies who have gone through a bad patch. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is desysop-worthy. The initial action was terrible, but the talk page comment pushed it into completely different territory. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May I please have a link showing who applied the move protection and when, and any discussion that preceded that decision? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The protection is, here:[24]. There were probably earlier discussions but the most recent (pre-move) discussion is now at the top of the talk page: Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Changing the title of the article, which of course at time was found at Talk:Meghan Markle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As the editor who brought up the issue in the month before the wedding, which led to a fruitful discussion, I am disappointed and embarrassed. Being told that that discussion was ignored because "it was fun to do so" was degrading. How I feel is not of much importance, however. This should make us uneasy as a community, whether we agree with this particular move or not. So should the treatment of Markle and women on Wikipedia in general, as the sudden and unilateral change of the title encouraged various users to try to obliterate her career, her personal life before her second marriage, and even her signature, and to redefine her as someone's wife and daughter-in-law. The whole thing is quite sickening. Surtsicna (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the move might have been a bit hasty. But does Megham get to express a preference on now she should now be known? Don't certain conventions apply to Royals that don't affect us mere proles? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there are source saying she prefers "Meghan, Duchess of Cambridge"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've not found one and I suspect we would struggle to find any at all, either way. I guess this is the closest we'll get? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Jimbo Wales can provide the community, at a community board, with (a minimum of) one good reason why WP:MOVEABDICATE should not exist alongside WP:BLOCKABDICATE... —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Who says that a move cannot at the same time reflect current consensus AND be fun to do? Who decided that the two are mutually exclusive? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

When the move was performed, the consensus was that there should be no move without a proper move request. That's as clear as daylight to everyone who read the discussion. It means that not only did Jimbo's action not reflect any consensus, it directly contravened one. Even people who were in favor of the new title said that it should be decided after a discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I was the admin who move-protected the article a few days ago based on talk page discussion and the feeling if I didn't, the page would get yanked around all over the place. I wasn't around when the page was actually moved but when I saw it pop up on my watchlist under its new name I thought (half-jokingly): "Unilateral page move, editing through admin protection, no explanatory note on my talk page - must be Jimbo!" Sure enough... Yes, the move was out-of-process (there was no hurry) and yes, anyone else would probably get hauled to ANI, but what's done is done. Nothing is going to happen here except for a trouting (already given). But Jimbo, you might want to ponder what this place would be like if admins could ignore restrictions placed by other admins because "it was fun". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Say it ain't so, Jimbo II

re: Say it ain't so, Jimbo! there's an article out Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales says ICOs offer almost nothing of value to the world] that more or less says it ain't so, by my reading. Thanks Jimmy. OTOH BLOCKSHOW EUROPE 2018 WELCOMES WIKIPEDIA FOUNDER JIMMY WALES TO THEIR MAJOR BLOCKCHAIN CONFERENCE (today) repeats almost all of the junk about Jimmy being "a huge influence and proponent in the crypto sphere", and that the WMF is "helping drive usage of the digital currency" bitcoin by accepting it for donation.

In other cryptocurrency news today, the Wall Street Journal has an exceptional article on ICO scams Buyer Beware: Hundreds of Bitcoin Wannabes Show Hallmarks of Fraud and the SEC published HoweyCoins - a spoof of ICOs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As always when I speak at conferences, I simply speak my mind. My position is pretty clear: blockchain is a very interesting technological concept, cryptocurrency is similarly intellectually stimulating, but at the present time we are clearly in a bubble in which scams abound. Whether cryptocurrency has a future at all remains to be seen. Thank you for drawing my attention to the advert - I'll ask them to tone it down, particularly as it relates to words like "proponent".

My speaking agent has a standard response to anyone who asks (it rarely happens) that I not speak about, for example, freedom of expression. If they want to hire an actor to read excepts of my published work, there's nothing stopping them doing that. But if they want to hire me to give a speech, I'll say whatever I want to say. I really like that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy. I've never doubted that you'll speak your mind. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

We should all be thankful that we live in one of the countries where we can say whatever we want to say without fear of arrest and torture. Sadly, there are still places where this happens. There is an old story from Argentina under the Perons after they shut down all radio stations and newspapers that criticized the government. Two dogs met at the Argintinia-Uraguay border, each crossing in a different direction. One dog said "I am fleeing Uraguay because times are rough. There isn't enough food and many families cannot afford to keep a pet." The other dog said "Good choice. There is plenty of food in Argentina, and a lot of families are looking for a dog to love". "So why are you leaving?" "I want to bark." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I had never been arrested before, but I was arrested in Texas (U.S.) for raising the wrong finger when leaving a police station; I thought they might be ashamed, then, to arrest a man who had never been arrested before, but they seemed quite proud of themselves and told prison jokes, plus the judge agreed I was "guilty" for free speech by sign language, which stunned me even more than being arrested. I think WP should note how every "civil right" has been violated in various U.S. courts (which I imagine many people have always suspected was the case, but now can get sources to back the conclusions). Perhaps have page "Legal exceptions to civil rights" and expand to include various nations or regions. Also we desperately need page, "People believe police" and explain why many people in court think the police tell the truth (yikes!), versus the notion of police as "fascist pigs" and whether public opinion has shifted back over the years, in various regions. These issues all feed into the old warning, "Never trust nobody" and then remind people where vicious WP users are just typical of society at large. Hence, "the veneer of civilation is very thin" so we should all beware. Wikid77 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Number 3: You have the right to free

Speech as long as you're not

Dumb enough to actually try it.

(Joe Strummer, "Know Your Rights," 1982) Carrite (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This: "NSLs typically contain a nondisclosure requirement forbidding the recipient of an NSL from disclosing that the FBI had requested the information" makes an insulting mockery of the claim to "free speech" in the USA. And the fact its such a comparatively new law and in such widespread use, even used by so-called "contractors" sometimes, shows that things are going in the wrong direction in regards to free speech in the USA. And its a widespread infringement of free speech which most Americans likely don't even know about. Its actually a very sicko law....if you think about it...a manager of a restaurant could be given a NSL about personal info given out about an employee he/she works closely with every day...maybe they are even good friends, socializing together...and the manager has to keep such a thing hidden, locked up, inside his own mind...really sociologically sick, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Trump Administration's dictatorial foreign policy may lead to cryptocurrencies to be used in international trade in the near future. If Europe wants to prevent the Iran deal from collapsing, it will have to set up a system allowing companies to hide their dealing with Iran from US authorities, while EU authorities can have access to all the data on financial transactions. It's not just the US discontent about the Iran deal, we can read here"...the U.S. has threatened sanctions on European companies involved with Nord Stream 2, including powerful multinationals such as Royal Dutch Shell, Austria’s OMV, France’s Engie and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall. Now, even EU officials and national leaders who have no particular love for Nord Stream 2 are on the side of Germany. Meanwhile, the German government shows no fear of U.S. sanctions, just growing aggravation." Count Iblis (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

re:"may lead to cryptocurrencies to be used in international trade in the near future." Like most claims about the uses of cryptocurrencies, this is pure WP:Crystal ball speculation. If people decided that they didn't want to use U.S. dollars in international trade (after 75 years of so of its being the dominant currency of international trade) they'd just switch to the euro, yen, pound, or maybe the Canadian dollar or Chinese yuan.

After almost 10 years of bitcoin, you still can't buy a beer with it at your corner bar (anybody who has bought a beer at the corner bar with bitcoin should of course correct me). There have been lots of "proof of concept" type announcements where you could theoretically buy something with bitcoin (e.g. at Overstock.com), but successful ongoing practical uses of bitcoin are few. The most common purchase made with bitcoin is of course U.S. dollars, with illegal drugs perhaps coming in 2nd. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only now with Trump the POTUS that there is a real problem to be fixed. While cryptocurrencies currently are not so useful, they are likely to become the foundation of a new international financial system. In the new world order, we no longer want a powerful country to be able to impose crippling sanctions on another country over the objection of most of the World. Count Iblis (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

As you moved Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex earlier today, I thought you might like to know that a discussion has been opened here to discuss whether it should be moved back to Meghan Markle. This is a continuation of a discussion that we have been having since April to try and gain consensus over what the article should be called.--5 albert square (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A strong consensus for the current page title already exists. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon I actually voted for the current page title. However, there's a couple of comments on the discussion about Jimbo moving it before consensus has been finally reached. As Jimbo moved the page, I thought it would be polite to let him know there is now a discussion about moving it back. Your reply has come across as very rude.--5 albert square (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

—SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion hatted per WP:IAR power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

The article should be split with the stuff about her life before the time she became Duchess of Sussex put in the old article. In fact the Meghan Markle of today is not the same person as the Meghan Markle of yesterday. Count Iblis (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for moving that Jimbob, It seems a vast majority of the community (myself included) agrees with your actions for once :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo old pal, the situation at Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is IMHO a strong case of WP:COMMONNAME gone too far. Next thing ya know, we'll be 'merging' United Kingdom to England, as the mass media tend to use the name England, when describing the UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... editing through protection... Wikipedia will have a proper system for accountability when anyone who blatantly misuses advanced permissions looses those permissions. I am unaware of any policy or guideline that says "because Jimbo thinks it would be a hoot" is a valid reason to subvert normal consensus building by editing through protection. Maybe someday we will be freed from the whims of capricious and self-indulgent gods but today will obviously not be that day. Maybe the day of the next royal wedding will be though. Jbh ^Talk 21:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not naysayers, Jimbo is Wikipedia's emissary to a lot of the world, including the British Royal Family. Being that Wikipedia has global significance, his job is quite an important one. Sometimes in life, an executive decision has to be made that can't wait for the glacial pace of democracy, and I think we all know that the pace of change on Wikipedia is often glacial. For what it's worth, I think Wikipedia would've suffered as a primary source of information if it didn't reflect in a timely manner when Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Essex. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, was this really that bad a thing? There's an undeclared world war going on in Syria, there are other tensions in the Middle East that could lead to nuclear warfare - we all have bigger things to get upset about. So, relax, eh. In case anyone's wondering, I wrote this of my own volition. Matter of fact, it's my first time commenting here. Now, I have a life to get to, so I won't participate in any further discussion. Terry Foote (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What a relief that Wikipedia isn't a democracy? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

First, as to your misinformation, it's a lie that Wikipedia was not reflecting that Meghan Markle became the Duchess of ~~Essex~~ Sussex, regardless of what Jimbo did, here. Second, "emissary to . . . the British Royal Family" sounds ridiculous, literally it sounds like intentional or unintentional ridicule. Finally, to go on about the un-importance of the subject you stress is your first comment is at the least ironic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (fix Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC))

Wow, Royal TOWIE beckons? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I did not catch the Essex/Sussex thing but it works either way (I actually meant Sussex). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your usage of the word "ironic", then no one can say anything about an issue being insignificant, because after all, it's significant enough to make a comment on it's insignificance - am I right? I'm not convinced. But I don't think your intention was to change my mind. Furthermore, when you or I go to a party, we don't get asked about why there are mistakes on a person's WP page. So.............that to me meets the definition of emissary. No ridicule intended. Now, I think you meant to ridicule me, but that's OK - there are more important things to get upset about. Terry Foote (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You made it clear in your first comment, you did not come here to have you mind changed, which now oddly your commenting again after you said you were too busy. At any rate, it still sounds ridiculous, intentionally or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And you've made it clear your concerned about what you perceive as a violation of Wikipedia's rules and culture - something that's important to you until you find someone with whom you disagree. Then, you'll partake in condescension and ridicule because it suits you, which is a clear violation of our cultural ideals of civility. I've never said anywhere at anytime that my mind can't be changed if someone has arguments that are worth respecting, and respectful to me. So far, you've failed on all accounts, I'm sorry to tell you this. And yes, I'm far too busy for this, but I'm a human being with myriad flaws and weaknesses. Terry Foote (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Basically, none of what you just said is true. Why you have time to say untrue things is extremely odd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC

So this whole discussion has now degenerated to the "I know you are but what am I? level? OK. Terry Foote (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Your question/comment makes no sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please demonstrate - I will gladly admit I'm wrong. And you're still violating rules with incivility Terry Foote (talk)

P.S. - let's stop clogging up space on someone else's talk page and you can take this up on my talk page. I'm very interested to read your assertions Terry Foote (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea not to continue here, but really you make a false rules claim, here, and then tell me not to tell you its false here and this now expressed concern for rules just appears convenient. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh my and goodness me, we're dealing with some pretty serious stuff here folks. Jimbo said: "It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction." To which an editor responded, "I think this is behavior we would desysop people over, but I will settle for a ban on page moves. And more, See this: [25] (The corruption in the talk page "rationale" is as obvious as the snout on a pig. Celebrity pages are the cesspool of WP and I guess some abuse of admin rights in the midst of that cesspool is not a big deal to folks. I am fairly disgusted by the boys club Jimbo ass-kissing here and will not be commenting further.) Cesspools of Corrumption he says!!! As for me, I have experienced no great desire to kiss Jimbo's ass...though I have experienced a desire to enshrine his words of wisdom and as a matter of fact I'm going to do just that on my WP page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And I will enshrine your portmanteau "Corrumption" for rump-kissing + corruption on mine, Gandydancer. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC).

That Ces Poole always gets a bad press, too... and he wasn't even from Slough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly is the "we" in "if we can't have a bit of fun...". In this instance, it is exactly one person -- Jimbo. It took an admin to move the page through protection, and no actual admins would ever have done that. Jimbo abused his power for "fun", and his attitude was exactly this -->> "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." It's just corruption. So maybe you should also post the Trump quote on your userpage, since they were saying the same thing. Way too many people see WP as something that can use, and here was our Great Wise Founder doing it. and even saying "I hope to do it again". It is just... icky. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparing Jimbo's action to sexual attacks on women is a stretch too far. Perspective!(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC))

The underlying abuse of power is the same. Of course the entity being treated as a pleasure object is different. Clarity. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a patently absurd statement. And "entity... pleasure object" is an almost nauseatingly, objectifying description of sexual abuse. I understand you are bugged with Jimbo; the comparison you are making is wrong on many levels, better to back away.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Count Iblis (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Amnesty Edit-o-thon

Amnesty International has stated that BRAVE:Edit, a collaboration between Amnesty International and Wikimedia but it is not clear who arranged this edit- -thon.The discussion is here Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

Traffic report: We love our superheroes

Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

Humour: Play with your food

Gallery: Wine not?

From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A court case with interesting ramifications for Wikipedia

A ran across this article Is It Really Illegal for Trump to Block People on Twitter Now?] and it brought to mind User:RepSmith, who occasionally makes an edit request at Lamar Smith and claims to be Lamar Smith. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he is, and that the court decision above survives appeal. Does that mean that it would be illegal to delete vandals/trolls who respond to Smith on Wikipedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on free speech is broadly similar to most websites. It works like this: [26] Since Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation are not members of the US government using the website for official purposes, the First Amendment angle doesn't seem to apply here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you figure? If Twitter becomes part of the US government because Trump used it for official purposes, why doesn't Wikipedia become part of the US government because Smith used it for official purposes? Smith's posts, while 100% within Wikipedia COI guidelines, are a lot closer to "being used for official purposes" that Trumps tweets ever were. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Court didn't rule that Twitter couldn't block people; it said Trump couldn't block people. RepSmith can't block anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

According to CBS news,[27] U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald reasoned in her opinion that Twitter is a designated public forum, so blocking users based on their political speech "constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment."

The judge's actual words are at [ https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf ]. They contain the words

We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets -- are properly analyzed under the 'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment.

US law says that nobody -- not Trump, not Twitter, not Wikipedia -- can violate the first amendment by blocking political speech in a designated public forum. Our defense so far has not been that we are not Trump, but rather that we are not a designated public forum. Well, that was Twitter's defense as well.

If the the @realDonaldTrump account is an interactive space where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President’s tweets and thus is a designated public forum, then how is User talk:RepSmith not an interactive space where Wikipedia users may directly engage with the content of Representative Smith's talk page comments, and how is it not a designated public forum? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Smith neither owns nor controls the Wikipedia article about him nor its talk page. BLP subjects are welcome to offer input like anyone else but talk page discussion is not a "free speech zone" or a "designated public forum" and comments must be focused on article improvement. Many BLP subjects have been blocked for disruptive behavior. Trump controls his Twitter feed for government purposes but Smith does not control the Wikipedia article about him, and neither this encyclopedia nor individual biographies of government officials are under the control of the government. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump does has as much control over his tweet as Smith has over his talk page comments. Neither has any control over anyone who responds from their own /Twitter/Wikipedia account using their own name. I am not talking about any article about Trump (both Trump and Smith have no power over the actual Wikipedia articles written about them) but rather about comments they post using their own account with their own signature on them. If it is illegal for anyone (Trump or Twitter) to censor responses to Trump on Twitter, then thinking that it surely must not be illegal for anyone (Smith or Wikipedia) to censor responses to Smith on Wikipedia seems like wishful thinking. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has the WP:NOTFORUM policy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read NOTFORUM? '" You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages".

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read Jimbo's talk page and the sort of conversations that occur here on a daily basis, so if you are unhappy with what we talk about, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Easy. Dodger67 was likely referring to the fact that people can't use the subject's article talk page to talk about whatever they want to talk about. It has to be related to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought that I had made it clear that I was talking about Smith's Wikipedia talk page, which would be the closest equivalent we have to Trump's Twitter account. I apologize if I was not clear on that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, my referencing NOTFORUMis to point out that our policy explicitly does not permit the use of our site as a "public forum" in the sense of the ruling about Trump's Twitter page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I have saved myself a ton of time over the past 20 years by paying little to zero attention to what any USA judges below the USA Supreme Court level rule or have to say, and I'll tell you why:

Truly important and societal effecting rulings by lower courts (than the Supreme Court) are often overturned.

The level of legal knowledge and rational, intelligentjudgement abilities of U.S.A. judges is very low, even up to the 9th. Circuit dumbos, for example.

U.S.A. judges are either voted into their positions or are political partisan appointees, meaning a lack of objectiveness in both cases, e.g. in this particular case: "District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, a Clinton appointee,"

Yes, the Supreme Court judges are also appointed by politicians which means their decisions may also be mediocre at best, but as they are the final decision makers, their decisions are worth my time paying attention to.

Of course, their are far better ways to select judges, but, as usual, the status quo in America benefits politicians in direct and indirect ways, so a change in the selection method of American judges is not likely. So far, my method of ignoring all lower court decisions in the USA has worked far better than I expected it to and saved me lots and lots of time by not reading or thinking about these lower court, often ridiculous, embarrassingly verbose and illogical and even attention seeking decisions. All imo, of course; since Jimbo is in England now, maybe he has noticed something different re: courts. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Very good point. Thanks! I was going to say something about how many federal judges there are who could tell Trump what he can and can not do (at least temporarily), but alas, United States federal judge#Number of judges and United States federal judge#Non-Article III judges just left me confused. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not being a lawyer (constitutional or otherwise) my take would be this. Trump is using Twitter to maker official announcements (and they have allowed this) thus they are (in effect) a covered by the first, Wikipedia has not allowed any government official to use it to make official statements (in fact our rules more or less prohibit this), thus would not be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be most interested in seeing which rule prevents Representative Smith from posting an official announcement on his own talk page. Something like "To protect Wikipedia from [insert evildoer here], I have introduced legislation that..." How would that be against the rules? And BTW, despite claims to the contrary, Smith absolutely can ban anyone from his talk page for any reason or no reason at all, and can delete anything anyone posts to his talk page. The good news is that Smith isn't doing anything other than posting edit requests just as out COI policy requires, but some future politician could certainly use his Wikipedia talk page as I described above. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference is Trump has expressly stated the purpose of his Twitter account is to bypass the press and talk directly to the people and that the White House has said that what is said on Twitter is 'official'. Beyond that there is the issue of the scale of engagement of the public. Millions are reached by Trump's tweets and millions are reached by replies to those tweets.

Trump made his Twitter feed a public forum. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does not put itself out as a mass communications platform and we would not allow our pages to be used as such nor could a viable case be made that, absent intent to be a public forum, Wikipedia is a de facto public forum because it is not being used as one. If someone were to attempt to do so a Wikipedia talk page does not have the scope and reach that someone excluded from the platform could make a claim of even de minimis harm i.e. so few people participate the harm of being excluded is insignificant. Jbh ^Talk 19:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this might cover it "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service...In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute...whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself."

This would also cover it "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia."

There is also a bit more, but this should do.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remove account from user list

Please remove User:Delete my account from Special:ListUsers using oversight or suppression tool! You may protect the recording of your voice from reuploading to Commons/Wikipedia (globally) too. Recordings of people should not be overwritten without a good reason. - 209.52.88.144 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Fault lines opening in American civil society

Jimbo, if you were made world dictator for a day, how would you address https://youtube.com/watch?v=CE1hT0koseg ? 50.204.86.34 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure 1 day would be enough. But I'll pass along a few thoughts that I hope you will find interesting and useful.

I actually think things like this are pretty much a distraction, and that the important questions and important answers like in a more structural direction. Let me explain.

First, it is important to have open public hearings. It's also important that they be well-managed and not descend into pointless screaming matches. So hecklers at open public hearings don't get a huge amount of sympathy from me. But as I say, I think we need to look for the important question and important answers in a deeper (more structural) direction.

Due to modern Gerrymandering in the United States the House of Representatives and most state legislatures cannot properly be described as healthily democratic. To give but one example, the State of Florida is famously a 50/50-ish swing state (down to the hanging chads) in Presidential elections, but the Republicans have 63% of the House and 57% of the Senate. Remember how the logic of gerrymandering works, though - you make the politicians in the minority party complacent by cramming all their voters into a smaller number of districts so that, in the deal, they get a permanent job. And please don't take my example here as a particular slam against the Republicans - the Democratic party is in a similar position in California.

What does this mean in reality? It means that a lot of things happen that are in the interests of the major political parties and their clients and that voters are not really offered real choices. This is why you see very low approval ratings for government coupled with very high re-election rates. It isn't that "people love their local politician but hate all the others or the body as a whole". It's that people aren't really offered serious choices.

So then, what does this mean? It means the public hearings are often quite rightly regarded as a bit of a farce.

When I see video like this "old white guy protestor interrupts a Senate hearing and gets carried out and makes a ruckus in the process" and I'm like, well, ok, that's not great, but it's not even the worst video I've seen this week- and it's only Tuesday. And I'm not about to advocate that anyone should be able to come to any public meeting and create a disruption - we actually do need orderly public meetings. So this isn't the most important of the problems facing society.

So, in a day? I don't know how to heal the world in a day. But I think it will largely be about turning the anger we see at injustice in the world and turning it not towards simplistic solutions for the symptoms, but towards long-term approaches to reaching real change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on the behavior of the guards? 75.166.115.129 (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree with much of what you wrote above, but you are factually wrong about California being a Democratic example of gerrymandering. In 2008, the voters of California passed a measure establishing the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which includes equal numbers of members of both major parties and independent experts. This commission is forbidden by law from considering partisan factors or the interests of incumbents when drawing district lines. Since the 2010 census, California electoral districts have not been gerrymandered, and the only reason that Democrats hold most major elected offices in California is because the voters here have consistently voted for Democrats in many recent election cycles. Our article correctly states that "California now has some of the most competitive districts in the nation, creating opportunities for new elected officials." Please make a correction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Well, Democrats opposed the creation of this Commission, so one might assume they did so because the previous system favored them. Regards So Why 13:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Democrats were split and many Democrats supported it. The point is that it worked and no serious observer now claims that districts in California are gerrymandered in 2018. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

[28] is a reference (#41) in Gerrymandering in the United States. Regards So Why 14:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% and would only add that the successful long-term approaches require plans based upon critical thinking, lets call it C.T., not only by the politicians but also by the implementation people and, in democracies, by the voters. I saw a Morgan Stanley ad recently which referenced specifically "critical thinking" in the context of "how much is it worth?", inferring that its priceless. So there are segments of western populations which emphasise critical thinking, but where I grew up, in the South of the USA, it was not emphasized in public education, not even at the state university I attended, and I only became aware of the concept about 15 years ago when a Canadian public high school teacher told me that critical thinking is and has been a specific curriculum teaching objective in Ontario high schools. I have also become aware that C.T. is emphasized in many private and certainly Ivy League American schools, which means to me ( I apologise for drawing a conclusion which is always dangerous ) that there may be a plutocracy of sorts in the USA when it comes to education... or at least there used to be, imo..... and that maybe addressing that would help, or even be necessary, in order to get the long-term approaches identified, publicly supported and up and running. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In Texas public schools (southern U.S.), some methods of "critical thinking" have been taught for decades, but there also have been school procedures for controlling gang battles and reducing gang-signs on campus. As U.S. church attendance has decreased, schools are facing numerous self-righteous team members fighting to grandstand at school events, beyond any concerns about education. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Offsetting penalties

My use of critical thinking tells me that the discussion should be about civil disobedience rather than gerrymandering or critical thinking. A guy who obviously strongly believes in something states his views in a disorderly way (against the rules if not the law) and makes a scene. Is this a proper application of the theory of civil disobedience? I'll say "no". According to Martin Luther King , Jr.

"Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."^[1]

In short it's quite proper to occasionally break the law as long as you stoically accept the consequences. By yelling and screaming, the guy was saying that he didn't accept the law. If he had accepted the law, the public would have been informed that he had a strong beliefs and that the government (or society) was punishing him for his beliefs - and the public might see the point of his beliefs. But by objecting vociferously to his arrest, he was effectively saying "I want to impose my beliefs on society."

Let's contrast that to NFL players silently taking one knee to protest in favor of "Black Lives Matter". The NFL owners have just come out with a new rule saying that if anybody takes a knee during the national anthem ("... the land of the free, and the home of the brave"), their team will get a 15 yards penalty [29]. (Perhaps they've figured out what to do if both teams have somebody kneeling, but I'm skeptical). A 15 yard penalty for silently saying that black men shouldn't be killed by police? I think I know who's going to win that one. Smallbones–_(smalltalk) 17:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

PS - it looks like the 15 yard penalty has been left out of the final announcement.[30] Arbcom might take note - offsetting penalties don't always work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Brooks, Ned. "Meet The Press: Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Selma March". NBC Learn. NBCUniversal Media. Retrieved 22 November 2017.

@Smallbones: is there an action someone like Jimbo or the Foundation or you or I can take to reduce the amount of military-industrial lobbying increasing the likelihood of hostilities, torture, blowback, and the nonchalant way police approach their own brutality? 75.166.115.129 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well ... it's a good question. All I can say ultimately is you should be be creative, think for yourself, and don't rely on ol' Smallbones to solve all the problems in your life!

But that might seem like a cop-out, so I'll give it a shot.

Edit the articles Black lives matter and U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present) and keep them well written and up-to-date
- Just the facts, sir - no editorializing please
- BLM looks fairly well kept up now, but "anthem protests" needs some work now
Something the community and/or WMF might look at - right now we can't post anonymous videos such as those shown on facebook that have started a lot of social movements, e.g. BLM. the Arab Spring or war zone videos. Our reason is that the author should have copyright protection, but surely it's clear that the author is looking to document a social ill, not profit by his (almost worthless) copyright. These videos are something that the internet does really well, but we just can't use them. There must be a way that we can get there - anybody in favor of a commonsense exception?
Please read this article by Mike Royko originally written in 1972. Just reading it should accomplish something.
(Perhaps too creative)Next time you go to an American football game as a fan, take a knee during the anthem. Have a friend take video. You'd probably get killed at an NFL game, so maybe try a high school or college game.

Wait a few days, I should be able to come up with something better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is this happening to my country?

"Of all the disgraceful things the Trump regime has done, nothing is as cruel as taking children away from parents who have -- obeying U.S. law -- come to border crossings to ask for asylum? Now we learn from Frontline that some of the kids are ending up with human traffickers." https://mobile.twitter.com/dangillmor/status/1000176966488780801 184.96.252.17 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.sazlegalaid.org ? Where to help? 75.166.115.129 (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your country's government has been corrupted and swayed by hysteria: The Founding Fathers of the U.S. decreed how a U.S. Presidential election would elect the winner as President and the runner-up as Vice President, where Hillary Clinton was to have been President of the Senate with power to steer and decide tie votes, etc. If the President were later judged unfit for office, then the impeachment, trial, and removal of the President, would lead to Hillary Clinton as President in a few years, followed by likely re-election as the popular encumbent. However the U.S. Constitution was changed, allowing a plurality winner to be completely shut out of the Executive branch, with a President who selected his own Vice President. The Founders Fathers never intended the nation to suffer seeing their popular choice for President to be tossed aside like yesterday's trash, ending a political career of decades. Instead, it was intended as President+Vice to continue until the right person became President, and never the dangerous winner-take-all power as U.S. President has become. Also, selections can be swayed by hysteria because news outlets are continually fooled into posting or repeating news propaganda shouted or tweeted by a media blowhard who knows news broadcasters are often fooled into repeating fake views, as sensationalism, while thoughtful opponents are not given airtime, because their calm statements are not considered "news-worthy" as often. What we find, as encyclopedic writers, is that such concepts need extremely wise people to design and explain the issues for the general public to take action. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
A large majority of US voters are proud defendants of the minority's rights. Proof: when they are in minority, dems are vocal advocates for minority's rights, while when they are in minority, reps are vocal advocates of minority's rights. You only have to add a pinch of AGF salt to obtain the conclusion. Pldx1 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

[31]. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

3,000% increase since 2001 is lots more revealing, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

figure 22, page 43 Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at how the DHS Secretary initially tries to claim that she isn't responsible for the new policy to separate the children of asylum seekers from their families. 75.166.115.129 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting to me. The exchange you link to shows a U.S. Senator framing the detention of members of a particular group of people as "separating the parents (those detained) from their children"...then the DHS Secy. tries to point out that the protocol is the same everytime anyone is detained by police for anything, like drunk driving for example; that it is not some sort of special "separation of parent from child" taking place targeting a specific class of people. Then the Senator seems to acknowledge that she knows but wants to ignore that fact and instead doubles down on her insistence of framing this protocol as being something new and special and as being an immoral "separating parents from children". Imo, if what the DHS Secy is true, then the Senator appears to be pushing a misrepresentation into the minds of anyone exposed to her framing of the issue. This misrepresentation via "framing" approach is absolutely a threat to any democracy to whatever degree members of the public may not recognise they are being tricked into believing a false or intentionally out of context narrative. What would be useful would be for whatever news network is carrying these issues to explain exactly what, if any, similarities and differences there are between how the children are dealt with re: this type of event and how they are dealt with in other situations where parents are detained. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is clear you lack the ethical fortitude to hold the Founders' seat on the board

Hi Jimbo,

I was disappointed to see your abject lack of human reaction to the question at http://jimmywales.com

I have lost all of my previous confidence in your ability to chair or participate in the Wikimedia Foundation. You appear to be unconcerned about very serious transgressions against free culture principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=842462111&oldid=842462003

I look forward to the time when you have a chance at a reasonable opinion. EllenCT (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This troll was clearly compiled with inferior tools. My guess is that you used Visual Troll++, or possibly TurboTroll 2000.

These first generation tools are quite limited, and there is a severe garbage-collection-related performance hit when you try optimizing the output of VT++ for flaming or insults.

I suggest that you try the latest version of GTC; the Gnu Troller Collection. It is the standard when it comes to creating Trolls. It is also Open Source, re-entrant, and is fully compliant with the Triple Troll, Troll-On-Troll and TrollChow protocols. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At least she isn't ranting about economics . . . yet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, http://jimmywales.com is moribund at best. I don't use the blog there, haven't posted in forever. If anyone posts a question there, I don't even see it, nor do I even know where to look for it on there. As to the linked discussion on my talk page, I very much stand by it, and suggest that a very strong assessment of my "ethical fortitude" is the only reasonable reading of what I wrote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose term limits for Wikipedia admins

Jimbo Wales: To the contrary of how disgruntled Wikipedia admins feel, I feel that your move of the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex title was highly insightful, knowledgeable, timely, decisive, basic common sense and the right move to make at the right time. I resent the public flaming, shaming, lynching and backlash against you from admins who don't have neither your knowledge, nor your insight, nor your intellect, and who can´t see beyond the tip of their nose.

Rules are made to serve Wikipedia not the other way around. Hundreds of low IQ, uninformed or not-sufficiently-informed arguments don't amount to doing what is right at the right moment.

I feel that Wikipedia has become a megalomaniacs cesspool of bureaucracy run by a very small percentage of arrogant, self-serving, basement-dwelling, liberal and dictatorial long term admins, and their protected darling editors, that have tarnished Wikipedia's image and severely weakened its status.

I believe that a healthy solution for Wikipedia would be to automatically rid Wikipedia of long term admins after 8 years without the possibility of ever becoming admins again. This way, the tyranny would be uprooted, and newer admins would feel free to rejuvenate, excel, inspire new improvements, and breathe new life into a declining Wikipedia, while giving Wikipedia a much higher level of respect and excellence, more donations (from millions of new individual donors) and a much higher credibility. Cheerio. Explorium (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As a low IQ contributor myself I take exception to the suggestion that editors like me have little to offer the project. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why eight years? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Because whichever admin blocked the sockmaster passed their RFA eight years ago? ‑ Iridescent 2 10:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. So all admins who had served more than eight years would suddenly be banished, yes? I wonder could someone tell us what percentage that would be and how we'd actually fill the gap for such "self-serving, basement-dwelling, liberal and dictatorial" duties as dealing with vandalism? Admins all get tyrannical after 8 years do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates in the cyber world, which means that we have a lot more methods available compared to real world systems. What matters is whether the best decision is taken, not who is taking the decisions. By influencing who gets to call the shots, you are only indirectly affecting the decision making process. Note that Presidential term limits meant that Bill Clinton ended up being replaced by Bush and that Obama ended up being replaced by Trump, while poll results suggests that Bill and Obama would have won their third terms by a landslide.

It's far better to have a system where we don't care much about the people in charge, but where we have a robust review system to make sure that the decisions that are taken are the best. Most of the use of tools by Admins need not be implemented immediately, so one can imagine a system where anything besides emergency actions is always pending upon review by 3 other Admins who'll decide by majority voting. The 3 other Admins will be anonymous to each other and cannot see the votes that have already been cast. All they see is a list of requests for tasks and they can then weigh in on some of these items listed. Emergency use of tools is immediately implemented, but all such actions will appear on a list sent to ArbCom for review. Count Iblis (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I take this chance to reiterate my perennial proposal: Give everyone the mop once they have 5000 edits and 5 years with a registered account and no blocks or sanctions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Eat a dick. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Maunus Not everyone deserves the mop and bucket even after 5 years and 5000 edits. Not everyone wants it either.

Explorium I was part of one of the discussions and I voted for the current title. It was moved before consensus was reached which is not supposed to happen and that therefore caused someone to propose moving it back to the previous title so it created more work. Going from memory of what I saw in the discussions, it was the fact it was moved before consensus was reached that annoyed editors. If any of us did that we'd be asked to account for our actions.--5 albert square (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not something that should be deserved, and if everyone has it it doesn't matter if you want it. You can just refrain from using it. We need more admins, not fewer. And it is not an honorary title, but a janitorial one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

·maunus, Might I humbly suggest that you change your perennial proposal to "Offer everyone the mop..."? I would be rather pissed off if someone made me an admin without asking my permission first. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You may. But your suggestion will be rejected. The point is that it is everyone's responsibility to keep our house clean.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, given the amount of editors that we have, I'd be surprised if this suggestion was possible.--5 albert square (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, WMF's legal team says that adminship has to be granted only after a RFA-style process for legal reasons. Regards So Why 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's widely considered "best practices" among volunteer organizations for directors to take a sabbatical from time to time, e.g. 4 years. [32] This is somewhat analogous, and it's not such a bad idea that it should be dismissed out of hand. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the original post. I have often wondered why administrators are given a lifetime position as admins. People and life circumstances, as well as cognitive abilities, mental health, scruples, values, and attitudes evolve - and in some cases, deteriorate. An individual who was given the mop 15 years ago when Wikipedia was quite new is very likely not the same individual who was granted their RFA. Wikipedia isn't the same place 15 years later, either. Perhaps require a re-election every three or four years? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Reconfirm administrators. Regards So Why 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose There are issues with Admins, this is not going to revolve the worst examples. In fact if anything the one I think is the biggest issue (cliques of eds who support reach other whenever they are before the beak) will not only not be undermined but made worse.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: My original post was meant for you alone. But it's all cool. In conclusion, I feel that the "sex of angels" discussion at AN, and at MRV strongly reinforces my original point. It's past time to swiftly and decisively Drain the liberal, bureaucratic and melodramatic admin Swamp, and replace it with a fresh, rejuvinated, unbiased, and higher level of intellectual competence, a "think out of the Rules box" perspective, "understand the Founder's overall vision for Wikipedia in a dynamic and ever changing cyberspace" and basic common sense (for instance, a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the royal family for starters). I will take a moment to agree with your saying "It was fun to do"... The "cushy and comfy" long term admins are having a thermonuclear snowflake meltdown, and now they seem to want to impeach you simply for making them cry. Well, this sure has helped the scum to come to the surface, and it sure was fun. #DrainTheSwamp. Cheers, mate. Explorium (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

While the Admin corps are human, and will err, the criteria for being an admin is not the same as a politician. We don't reelect admins. We elect ArbCom, because ArbCom are essentially the only office of state on Wikipedia - a court, essentially, although that's a huge simplification. Admins are the civil service. The role of an administrator is to be experienced and well versed in Wikipedia policy. Popularity and intelligence doesn't come into it. Certainly, they shouldn't use their powers to bias an issue. In my experience, they don't. In a discussion, an administrator has the weight of a normal editor. Yet they tend to be the most insightful, experienced and communicative editors around. Any proposal to "drain the swamp" would result in catastrophe in current climes - we need more admins, not fewer. FYI, many of those complaining about the action were non-admins. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" person. By default, all humans have a bias, as do all fora made by same. There is no such thing as an "admin swamp" - if anything, it's more like a rapidly-drying admin puddle because we have had a dearth of admins for years now. The "intellectual competence" you imagine is apparently one that agrees with you. We already have admins and regular users willing to invoke out "outside-the-box" measures in the correct way, and they get stick for it from partisans like you. And the long-term admins are not "cushy and comfy" - most of them have been censured by ArbCom at least once. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, should this proposal pass in a proper venue, I would like to volunteer to be one of the new class of admins, doing what I know is right without undue concern for rules. Who decides what is undue concern for rules? Why, I do, of course.
Q: Is every discussion worth the server space required to store it? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. I meant this for Jimbo Wales, the Founder's eyes only. But I will set this straight due to its importance for Wikipedia's future. Sugar coating and covering-up for the Wikipedia admins swamp, and denying long standing observable facts that have given Wikipedia an extremely bad rap, is laughable, and it doesn't make it magically disappear.

The one and only thing that has kept Wikipedia afloat for so long is Google´s favoritism (which is a good thing, albeit being flagrantly biased). Let's be transparent, honest and not beat around the bush, Wikipedia has a severe chronic infestation problem, and it's high time to #DrainTheSwamp swiftly, decisively, and once for all, as I stated before. No admin should be allowed to serve more than 8 years. Term limits are not the all-around perfect solution, nothing ever is, but they sure beat bureaucracy, stagnation, mold, arrogance, freaking out (rings a bell?) and megalomania of the 'very comfortable and secure' gang of old admins anytime, and they breathe new life and infuse a breath of fresh Spring air into a moldy Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should never have to beg for donations. The Founder, IMHO, was a genius to create it. Wikipedia is still the greatest online encyclopedia ever, not because of the cesspool of old admins, but in spite of them.

Get rid of the old (8+ years), moldy, liberal, extremely biased, untouchable, passive-aggressive, instigating, sneaky, underhanded, manipulative, antagonistic, grumpy and offensive admins and their darling editors today, and millions of people will slowly start to return, gain new confidence, and be inspired to donate regularly (I mean those of us who have real jobs and money to donate, and don't need to live in mommy's moldy basement) as they would start to feel like being a welcome part of the encyclopedia, not just the other disposable insignificant guy who doesn't fit the 'mold' of a 'Wikipedian that fits their mold'.

Copying and pasting a welcome to Wikipedia template is good, but it's quickly undermined upon ganging up and chewing the head of the other guy by a gang of unsung internet warriors and vicious hyenas. That leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth of millions of people who never forgive, forget or donate... or even return after being driven away. It is an established fact that the cesspool of old admins has driven away many good people 'who don't fit their mold' and would never return.

Draining the admin Swamp most certainly won't cause a catastrophe. That's just a melodramatic fear tactic and a fabricated crisis. We can easily see through that... It is long overdue. And yes, admins shamelessly, and underhandedly, control what goes into the encyclopedia. The cesspool of admins and their protected editors is infamous of mercilessly ganging up on the other guy and reversing his or her contribution.

Now, I am perplexed by the never ending, continued and relentless freaking out, melodramatic outrage, ankle biting, flaming, lynching, defaming and undermining the Founder, Over what? He obviously provided a very compelling and highly astute justification, that they obviously still don't get (low IQ). To date, they are still freaking out and mindlessly ankle biting him quoting what was obviously pure sarcasm (it's fun to do so), at least to folks like me with a sense of humor and a brain, ignoring the solid insightful, and basic common sense argument he certainly made.

On Notability alone, billions of people, including yours truly, had never even heard of a Meghan Markle (or what a Meghan Markle was) until she got involved with the Duke of Sussex, and even then she didn't strike many as notable, until her fairytale royal wedding, and becoming the Dutchess of Sussex, wife of the Duke of Sussex. Now, we all know her as the Dutchess of Sussex. Explorium (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to admit that I don't know her at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This talk page, as noted at the top, has a lot of eyes on it that aren't Jimbo, and it's normal for other editors to jump in and explain why they are in favour of/against any given topic someone may talk to Jimbo about, especially if they are using populist/Republican dog-whistles (by the by WP:ARBAP2 is still in force) and complaining about the controversial Wikipedia topic du jour. Jimbo may be the founder, but nowadays he has literally no power to overrule consensus across the entire project, in part because of (perceived) unilateral actions such as this one that were ill-thought-out and cost him a fair amount of goodwill. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo acted contrary to move policy. For many regular editors at that article that was extremely frustrating. But just because some admins have recognised that frustration, I don't see that makes them "scum" who are having a "thermonuclear snowflake meltdown" in an "undrained cesspool swamp". Reform of admin tenure may be a valid topic which merits widespread discussion, but I don't see the Meghan Markle debacle as the most useful starting point. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Never have we seen such a Skive of Hum and Villainy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship has the history of the various attempt to break the (in my view) stranglehold the lifetime adminship empowerment enables. I worked on WP:CDA which failed because (again, in my view) the admin vote killed it. That was over eight years ago, and here we are. Cheers. Jusdafax (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Explorium: If you could edit under your previous account, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What previous account? Unlike others, I only have one account, a real life and a real job. If you stop your baseless speculations deflecting from the topic, and take the time to read the important matter at hand of term limits for overbearing long-term admins and their chorus of darling cheerleaders, that will make Wikipedia a less of a venomous and instigating swamp, and more welcoming to all, you may become part of the solution. That would be greatly appreciated, mate. Cheerio. Explorium (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that it is just human nature for personalities to become entrenched in systems and for interpersonal relationships to develop? I understand that you are trying to tweak the system but what about some of the counterarguments that have been presented, such as the expertise that is developed through experience: "Admins., like bricklayers, or architects, get more experienced and usually better with time, since the job really does employ a number of particular skills like technical, communicative and analytical; not to mention consultative, mediative and creative, all of which usually improve with time, as well as the ability to draw on extreme objectivity..."[33] Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose an eight year term limit for Wikipedia editors, lowered to five for those who regularly comment on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
How about a points system? You start with 100 points and for each edit here, you lose one. When you have 0 points, you are blocked for a year. Regards So Why 16:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Says the person commenting on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
He's taking a hit for the team...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly! 98 points remaining... Damn! So Why 20:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Admins., like bricklayers, or architects, get more experienced and usually better with time, since the job really does employ a number of particular skills like technical, communicative and analytical; not to mention consultative, mediative and creative, all of which usually improve with time, as well as the ability to draw on extreme objectivity (which is 1 of the reasons I would not qualify). So it would be silly to get rid of your bricklayers or architects after 8 or 20 years. The whole janitorial analogy is just an example of the humility which often accompanies unpaid volunteer work and maybe a sort of geeky humour which I don't even understand, but still find kinda cool. They are definitely not selfish, close minded or over bearing people (like many or most politicians who it would be a good idea to put on term limits). Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales: My head is being chewed (so much for the boiler plate Welcome), and I´m being threatened with a block on my talk page by an instigating and patronizing long term admin swamp creature who is proving my points. To him, I am so insignificant and disposable that he can just block me. So be it. He will Wikipedia honor kill me under his Blasphemy rules, but the cause, shared by the silent majority, will survive. I predict that he and the long term admin swamp (with more than 8 years of janitorial service believing they're kings and queens of the jungle) will be thrown out of Wikipedia with no possibility of return. Cheerio.Explorium (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the message on your talk page Explorium. NeilN has threatened you with a block because you have been attacking other editors. Attacking other editors is not acceptable and if you do attack editors then yes you can expect to be blocked. Your comment above to me has come across as trying to stir the pot and cause trouble.--5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Support for sabbatical, not for this proposalLet me start by saying I trust it's a coincidence I'm coming up on my eighth anniversary as an admin (does that mean I have a COI?). @Explorium: If you mean something to be for one individual's eyes only, use email not a public forum. I agree with @SPECIFICO: That an occasional sabbatical is a good idea. I note that the OP idea is to remove the mop after eight years and never get it back again. That's a nonstarter, but there may be value in an enforced timeout for a limited period of time.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The OP provides zero evidence that administrators with more than eight years of service are less fit than those with less than eight years of service. Instead, we are subjected to a stream of bitter invective blended with right wing tropes. I have been an administrator for a bit less than a year, so this proposal would give me seven years to wreak havoc if I was so inclined. Instead, I will focus on improving and protecting the encyclopedia, as opposed to the OP, who trolls for lulz. Most administrators here do very good work, and this proposal would damage the encyclopedia rather than helping it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales: Let me set the record straight. Saying that the long term admin swamp is a disgrace and liability to Wikipedia isn't attacking the swamp... It's describing it, and their darling cheerleaders are quick to gang up and lynch me... Explorium (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I am by no means a "darling cheerleader" for the admin corps. I would love the admin corps a lot more if they weren't automatically CRASH cops. I do know that it is a thankless job that sees you relentlessly attacked whenever you take an action that not everyone agrees with, especially so if you work in arbitration enforcement (and, again, WP:ARBAP2 remains in effect). How do I know this? From experience and from observing the bullshit that good admins like User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:NeilN get from hyperpartisan editors who don't give a fuck about neutrality, sourcing, or being civil. A description which rather aptly fits yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Now feeling torn between welcoming back old admins and letting Jimbo do it all himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And looking at your talk page, NeilN didn't say it was anything on this talk page. He referred to article talk pages. I suspect it was something like this edit that he was referring to.--5 albert square (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you're such a good helper, even when uninvited, and an Awesome Wikipedian. You strive to prove all my points and buttress my accurate description of the admin Swamp. Cheers.Explorium (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Rich words from someone who's throwing out dog-whistles and generally behaving like an ass. If you had a point, your refusal to tone down the rhetoric has long since destroyed it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Intriguing. Despite obviously trolling, the fact that Explorium is calling out long-term admins is suggesting that they're all now INVOLVED and can't block him. It's certainly an interesting approach. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

If Explorium really feels that removing the admin corps is preferable to having a skeleton crew, then by all means I suggest to him that he stops posting here, asks for the mop, and begins working immediately at WP:Arbitration/Enforcement, Category:Requests for unblock, and WP:AN3. And that the moment he blows his top at someone he disagrees with, he blocks himself and resigns the mop. But I wager he won't, because he only cares about pissing people off, not actually being part of any real solution. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Create copies of Wikipedia operating under slightly different rules and policies

Many rules we have here are not ideal but are de-facto set in stone, because they have a strong core level of support making it impossible to get to a consensus on how to improve things. It took a huge effort to get rid of "not truth" in WP:V and the RFC on de-adminship failed to get sufficient support. Note that in such cases there is a strong consensus that the status quo is not ideal. One can deal with this problem by making copies of Wikipedia that operate under slightly different rules and a different set of Admins and Arbitrators who uphold the different rules on the different Wikipedias. The "official version" of Wikipedia is then compiled from the copies, for each article editors choose the best from the different copies for inclusion in the official version. The official version is the only version that's live on the Internet, the other versions are only visible after logging in. The live version can be directly edited without logging in, such edits then affect the version from the Wikipedia it is taken. To edit the other versions and voting on which article version becomes the official version requires logging in.

The creation of a copy is subject to rules, e.g. one can implement the rule that there are 8 Wikipedias in total, that the 4 Wikipedias that produce the least articles in the official version die every year, while the other 4 make copies of themselves. After copying, one version keeps its old rules while the other version can change the rules based on simple majority voting instead of the usual consensus requirement for change. The time period for majority voting is limited, say, one month. Count Iblis (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

They already exist, just not run by the Wikipedia foundation. I see no reason why we should water down our polices by the back door because some think Wikipedia is biased because it has rules that prevent them form having their facts here. Also the idea of "flexible rules" worries me, we have enough battlegrounding over POV as it is (and plenty of invoking of IAR when convincing) to make this utterly unworkable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also if there is a dirty commie rat bias here on Wikipedia who is going to win most of those votes? Thus "Barack Obama, the most wonderful man who ever lives" sources to "Barry my life as the most wonderful man who has ever lived" is sourced to an RS whilst "Donald Trump is not a child eating monster" is rejected even though the BBC, WP, NTY, CNN all have said it is false because they are not RS for this. Maybe this is an extreme example (I am not that sure) but this is what will happen, assuming this stinking lefty bias.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The royal powers, stops here.

Queen Elizabeth II, may well have bestowed the title of Duke of Sussex upon her grandson Harry/Henry, thus making his wife Duchess of Sussex. But she has no such powers on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say that it has been quite some time since I've seen nearly so much climbing of the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that in gentler days. I wish we could get back to that kind of sense of perspective. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't, however, have the power to unmake her the Duchess of Sussex. Bizarre an episode as I have seen on the site. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, nothing done with our article title makes or unmakes her, anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but then she does not have the power to demand we call her Queen Elizabeth II, so why do we (in fact why do we call anyone by a name or title, they have no legal authority, why not call Barak Obama "jug ears" Or Barry, after all his name is not legally binding).Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Private Eye calls her Brenda (after one of the better known lookalikes), but our article is actually Elizabeth II, in keeping with the classical mononymic style of monarchs. Perhaps it should have of England appended, per Elizabeth I of England or Beatrix of the Netherlands. Some of us are not exactly enthralled by the prospect of monarchy, but in the current political climate it does look more attractive than it used to. Imagine President BoJo. But nobody would elect a wild-haired narcissistic philandering clown to high office, so this may be a weak argument. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Would be a popular move with Leanne Wood, amongst many others. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But we still (in essence) user he title. I wonder if Harry ever become king will we have this debate about his wife being called Queen Megan? Indeed her husband is called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, it seems very very odd that some many people are opposed to her be given the same honourific.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The title Duke of Sussex, has also been forbidden from Harry's article name. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, surely of the UK not England, since 1603. Slatersteven, the debate will be about Queen Camilla. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

neither IS Canada. You mean Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, nope not seeing any debate about her royal status.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt Camilla will ever be queen, Charles is divisive enough - the firm will be hoping to get Wills and Kate on the throne ASAP to keep the republicans from the gates. RichardWeiss, I find the term "United Kingdom" hard to use these days, since (a) there's no king and (b) there's no unity :-) Guy (Help!) 09:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be more careful - my son is doing an apprenticeship in the family firm. They are his bosses. Guy (Help!) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: You mean since 1800, right? England and Scotland were separate kingdoms with a common monarch until the Acts of Union 1707/1708, then the Kingdom of Great Britain until the 1800 Acts of Union establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, Prince Harry & Meghan Markle will be moved (successfully) to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as they should be. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Come the revolution mate, they'll be moved again, don't worry. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, in the meantime, perhaps some retail therapy for me, like these Meghan Markle sandals [34], lovely, and perhaps we'll even forget who that is while wearing them, although they do not seem useful for climbing. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

...The Reichstag dressed up... ;) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the substantive issue, it is long-settled policy (though somewhat imperfectly practised) that for royals and peers, the articles tend to be at a more formal name than COMMONNAME would seem to suggest. There are good reasons for this, and COMMONNAME is not a first principle of Wikipedia, never has been. It's one of the things that we consider in article naming conventions and in most cases, it's the only thing we consider because it's the only thing meaningfully worth considering.

One of the worst misconceptions of COMMONNAME, though, is that we have to wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts, rather than accepting that someone's name has changed. I remember a bit of a silly dustup around Chelsea Manning's name that was related to this.

Just to give one example where we've got it right, despite a "Google count" approach suggesting another answer, is Diana, Princess of Wales. Go to Google and see how many news sources call her "Princess Diana". And not just American ones, who could be forgiven for getting it wrong. We don't bow down to tabloids who can't get a basic name and title combination right, even while we do look at COMMONNAME as a factor.

Let me pick a random peer (and a big sad face to anyone who makes any drama at her page!). I chose her by looking down an alphabetical list of peers at the House of Lords website and finding one I hadn't personally ever heard of: Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns. COMMONANME would suggest, I think, after only a brief investigation of news sources, that we should call her "Baroness Joyce Anelay" - but this would be inconsistent with how we name other peers, and so we don't. We use the slightly more formal format which is also technically more correct, since the "of St Johns" in her case forms an integral part of her actual legal name and serves, by design, as a disambiguator in case there is ever a different title Anelay.

Anyway, I can bore on for hours, but the point is: a lot of thought has been put into the matter by people who have considered many angles, and policy has been settled for a long time that COMMONNAME is not a writ from heaven.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hours? Yoo hoo. But, it appears you mis-remember Chelsea Manning: the admin who jumped out ahead in the move was disciplined and the rule adopted was to wait for the change in RS. (And I supported Chelsea in both discussions with RS for "Chelsea Manning", so bring the RS). This peerage thing (in article title) is apparently really important to you (so important you can't let people even discuss it through, first), but can't you understand why it's not that important (enough to cut-off discussion first) to many, many, many other editors and readers? And perhaps you can find your way to acknowledge the fact that no, Wikipedia does not title all such articles that way? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you are saying here. Wikipedia does title articles in the way that I described. (Check the listings for the members of the House of Lords - almost all of them are titled according to their actual title, and I think that's a good thing.) When you say it's apparently really important to me, I think you're mistaken. It isn't. And I certainly don't think cutting off discussion of it is a good idea, and I'm not sure why you came the conclusion that I would think that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Because that is what you did, a discussion was opened by editors on the talk page of the article, move protection was requested and granted, so the discussion could go through to the end before the move, but you using admin powers edited to your preferred content through admin protection (you even said that is what you were doing, although you rather dismissively and disrespectfully called discussion 'hand wringing', so it's plain that you were openly disrespecting those who requested having the discussion first, and any discussion at all). As for your inability to acknowledge that there are royal wives article titles, who don't follow that form, that's just unfortunate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood a fair bit of this. I didn't call the discussion prior to the move "hand wringing", but all the drama afterwards absolutely has been hand wringing of a top notch quality. I was so excited to try to have a bit of fun that I didn't actually notice the protection, and there was absolutely no disrespect at all involved in the move. As to other articles which are titled differently (either for a good reason in that particular case, or for bad reasons), I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's totally irrelevant. There is a strong consensus that this particular article should be where I moved it to, and I believe an emerging consensus that people should relax and have fun and not be pedantic about what, after all, is a very very minor question in the grand scheme of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted to show respect to other editors, you would have made yourself aware of what they discussed and decided on move protection, and you would also have made yourself aware that moving articles regularly creates issues for editors, requiring a discussion seen through to the end before the move. You would also have moved back, as soon as you were made aware that other editors had already discussed and decided they wanted the discussion first, especially since it's a 'minor question'. (As for the rest, at least you now acknowledge there are other models and your otherstuff, only goes so far.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, that would be a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion that was ongoing at the time of your move and I'm sure it would have been welcomed. But surely you could see that one editor swooping in and moving the article unilaterally (much less an admin editing through protection; much less you, the founder, who simultaneously enjoys no special status and every special status) was only going to cause unnecessary drama? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have a lot less drama about such things. People should be bold and do the right thing, and people should not tie themselves in knots over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So would you have any objection to another admin being bold and doing the right thing in their opinion, which would be to revert your move? What about if another admin just did the right thing and reverted the reversion? And then another reverted the reversion of the reversion? I think you might find the knots after all... SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, because being bold is less than nothing, without quick reversion and then discussion -- that is why 'bold' is found in WP:BRD. The problem here was that there was move protection, and failure to self-revert - B without RD, which is not how it works. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The 'Harry' & 'Meghan' articles are two cases of WP:COMMONNAME going 'too far'. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally, Jimbo is incorrect in saying editors will 'wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts'. From the move discussions I've read over the years, editors are well aware of the WP:NAMECHANGES policy which states, "...we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that people wait until the Google count of mentions shifts. Sorry if I was unclear. I was making the point that the argument does surface fairly regularly and it isn't consistent with policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Some editors do pay attention to the extra weight bit but I've seen many in discussions stubbornly point to the general Google count. (I would pull an example from a discussion I've been in this very week but it's in an open RM so better to wait for that to close.) I also think there's a slight problem with NAMECHANGES in that it seems to have been written with pre Wikipedia name changes in mind (in particularly a lot of the place name changes that came in the 1990s) rather than changes that occur when the subject already has an article. Many name changes go through fairly quickly without any fuss - here for example is the current Lord Snowdon (the Queen's nephew) being moved on the day he inherited the Earldon: [35] and in turn his son's article being moved to add the courtesy title [36]. Or for a higher profile case, here's Prince William being moved when he received the Dukedom: [37]. Timrollpickering 13:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an odd relationship with royal names. In 2008, Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster was moved to Big Ben which is, of course, the bell, not the tower - but was also deemed the common name of the tower itself. In 2012 the tower was officially (re)named Elizabeth Tower, but attempts to move the article about the tower to its new official name were thwarted because the article was now deemed to be about the bell and not the tower at all. Six years on and apparently we still don't have an article about one of London's most famous landmarks (as opposed to the bell inside it). Such is life on Wikipedia. Waggers TALK 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waggers: Big Ben is actually a nickname for the bell and for the tower. Officially, the bell is named the Great Bell. If we moved the tower to "Elizabeth Tower" then we'd also have to move the bell to "Great Bell". Luckily, both share a common name, Big Ben... Firebrace (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The person who pushed that change hardest has since been sitebanned for tendentious name warring. Make of that what you will. No, we would not have to have separate articles. We would (and indeed should) have an article at Elizabeth Tower, a section at Great Bell, and a section redirect. We can do that because redirects are cheap, and the advantage would be that we would be accurate, instead of reinforcing common misconceptions. And incidentally English people are mainly well aware of the difference, so most of the confusion comes from people who read about it in a tourist guide, not from serious scholarly sources. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses commonly recognisable names because it is for general public consumption and is not the preserve of academics. We do not emulate scholarly sources, whose audience is completely different. In February 91.6% were against a proposed move to Elizabeth Tower. Firebrace (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We have ample precedent for ignoring a supermajority of people when they are objectively wrong. Do read the article: the vast majority of it is about the tower and the clock. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Content about the bell was only added/expanded after the move from Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster to Big Ben; the article was originally only about the tower. Arguably both are sufficiently notable for separate articles to exist. "Luckily, both share a common name, Big Ben..." - I'm not sure what's so lucky about that, it means disambiguation is required - Big Ben (bell) and Big Ben (tower) if we're not going to use their official names. But Jimbo's talk page isn't the right place for that discussion.

Even though I !voted for Meghan Markle per WP:COMMONNAME, Jimbo makes an excellent point above: "COMMONNAME is not a first principle of Wikipedia, never has been...One of the worst misconceptions of COMMONNAME, though, is that we have to wait until the 'Google count' of mentions shifts, rather than accepting that someone's name has changed." Every single !vote opposing the move from Big Ben to Elizabeth Tower in February this year seems to have been based on that misconception.

More generally, we it seems clear we need to consider how much weight COMMONNAME carries in move discussions when there's a clear, unambiguous official name. Personally I sit on both sides of the fence: I think Big Ben should be at Elizabeth Tower but I think Rose Bowl, Hampshire should stay where it is and not move to Ageas Bowl (the difference being one is a permanent name change while the other is a temporary "naming rights" sponsored name). Waggers TALK 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The best name for the tower is "The Tower", according to The Dakota pattern. Using the Elizabeth Tower would create a temptation for an unknown Shakespeare to write a tragedy describing how the name of the tower could evolve into the Meghan Tower. Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Or even the Shakespeare Tower. But perhaps less chance of any confusion then? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No confusion possible ! The Tower© is guarded by ravens and Beef eaters, while Big Ben Tower is guarded by some Mouse eaters. Pldx1 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the two towers. 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps need guideline wp:TYPICAL to allow progress

Jimbo, thank you for taking time to explain peerage naming versus wp:COMMONNAME. Although I've been editing WP for 17 years, as IP address, I had never read about the peerage-naming issues. I'm thinking now we need a guideline (as "wp:TYPICAL") to encourage users to work on pages as per typical procedures, and not bolster any "prior restraint" attitudes, where a small consensus would attempt to delay actions in famous events where later consensus would be much broader once the actual events unfold. I think many people would agree how a consensus discussion held after a major event occurs is likely to be many times the size of a pre-event discussion, and hence "prior restraint" would almost certainly lead to a false, local consensus trying to pre-empt the actions decided by the later, larger broad consensus.

This royal wedding would be good evidence to compare the number of users involved in the pre-event versus post-event discussions, to highlight the danger of do-not-edit orders imposed by a local consensus before a major event occurs. Instead, users should work as wp:TYPICAL, naming pages as typical, and then later reach a broad consensus to act otherwise, not claim a local-consensus power to halt typical work until a larger discussion allows the community to return to typical work procedures. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to educate those with advanced permissions about about what they are doing (although they should have educated themselves) on what is expected of them, see WP:RM#CM the "typical procedure" is not to move a page around before a discussion on the matter concludes (see also no deadline). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Better to have one at WP:INEVITABLE, see also WP:MOLEHILL. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Better WP:ACTUAL/EDITING/OF/ARTICLES/IS/FUN/SO/DO/THAT/INSTEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

Hello Mr. Jimmy Wales. I just wanted to say thank you for creating Wikipedia. It is one of the greatest ideas of all time. And thanks to all the administrators, editors, and contributors who keep it all going. Have a nice day. LearnMore (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Battle for freedom of speech re Roseanne

I am closing this. Talk pages are not a FORUM or SOAPBOX for antagonistic debates about the nature of racism. To the extent that Wikid77 may have wanted to discuss policy changes, the conversation quickly diverged from that and shows no support for specific policy changes. Dragons flight (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2018 (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.

In the U.S. there is a bizarre battle for freedom of speech over internet humor. The Caucasian actress Roseanne Barr tweeted a joke about The Planet of the Apes and evidently some people think the word "ape" is a code word for "negro" in reverse racism, and so she was labelled "racist" for her tweet, and her #1 scripted comedy show, Roseanne, starring mostly white people was cancelled by U.S. ABC Television, plus reruns of the orignal 1990s show also were cancelled in syndication. Many U.S. citizens did not know "ape" was a reverse code word for "negro" as if talking about "Whitey Bulger" would trigger reverse slur "whitey" as a demeaning insult to Caucasian people. Apparentky, talk about the recent film Battle for the Planet of the Apes would make some people cringe while others would be completely unaware of the reverse racism to claim people who talk about apes (or monkeys) are "racist bigots". I think this incident is huge, because it explains the need to protect freedom of speech, where one person's primate is another person's pejorative. Hence, WP policies should probably be expanded to protect freedom of speech, after this extremely public example of a teachable moment in human civil rights. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: In the 1968 Planet film, the main ape characters were played by white actors and actresses. Without revealing plot details, the apes had both dark-skinned and light-skinned members. Upon 1968 release, it was a puzzle to reveal who were those famous ape actors, and in the 1960s became common knowledge. AFAICT, the only obvious black actors were among the human crowds, and there was no racism about skin color, but the tension was human race versus ape beings, and the film seemed to blow people's minds (in 1968) how human racism was completely irrelevant as the ape groups treated all humans as a set. To claim the film as racism would be like saying, "Isaac Newton hated mathematics" (not) or, "Queen Elizabeth is the top Catholic leader" (equally absurd as Planet of the Apes called racist); the film was unracist; instead it erased human racism against larger concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this defense of the joke makes no sense to me. It is a very well known racist slur to refer to dark skinned people as looking like or being like apes or monkeys, and there is very very little question that this is what Roseanne meant by it. Her comment/joke doesn't make sense if we try to interpret it as referring in some way to the anti-racist messages of the original Planet of the Apes film(s). Roseanne's apology specifically said "I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks." The politics part was referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the looks part was referring to the Planet of the Apes. Yes, Roseanne Barr does have the freedom of expression to say such a thing - and other people have every right to shun her, cancel her tv show, and call her out on her racism in return.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ape meme is an equal-opportunity caricature in U.S. politics, including white W. Bush (2001) and D. Trump (2017); see Google: Commander-in-Chimp Bush or "Trumpanzee: Commander-in-Chimp". I am horrified that some people identify black people as apes, but ignore Trumpanzee as if totally unrelated; there is a hideous stereotype being imagined, and that is deeply disturbing. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for speaking. It doesn't mean private companies (like American Broadcasting Company) and individuals can't decide that your speech is so racist and rancid that they no longer want to have anything to do with you. People think Roseanne is an asshole and they showed her the door. That's not a free speech issue, unless you think there's a constitutional right to have a television show. (Hint: There is not.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to freedom of speech as a civil right, as in Athens, Greece, upheld within a civil organization, as how some people think saying "planet..apes" is racist and must be suppressed, while others don't. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Freedom of speech (which pertains to government control over your speech) does not mean freedom from consequences. You are aware of this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of speech has meant much more than that in Greece, where it has been illegal to remove political posters, even illegal to trash posters dropped on the sidewalks at election time. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. Re: "WP policies should probably be expanded to protect freedom of speech" what would Wikid77 have us do? Use our vast dictatorial powers to force a TV network to carry a show that they no longer wish to carry? If we have that power, we should resurrect Firefly first. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You've missed the point: use of the term "Planet of the Apes" was considered racist, against common use, and against the actual theme of the film, and condemned as unspeakable, which is a dangerous attitude to allow in a group. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather, you have missed the point, people are free to condemn it all they want, that's freedom -- you think freedom is dangerous, but that's just the standard autocrats appeal to control others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Cobblers. Wikipedia is not a debating forum it is an encyclopedia. And just as many encyclopedias do not allow you to have articles with titles like "why Trump is a wanker" or "why white people are all racist" we do not allow tings like that (try it). As a private institution it is not governed by the first, second or umpteenth amendment, it is governed by "my house my rules". As such you have as much right to edit here as anyone else, and that is mall you have a right to do. As to the rest, this is not a forum take it somewhere else.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And you have as much right to say "Mr Wales is a nerk" as I would to go round your house and shout "Wikid77 is a nerk", and that is the only free speech issue we have any control over, ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn the fact that I only have a phone for the next two weeks. As NBSB states, FoS relates to government action. One thing NBSB doesn't mention is that forcing ABC to reinstate the show would abridge their right to freedom of association which is also guaranteed by the first amendment. There is no guarantee of FoS on Wikipedia either, btw. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Another such case: "Florida police officer suspended after saying Parkland survivor should be run over". Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the only "teachable moment" possible here is that you don't protect freedom of speech by telling organizations what programs they have to carry, nor is freedom of speech involved in the situation, at all, nor is Wikipedia a free speech forum, and finally, fine you have an opinion about these tweets, well freedom means others will have different opinions about those tweets. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Anybody who genuinely thinks that freedom of speech should protect an entertainer from being fired by their employer for making racist statements in public, is not competent to comment on the matter. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This may be the dumbest thing I've read on this page since the last time I checked this page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, remember, many people do not know what Roseanne said is not racist, but rather was twisted by reverse racism to dogpile the "racist" claim against her. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Katie Rich didn't have her own tv-show, but there are similarities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I had forgotten how an unusual political joke can be used to eliminate the speaker. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Haha, many people don't know "ape" here was a slur for black people? Come on Wikid77--I know people like to make fun of Americans, but we're not THAT dumb. And reverse racism--OH SO THE ONES WHO SAID A RACIST COMMENT WAS RACIST ARE THE REAL RACISTS! Thanks for clearing that up. Ima call Becky and go polish my Iron Crosses. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Many white Americans are not really that racist, to worry if "Apes" is a vicious insult against black peiple; instead it is a code word in reverse racism to claim a person who says, "Apes" is a total racist bigot, rather than a person who mentioned primates. A similar code word is "boy" (versus "girl"), as a reference to any male servant as "boy" while talk of girls and boys is 99.99% the actual meaning in use. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am dumb, but I never realized that any mention of apes was insulting to black people. Sure, I can see how "black people are apes" would be just as insulting as "Italian people are apes" (they actually fight apes[38]), but just mentioning apes? Now that I know, I will be careful to avoid that word. Serious question: am I still allowed to discuss primates? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Your blacks and Italians comparison suggests you haven't been exposed to or come across the pseudoscientific theory that blacks are less evolved (hence, "apes") than other "races". You might want to have a look at Race, Evolution, and Behavior and Scientific racism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I have seen some stupid ideas in my time but that one is near the top of the list. It also flies in the face of science. See Ancient DNA Reveals Neandertals With Red Hair, Fair Complexions. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a remarkable example of how people who complain about infringements on freedom of speech are generally the ones who have the least understanding of what it actually means.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're just saying that cause you're a liberal/Canadian/administrator/racist/miner/human being/parent/etc. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I almost always vote conservative. But I am pragmatic, and able to read. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. This proposal would make Wikipedia fall to the level of 4Chan and all sane editors would retire. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The only part worth considering here is the resurrect Firefly bit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC))

Wikid77, not to get all smart and all that here--but OK, if you really wish to argue that she may not have meant "blacks are apes" because, you know, for "most" people that's not what it means (let's play along now), then why can you say with a straight face that this is "internet humor"? That's original research, no? Or was it tagged with a smiley face? Anyway, I can't wait for the UN Court of Human Civil Rights to hear the Roseanna case. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All I can repeat is that white Americans have really not been that racist (I've talked with hundreds of white Americans in private settings), and I can assure you they are not plotting the racial divide. In fact what seems the truth is that many whites and blacks grew up together, and whites were unaware how reverse racism was being planned by some black activists. In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more). Meanwhile, the reality continues, quietly, as police shoot more U.S. white men than other races (combined), and most Americans in poverty are whites "too proud" to accept handouts not earned by direct labor. In fact, I've met many white Americans who really could be called "apes" but general stereotypes should be avoided for all races, all people. Hopefully, by freedom of speech, the world will learn how American white people are just not that racist, in reality. Whites did not accidentally elect black President Obama twice, by mistake (as if oops, forgot to check skin color). -Wikid77 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy oh boy. You're complaining that you can't call black people the n-word. what.. I have no words. Every time I read this it becomes more racist (also, white Americans voted against Obama both elections) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually most of Obama's voters were white people (28% in 2012, as 39% of 72% white voters; see facts: [39]). Most white voters have voted Republican for 50 years, but if all whites voted by race, Obama would never have been President. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You should be banned per WP:COMPETENCE on the insanity of this statement alone. Gamaliel (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

People can and do lose their jobs/face backlash/are taken to the mattresses for things they say publically and social media is public in most cases. I find the comments made (and I will not utter them even in a highly modified form as all know now what was written) to be unspeakably ugly and racist and any entity that rightfully works to defend against such ignorance and hate should not continue any working relationship with anyone that publically states such nonsense. How is it even to be considered humor? Wikilawyering about how most of the cast members that wore ape suits and masks in the Planet of the Apes movies were white is absolutely besides the point. Anyone with more than 13 brain cells knows her comment was a racial slur and deserves condemnation.--MONGO 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

yep the whole thread from CHELSEA SOROS CLINTON onward was very typical alt right trolling, full of racist Dog-whistle politics/memes. This is how these crazy conspiracy theories get built - they are just meme-agglomerations. and btw the Obama (all of them) ape-images in the underbelly of the internet is one of the roots of the altright. (for a walk-through of the historical development of the ape meme, here Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Many years before any Obama-monkey jokes, there was the 2001 Bush "Commander-in-Chimp" meme and "Hail to the chimp" jokes; don't claim Obama-monkey is racist but Bush-chimp is totally different. That's what freedom of speech reveals: white politicians have been compared to monkeys or chimps (scientists in 1968 Planet of the Apes). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, your post here is racist statement after racist statement. I have the freedom to tell you that. You damn "white" people with faint praise ('not all that racist', huh?), but most incredibly you go on and on about the n-word, how it has nothing to do with skin, and then you do an about face and say when it could no longer be used, you had to think up another word for "black people". There is so much sophistry in what you write, that it seems you won't understand (unintentionally or intentionally) anything people here have said to you. So I will just leave this, 'shame on you.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand it's difficult to refute what I said, but resorting to ad hominem fallacy, claiming racism, is just a cop-out. When I explained how the N-word has multiple meanings (as a "hardworking servant"), you just ignored all alternative views and claimed, "racism" so it's probably just as well for you to exit until you can discuss issues, not disparage people. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not in the least difficult to refute what you said. But what you said is racism, that's not ad hominem, which just shows your sophistry -- that's just what you wrote in your talk about "white" people and "black" people - that is textual reading. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So is there an actual concrete proposal here?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is to better protect freedom of speech on WP, where someone above even indicated this discussion should lead to a topic-ban! -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNJUsE7pEs4 Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither Rosie's tweets nor the NFL owners decision to ban anthem protests/not hire Kaepernik are free speech issues. The backlash and firings are rightly at the discretion of the employer. NYNNY (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they are still free-speech issues, but those organizations chose to impose various restrictions, such as how players can protest issues around the U.S. national anthem, not kneeling. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about any mention of apes. Context matters. When a known racist is deliberately trying to demean a black person who worked in the Obama administration by throwing ape and Muslim at them, the message is clearly racist and anti-Muslim xenophobia, possibly tinged with anti-Obama sentiments, since both slurs were often used about him by Trump supporters like Barr. It's pretty simple. The OP "happened" to leave out any of that context, so this thread has been baiting right from the start and should be closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you really missed the whole point about other opinions; remember "Commander-in-Chimp" was the chimpanzee caricature used against President George W. Bush in 2001, along with "Hail to the chimp!" in January 2001. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2018 (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.

Idea

I've been an administrator, mediator and bureaucrat here for over a decade and I don't think I've ever written on Jimbo's talk page (maybe once or twice). Anyway, I've just gotten my first topic ban from Donald Trump. Sure, I deserved it, but there are about 10 more editors violating policies and having conflicts of interest routinely in order to whitewash the article of seemingly anti-Trump material. The admins presiding over the pages aren't doing anything about it. Since you recently stepped in to unilaterally move Meghan Markle, what about swinging by the American politics pages and doing a bunch of drive-by banning/blocking? Andrevan@ 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom could pass a motion on imposing general sanctions on pages related to Trump. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Err...they could also pass a motion preventing JW from doing anything "drive-by" :D —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to cause any dustup in the case of Meghan Markle - just to do the right thing as a bit of fun. I remember when it used to be ok to do the right thing at Wikipedia and have some fun with it. :-) Now, as to the Trump situation, I think I'll steer very far from it for now. Happy to have a long read at some point to see what I think, but.... I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for replying! I have contributed my time and money to Wikipedia for many years and intend to continue to do so, and I support breaking things like Markle from time to time. Maybe you yourself would be topic banned from Trump as I have :-) I also miss the days when WP:IAR could be used when appropriate to improve the encyclopedia despite some technical issues, ie the spirit and not the letter of policy. There's a difference between cowboy adminning and knowing when to break the rules for the spirit of Wiki, NPOV, verifiability, freedom, the wisdom of crowds, democracy, and so on. Anyway, as I said, the topic ban is totally justified, but I haven't seen enough of a boomerang for issues like this [40][41] not to single anyone out, but if there's anything that upsets me more about users trying to censor Trump's shameful past and his pending investigations, it's people attacking the consensus system that has brought us the amazing things that the community has done, and you and I helped with in whatever large or small way. So -- I do urge you to review some of what's gone on despite the strong emotional feelings there for all of our sakes, but I totally understand why you may not, and I thank you again for many productive and happy years here. Andrevan@ 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, since we can fast-forward Markle's Google trend into the future, can we extrapolate Trump RS post-impeachment? ;-) Andrevan@ 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For someone who has been topic banned from editing Trump related things you sure are still talking about him everywhere. Just saying. --Tarage (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The one-time "appeal to Jimbo" and the "appeal to blocking admin" are valid exceptions to a blanket topic ban, and valid surrealist techniques. I wasn't even asking the topic ban be lifted off myself. As Jimbo says, I was doing what I thought was the right thing and focusing on the basics, like a simple discussion about a policy instead of filling out an appeal form or filing a case with clerks etc. As I said, the topic ban can stand and is justified, I've unwatched the articles and related articles' talk pages. Andrevan@ 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Already covered by American politics. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, You are lucky that you didn't get desysopped after accusing several veteran editors of being paid Russian trolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That, and attempted outing of editors - not just in-Wikipedia but outside Wikipedia at an anti-Wikipedia site.[42], [43]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Diffs:[44][45], [46][47][48][49]

Thread:[50]

Quotes:

"Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. [redacted] is probably one of them, and I would not assume that just because there is a lengthy history going back years that the user cannot also be a paid editor. We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later." _{-- posted by Andrevan on 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

"I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. [...] I may have given up my impartiality to engage on the page over the last few days, but I submit I was doing so in the interest of ultimately making progress in the dispute. I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump" _{-- posted by Andrevan on 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

"...which supports the idea of [redacted] being a Russian agent..." _{--posted by Andrevan on 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}

The sanction Andrevan is complaining about ("You are topic banned for three months from editing any page related to Donald Trump, broadly construed. This includes all talk pages") was incredibly lenient. I think that as a minimum he should have been infinitely topic banned from all articles involving post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, with the option of appealing the topic ban after 6 months if and only if he showed an understanding of what he did wrong and a commitment to never again call anyone a Russian agent without solid proof -- and I don't consider disagreeing with him in a content dispute to be "proof". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And not all the eds on those pages were long term users. These were PA's yes, but lets not pretend he had the decency to make it clear who he was among those comnents at.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he may be on to something or on something or something.--MONGO 11:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears from the above comment that Slatersteven still does not understand what he did wrong. We aren't allowed to call anyone -- new user or long term user -- a Russian agent without at the same time providing solid evidence. Again, he should be topic banned or indeffed until he "gets it". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "These were PA's yes" displays a lack of understanding they were PA's?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What was the point of writing the words "And not all the eds on those pages were long term users" if not to imply that at least some of the short term users are Russian agents? I keep seeing ~~you~~ Andrevan saying "yes, it was a PA" but I haven't seen ~~you~~ Andrevan say "and I was wrong. I have zero evidence that 'Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents', I have zero evidence that 'we know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later', or I have zero evidence that 'at least some of these users [are] paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents'. I am not seeing ~~you~~ Andrevan stating "I have decided to not hold opinions that are not backed up by evidence". Instead, it sound a lot like ~~you are~~ Andrevan is agreeing not to name individual editors as being Russian agents while holding on to ~~your~~ his batshit insane conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is infiltrated by Russian agents and that somehow this has something to do with the GOP and the NRA. Andrevan, feel free to correct me if I am wrong and plainly state that you no longer believe those things.

~~You~~ Andrevan already freely admitted "I may have given up my impartiality" and "I won't hide my own POV about Mr. Trump." above, Jimbo says "I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much". That's good advice. I would also mention that I generally avoid the political pages for the same reason (the difference being that I have equal disdain for both sides while existing in in a sea of POV-pushing editors who think that their side are angels while the other side are devils). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you seem to be confusing me with Slatersteven. Aside from that, I said that the topic ban is justified, and I wasn't asking Jimbo to find otherwise. I just asked if he would go and find some deserving editors on the other side and ban them as well. Andrevan@ 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I struck out the error and corrected it above. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To point out your statement he made it about long term eds was not correct (well not from what I saw). I have no issue with condemning bad behavior, as long as we condemn it for the right reasons. But if we condemn it for the wrong reasons we give an impression that maybe it was not as bad as we make it our to be. Nothing is going to get this overturned quicker then the accused being able to say "but look he does not even know who said what about whomever".Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it not considered poor form for a topic banned editor to come here asking for other editors to get banned from the same topic? Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a fair question if indeed the other editors exhibited behavior that is the same or worse than the topic-banned editor. The problem is that [A] most people who have looked at the page don't agree about other's behavior being worse, and [B] Jimbos's talk page is not the right place place to ask for someone to be topic banned. Claiming that "the one-time 'appeal to Jimbo' and the 'appeal to blocking admin' are valid exceptions to a blanket topic ban" while at the same time saying "I wasn't even asking the topic ban be lifted off myself" and instead asking for other users to be topic banned is really stretching the meaning of the word "appeal". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to continue to discuss here, but what's done is done. You apparently didn't read my various statements because you prejudge them to not contain anything useful. You even just apparently confused me with a different user. I have let the matter and the appeal, as it were, lie. Like I said, I didn't contest the topic ban, it was following policy, and I walked directly up to the line before stepping over it. My entire endeavor on the articles I've been banned from was to draw attention to a problematic whitewashing campaign on them, and I would gladly ignore the articles if they were being properly watched over. I am entitled to appeal discussion around the ban itself even if I use that space and time to instead call for the cartel of editors trying to downplay Roseanne's racism, or whatever it is, to be properly dealt with. It isn't that hard to recognize policy violating POV pushers who constantly repeat arguments like "that's an opinion," "you haven't given me proof," "give me one piece of evidence," "that's OR/SYNTH," "the sources don't say that," when every source you have says Roseanne's tweets about Soros and calling Valerie Jarrett an ape are racist. Doesn't matter if Sputnik or Breitbart thought Roseanne was fine and Bill Maher is the real problem. Organized, socking POV pushers should be dealt with with extreme prejudice, and it's not that hard to spot. You don't AGF when people aren't being honest and you can't reason with them. Andrevan@ 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet again you remain blind to the reasons you were TBANned. There is no "whitewashing campaign", there are no "Russian/GOP/NRA" paid trolls. Your behavior is particularly strange as you claimed being a veteran "rouge admin"; surely you remember that There is no cabal. For your own good, please stop your RGW crusade; you are only damaging your own reputation, possibly beyond repair. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call the above a good reason for you to stay an admin, if you are not capable of obeying policy because you are going to oppose "problematic whitewashing campaign"s (battleground if ever I saw it) then In think you should not be an admin, it is clear that your politics is getting in the way of your neutrality.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search-engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that's not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [...] Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."
Source: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Because Andrevan can no longer reply (See User talk:Andrevan/Archives/63#Blocked for topic ban violations) the above will be my last comment on this subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As another editor topic banned due to a POV-pushing tag-team, I applaud Andrevan's behavior as exemplary, and condemn the collaborators acting against both him and the quality of the encyclopedia in the strongest possible terms.

Jimbo, yes it's emotional. Would you have asked Martin Luther King to avoid speaking and acting on controversial topics because he was too emotionally involved? I agree, you should step in and stop the organized whitewashing. History is watching. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is satire.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am entirely sincere. EllenCT (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Then frankly I am amazed you think his behavior was exemplary. He broke the rules, I do not consider breaking "the law" even for the best of motives exemplary. Comparing his actions to those of a man fighting actual harmful prejudice (rather then fighting to claim a man in innocent, as far as I know a corner stone of both our nations legal system) just undermines the whole idea this is anything but party politics. He (that is to say Andrevan) does not face death or threats of violence. He is not some Martin Luther King, he is (at best, and being very generous) A Donkey hooting at windmills.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If IAR does not apply or is not upheld by administrators in the face of the world's most consequential coordinated racist, nationalist, fascist, discriminatory disinformation campaign since the advent of Wikipedia, then the encyclopedia is reduced to nothing more than the tyranny of the most common denominator of tag-team reactionary whitewashing. Is Andrevan the only bureaucrat with the backbone to stand up to those who want to hide the truth about what secondary sources say about Donald Trump? And look at what happened to him. That is the future of accuracy on Wikipedia, because admins would rather retreat to the ease of collaboration with activist tag-teams than with those upholding neutral representation of the reliable sources, and basic human decency. EllenCT (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that these racist nationalist, fascist discriminatory disinformationists did not (as far as I recall) get their way? In fact it was the fact they were not being allowed to get their way that caused the spat he threw a wobbly over. The rest of us just said "nay, nay and thrice nay". You do not need to shout abuse and lob around accusations to win an argument, you just have to have... a slightly better argument. All he (and I suspect you are now) did was to dig a hole his opponents could bury him in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your description does not comport at all with the portions of the dispute I reviewed. EllenCT (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well all I can do is judge what I saw as a party to part of it. What So which racist, nationalist, fascist, discriminatory disinformation did they manage to get past his vigilance?Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going to reply in more detail, but since I saw your threat to suppress my opinions you left on my talk page, I'll just repeat what I asked in January: Why doesn't Trump's intro state his record low approval rating? Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments? Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump? EllenCT (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The intro of any article merely summarizes major points made in the article and all the points you touched on are in the article itself, but may not be in the intro itself as consensus may have deemed they fall short of UNDUE, especially for what should a neutral treatise in one of our BLPs of a very public figure.--MONGO 17:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Approval ratings change, regardless of who it is with (also what the hell are "journalist fact-checkers" is this even a thing?). Have there been a record number of criminal indictments? ( I count 5, which is less then bush). So then we have record number of resignations, here you now have a fact. No idea why it is not there, care to link to the discussion so I can see what reasons were given for its exclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

See Donald Trump#False statements, the second paragraph under Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric, [51], and [52]. Why would you think that those removing any of these highly noteworthy facts from summarization in the biography's introduction have ever given any valid reasons for excluding them? Isn't Mongo's personal position that these record-breaking statistics among 45 US presidents are simply "UNDUE" good enough for you? EllenCT (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, as you said "trump administration", not "Russian interference". So not what a some Russian did has nothing to do with the lead of the Trump article, only what he has done (or maybe those acting on his orders). Also I think I asked not "provide me with proof any of this is true" I said" show me were there was a discussion to keep this out of a lead". So I shall rephrase the question (and hopefully make it a bit ore clear.

Can you provide proof that there have been attempts made to keep information of of the Donald page relating to the matters you have raised here?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Right.--MONGO 17:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

...because not being allowed to discuss the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors[53] is soooo hard on EllenCT. Perhaps we should go back to the well and ask for an additional topic ban prohibiting her complaining about her topic ban other than at the normal places where one makes an appeal to have a topic ban lifted? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is satire.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The "soooo hard" bit is sarcasm (which is subtly different from satire), but the additional topic ban is, I think, worth discussing. I am, however, biased by the fact that I find EllenCT's habit of coatracking comments on how unfair her her topic ban was on pretty much any discussion of any topic ban anywhere to be incredibly annoying. Thus I think someone else should weigh the actual amount of disruption it causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are so annoyed, disappointed that your reaction to being annoyed is to demand censorship, and revolted that you use such inaccurate hyperbole to describe my abstention from participating over the past year, but unsurprised that such bullying and harassment is still tolerated and encouraged here. EllenCT (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

                      Trollometer 
   
   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10
   ___________________________________________________
   |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
   ---------------------------------------------------
        ^
        |
   Oooh! Barely a one! 
   Sorry, EllenCT.
   Try a little harder next time.
   Thanks for playing!
   
   --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From DSM-5 (2013): Normative stress reactions. When bad things happen, most people get upset. This is not an adjustment disorder. The diagnosis should ... be made when the magnitude of the distress exceeds what would normally be expected (which may vary in different cultures). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Now, now. Science has no place in Wikipedia discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A great idea

This relates to the section above User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Create copies of Wikipedia operating under slightly different rules and policies

A for-profit company, Wikisoft will be starting a "Wikipedia" for businesses Wikisoft Corp is Launching New “Wikipedia” for Business and Business Professionals (sorry this is a PR announcement, but I couldn't find a reliable source). They promise 200 million articles on businesses, execs, product lines, brands, etc., at the site www.wikiprofile.com by mid-August.

I'm not sure about their business model - it could be supported by advertising, but I suspect they'll be taking payments from the companies who want a "profile" posted. Others have tried something like this, but this company looks at least minimally competent - they can put together a press release.

Why is this a great idea? Well the folks who want to advertise on-Wiki now have a place to go and not bother us anymore. We won't have to deal anymore with biased articles on food trucks, real estate companies in Singapore known for their beautiful websites, or financial scammers. Wikiprofile might even put a few paid editing companies out of business. Of course there will be some businesses who would want to get a freebie here, rather than a paid-for profile there, but at this point is should be obvious to everybody that they are just trying to take something from an educational charity that they can properly pay for elsewhere.

Could we perhaps do something to encourage Wikiprofile? Maybe steer a few potential customers their way? Congratulate them in the press for their wonderful idea? Post their contact info at WP:Paid?

There is one question I do think they'll have to answer before the site becomes successful - why would any readers go to a site consisting of 200 million adverts?

BTW - I'm not being paid by these guys (or anyone else) and I have no COI (except as explained above - I'd like them to take away some of our problem articles)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're as heavily favoured by Google search results as Wikipedia is I expect that this will do virtually nothing to stop the shameless promoters from coming here. After all, the primary reason they come here is for (a) our Alexa ranking and (b) Google's putting it at the top of almost every relevant search. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Google's algorithms favor websites with (generally) informative and comprehensive original content such as Wikipedia, as opposed to rehashed spam like wikipromowhatever.com. Who will write these 200 million articles, and what will prevent this site from becoming a vast garbage dump? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Best guesses a) corporate PR folks, b) nothing. So there are a few kinks to work out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 08:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! I withdraw anything above that might seem like a recommendation or anything of the sort. There's an unusual IPO associated with this and I wouldn't want to say anything here that encourages (or otherwise) people to invest in that. I'll investigate further and be back. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is lots to question here, especially with the IPO. First I'll say that I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving any advice, just exploring an unusual situation. Some basics

Wikisoft's address is 315 Montgomery Street, 1600 San Francisco, CA a 4 minute walk from the WMF. It might be a mail box only type address (located on the 9th and 10th floors) because I don't think the building has 16 floors (though they might have just skipped a few floor numbers)
The IPO is unusual in that
- it is not open to US investors (unless they are accredited)
- they have already set an issue price
- they say the stock will be traded on "OTC Stock Market" (note the capital letters) which is not a proper noun and could refer to any of several "exchanges" including the pink sheets (unlisted market)
- no investment banker is mentioned
- they don't offer to send you a prospectus
- information on one webpage contradicts info in the press release, e.g. one page says they (will?) have 328M+ searchable content pages vs. the 200 million stated in the press release.

There are more oddities, so I'll just say that I personally will stay as far away from this company as possible. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah they are probably violating a few securities laws there. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I wonder if we should do a SPLIT of Wikipedia, between a) pop culture and b) everything else.

Wherein "pop culture" =

a) Any event in the last three years (!)

b) any company, product, or service created or published in the last three years

c) Sports

d) Television, movies, video, video games

Can you imagine how different NPP would be? How different ANI would be? Zowie. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Even a simple rule prohibiting anything less than seven days old would prevent a boatload of crap. If readers knew (from a notice on the front page) that everything on Wikipedia was at least a week out of date, they would go elsewhere to get their breaking news. Like maybe Wikinews or Wiki Tribune... :) You shouldn't expect an encyclopedia to cover something that happened yesterday. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've got some sympathy for this proposal, but the idea of splitting off very roughly half our content into another encyclopedia isn't going to be implemented for at least a year. And it would require a huge amount of work, so I'll sit this one out. I will suggest a name for the split material however: WikiPop.org. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Or we could just call it "Bubble Pop"... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no way in hell that this would ever happen and I don't intend to try seriously float it anywhere, but it is something I have fantasized about. It would be a much better world. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is no way a radical idea like making Wikipedia into an encyclopedia would ever happen. But we can dream...

-------------------------------------------

(lyrics redacted see here for the lyrics)[54]

-------------------------------------------

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You can let an engine run on water by exploiting the fact that liquid water is not at thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere. Liquid water spontaneously evaporates as long as the relative humidity is lower than 100%. The maximum work you can extract by reversibly evaporating water is given by the drop in the Gibbs energy. Since water will be in thermal equilibrium with its vapor, the Gibbs energy of water is the same as that of water vapor at 100% humidity. If we treat the vapor as an ideal gas, then it follows that the Gibbs energy of the vapor at a humidity of r is lower than that of the vapor at 100% humidity by -NkT Log(r), where N is the number of molecules in the vapor. So, the amount of work you can extract from 1 liter of water at 20 C at 60% relative humidity is about 6.9 *10^4 Joules. Count Iblis (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One effect would be that the search engine rankings of "Wikipedia the encyclopedia" would eventually fall sharply. All our articles' rankings benefit from the massive views the pop culture ones produce. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am dubious. The search engine algorithms are a lot more sophisticated than that. A single link from a page at harvard.edu can count more than a thousand links from Kim Kardashian fan sites. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet Another Monkey Selfie Copyright Thread

I'd rather talk about the threat to free culture being posed by the European copyright proposal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I'd have felt better about opposing new copyright protection if WMF had done more to support the person responsible for the monkey selfie. Even if it was to hire him to create promotional material for fundraising. But sticking it to him makes me rather insensitive to WMF's own concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.98.208 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That is my take on this. I am kind of reminded of when Games Workshop whines about IP infringement. Maybe if we did more to help out those whose work (and yes he, not the monkey) spend the money on buying the kit and spent the time setting it up), then we would not now be facing a backlash from the peoples whose livelihoods we are affecting. It is just a shame that what will happen is that people like him will still not really have the wherefore all to fight, and the only people who will really benefit are the ones who do not really need it (like the GW copyright trolls of this world).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The actions of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Slater/monkey selfie case were off-putting, to say the least, and I cannot help but feel that this appeal from Jimbo is quite incongruous with the stance taken in that matter. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice coat-rack you have there, 98.165.98.208. I like the way you skillfully changed the subject from a proposed EU law to an already-decided court case involving US and UK law. Mind if I hang some nice abortion, gun control and Trump on your coat-rack? There appears to be plenty of room! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Jimbo. Good point, Guy Macon. I shouldn't have engaged; that was an off-topic comment. I'll just get back to making articles about the new Italian cabinet. Cheers! — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Brining up an appalling position on previous copyright issues are the exact reason why new copyright laws are proposed. Why you think that's a "coatrack" is ridiculous. Stop shitting on content creators and there will be no need to create laws to protect the victims of those policies. People believe we need new laws precisely because previous cases under existing law did not end with justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:34A7:6910:3BC5:8CF8 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The question was asked "why now" this is one answer to that question. Ignoring the "whys" of a new law means you will also not address the concerns of those who support it (another reason for the "now", they have waited for us to fix this ourselves and we have not done so). As with a number of other laws it is (I suspect) a case of they have allowed us to police ourselves and now do not think we are ever going to (like the smoker who used to sit in the no smoking area declaring "well its not against the law is it!"). That is why this is both relevant, pertinent and not a place to hang your coat.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur, simply saying 'why copyright' demonstrates no connection. Are there any RS that relate this proposed law to that case? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This case is particular no, but then I was using it only as an example of the kind of issue (As I did with the smoking ban as well). Now maybe I am wrong and this is not to tackle issues of small "publishes" having their work used for free. But it is designed to target (for example) photographs. So whilst it may not be directly influenced by the one case, it is clear its aim is situations where (for example) photographs are used without permission. That is why I did only only raise this issue, it is about an attitude ("well its not illegal is it"), not a specific case.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The irony is that this will not really do that (as I think I said) it will just enable the big boys (and yes I am afraid to say Wikipedias actions put it in that category now) to copyright troll. It will do sod all to protect the little guy. But I suspect many who support it (and proposed it) think it will. To make it clear, I do not support it because it does not go far enough to protect the one man band whose works goes on to become a meme but who does not benefit from it. But anything that makes it clear that you cannot just take peoples hard work and use it for your own benefit is a good thing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what irony there is: There is a "public domain" correct? The public domain belongs to all people -- restricting the public domain, lessening the public domain, enclosing the public domain, means it is taken from the people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the monkey selfie case. (To reiterate the situation there: photographs taken by monkeys are not copyright to the monkey, nor to the owner of the monkey, nor to the owner of the camera. People may disagree with that, although I think the law is correct on this point.) Broadly, we know that there are always people who want to expand the reach and scope and meaning of copyright, and they are not typically small publishers, but giant companies who wish to suppress free and remix culture, or in fact to simply suppress speech that they don't like. Have a read of this for some sad examples.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the photographer did, indeed, end up with a valid copyright (albeit not a US copyright it seems). Just as photographers who use trip-wires to take photos at night hold valid copyright. PETA admitted such in agreeing to 25% of royalties on the copyright. By so assenting, PETA clearly was agreeing that Slater had right to the royalties. PETA was not arguing that no copyright existed, just that it wanted the simian to officially "own" it, with PETA then garnering 100% of the royalties. Sorry, Jimbo. PETA's case was not about denying that a copyright exists. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/60116/1/Internet%20Policy%20Review%20-%20The%20monkey%20selfie_%20copyright%20lessons%20for%20originality%20in%20photographs%20and%20internet%20jurisdiction%20-%202016-03-21.pdf Collect (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading your own reference. It is an academic article arguing that under UK law, if that were shown to be the right jurisdiction, there is an argument (unproven in court) that a copyright could exist. It's certainly interesting, but it is very far from showing that he has a valid copyright. PETA admitting or claiming anything is entirely irrelevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

PETA chose the US venue to assert that Naruto had the copyright and that PETA was acting as a legal guardian thereon (pretty loosely). PETA did not assert that no copyright could exist. PETA undertook no actions under UK or EU law asserting that copyright did not exist. The case at hand is the PETA decision. UK and EU law do not require an affirmative court decision that copyright exists. Copyright exists with or without any registration at all. I suggest that you ask counsel whether the UK academic article might give pause if or when Wikipedia is ever forced to back your position in a UK or EU court, as I am not able to guess what those courts would find, as I only know what the scholarly article surmises, but given the status of current copyright revision discussions over there (noting that "there" is "here" for you currently) I think they might tell you to be circumspect, indeed. And this is the exact same position I took here years ago - and no article seems to give me cause to change my opinions thereon. Collect (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, your claim is just wrong and your source does not say that, PETA cannot establish anything, and PETA's track-record on copyright, here, has been a loser. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Perhaps more essays about download restrictions: Warn people when a back-up download is allowed for personal use, but sending 2nd-hand copies of downloads would violate copyrights, so send only URL addresses to enable other users to download their own backup copies of files, images or videos. There was the infamous case in the U.S. of copies of a Rob Lowe sex tape passed around as gag gifts, but the bigger issue was the guy was reportedly only 17-years-old in the video, as child porn, which implicated the user as a criminal pedophile, and after release from jail, could be forced from their home if near schools, as a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives[!]. Help people understand the potential dangers of downloads passed around as gifts or viral videos. Accidental downloads might be no excuse against criminal charges. Perhaps smarter phones will have a disable-download-key feature to avoid people being arrested for accidental downloads stored on their phones. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:37/12:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

He was a she and was only 16 (not 17), so a lot of wrong here. Nor have I any idea what this has to do with the new EU law.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Wikid77 considers little things like "relevance" or "appropriateness" or "coherence" or "sanity" before posting here. Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they still have the protection of our police state (remember we do not have freedom of speech here).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

[lunatic-1] Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans:
Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

[2] "Oral Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai". Federal Communication Commission. February 26, 2015.

[chicagotribune.com-3] Tribune, Chicago. "The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it".

[4] "Net neutrality is bad policy for the U.S. and bad policy for the world". Freedom Works Post. July 16, 2012.

[5] "The Fear-Based Campaign to Control the Net". Reason Foundation. May 4, 2017.

[6] "Intel, IBM and Cisco team up to fight net neutrality by reclassifying the internet". The Inquirer.

[tiaonline.org-7] ttp://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf

[lightreading.com-8] "Internet Pioneers Decry Title II Rules – Light Reading".

[wsj.com-9] Jenkins, Holman W.; Jr (February 27, 2015). "The Net Neutrality Crack-Up". The Wall Street Journal.

[10] "The Sky is Not Falling, and the World isn't Going to End". Citizens Against Government Wast. December 14, 2017.

[marginalrevolution.com-11] "Marc Andreessen on net neutrality – Marginal REVOLUTION". May 23, 2014.

[kahn-vid-12] Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (January 9, 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn. Computer History Museum. Archived from the original (WMV) on September 28, 2012. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Partial transcript: Hu-Berlin.de Archived September 28, 2012, at the Wayback Machine

[nationalreview.com-13] "Back to the Future with Peter Thiel".

[bigthink.com-14] Negroponte, Nicholas (August 13, 2014). "Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense".

[faculty.chicagobooth.edu-15] Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare faculty.chicagobooth.edu

[16] Kirchick, James (March 29, 2018). "Commentary: The Trump 'collusion' narrative is doing the Russians' dirty work for them". Chicago Tribune. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[17] Epstein, Richard A. (February 13, 2018). "Did Clinton or Obama or Comey Know the Steele Dossier Was a Dud?". Newsweek. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[18] Turley, Jonathan (February 27, 2018). "There is still no evidence tying Trump to Russian conspiracy". The Hill. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[19] Heer, Jeet (April 16, 2018). "We Are (Probably) Not in the "End Stages" of Trump's Presidency". The New Republic. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[20] Graham, David A. (March 30, 2018). "Why Is Trump Turning Against Russia Now?". The Atlantic. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[21] Robbins, James S. (December 11, 2017). "Suspend Robert Mueller's politically tainted investigation into Russia-Trump collusion". USA Today. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[22] Hanson, Victor Davis (April 12, 2018). "Mueller at the Crossroads". National Review. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[23] Maté, Aaron (October 6, 2017). "Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact". The Nation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[24] Maté, Aaron (February 9, 2018). "What We've Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate". The Nation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[25] "Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation". May 16, 2018. A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump's advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government's disruptive efforts.

[CS_Monitor_3.29.2018-26] Grier, Peter (March 29, 2018). "The perennial presidential urge to bring FBI 'under control'". Christian Science Monitor. There's no public evidence that Trump is connected to any collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 vote. There's no proof, as yet, that he knew about any illegal activity on the part of his campaign or governing staff. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[BBC_3.13.2018-27] "US House Republicans find no proof of Trump-Russia collusion". BBC. March 13, 2018. That these are the key questions is good news for the Trump administration - an admission that no clear-cut evidence of "collusion" has been unearthed.

[WaPo_2.23.2018-28] Bump, Philip (February 23, 2018). "Mueller is about to take a big step closer to Trump". Washington Post. We hasten to note that there is no public evidence at this time that Trump campaign staff directly sought to aid Russian interference efforts. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[NYT_1.09.2018-29] Fandos, Nicholas; Rosenberg, Matthew; LaFranier, Sharon (January 9, 2018). "Democratic Senator Releases Transcript of Interview With Dossier Firm". New York Times. Since then, investigators and journalists have developed extensive evidence linking Mr. Trump's associates to Russian government and intelligence operatives, but as yet there is still no public evidence of a direct link between President Trump himself and the Kremlin. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[NYT_7.11.17-30] Savage, Charlie (July 11, 2017). "Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says". New York Times. There is no public evidence, as things stand, of any clandestine discussions between Russian officials or surrogates and the Trump campaign about disseminating the emails of Democrats that American intelligence officials say Russia hacked. In July 2016, however, the elder Mr. Trump publicly urged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton's emails; his spokesman later insisted that was a joke. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Reuters_4.19.2017-31] Parker, Ned; Landay, Jonathan; Walcott, John (April 19, 2017). "Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 US election - documents". Reuters. Ongoing congressional and FBI investigations into Russian interference have so far produced no public evidence that Trump associates colluded with the Russian effort to change the outcome of the election. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[32] Brooks, Ned. "Meet The Press: Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Selma March". NBC Learn. NBCUniversal Media. Retrieved 22 November 2017.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]