User talk:Jimbo Wales

Stop abuse and violence in Fawiki by checkusers

Hi Dear.

I sent a complaint to OC and reported that my account " shahramrashidi" has been blocked and banned in Fawiki as nominating Sockpuppetry, without any evidence. Even the user checking has not been requested by any in check user page. But the checkusers have blocked my account according to doubt only as their declaration. Which policy of WP tell you can block unlimited any user without evidence and with doubt only.

This is the response of OC: "The Commission is responsible for investigating complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, the CheckUser policy, and the Oversight policy, on any Wikimedia project. The OC pays close attention to policies and their violations. Regarding the complaint relating to the block of User:Shahramrashidi for sockpuppet, the commission has found no violation of any of the aforementioned policies.

Shahramrashidi was blocked according to the Persian Wikipedia's (fawiki) sockpuppetry policy, which provides that a sockpuppet can be blocked without needing to identify the "sockmaster". The Commission is not an appeals body for blocks. The local community's appeal processes should be used in this case."

How do i tell and prove my account is not sockpuppet and the response of OC is about sockpuppet user only, then when my account is not sockpuppet, this policy is not applicable for my account. I asked OC to check my account is not sockpuppet and check users have abused from their facility and access, but instead of checking my account and their action has replied as a/m.

My question is can any check users block and ban any account as sockpuppet even it not to be sockpuppet? Who check this and stop their abuse? My account is not sockpuppet and check users abuse from their access. Please check my account in Fawiki and if my account to be sockpuppet, block me in all wiki projects else stop their abuse. please stop abuse from fawiki. i am ready to provide any document to prove my account is not sockpuppet and there is no any supervision on fawiki check users. Please return credit to fawiki.Shahram 06:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This is enwiki- appeal your block there, not here. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the user knows this is en wiki. But here is Jimbo's talk page. Many users come here to talk to him. The user is blocked in fawiki how could they appeal their block there? Gharouni ^Talk 14:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firestar464:, @Gharouni: I know here is en.wiki. But he also is the member of foundation trustee and as his statement. He must know what is occurred in WP. If me or another don't tell to him how they will stop abuse and apply supervision on WP.

All Fa.wp managers has declared cant check the action of checkcusers, OC don't check it. Stewards don't check it. Then let me who check it? If there is no supervision on them, Why there is no supervision and if there is, then why don't want check it. They have mocked Wikipedia:Five pillars in fa.wiki and laugh to all. Shahram 07:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: The basic question that you are asking is how do you prove that you are not a sockpuppet. As you have found from the OC, s the policy doesn't require firm evidence that you are a sock before applying a block so it seems that your options are limited. It is possible to prove a negative, but more difficult. Because the CU will not provide you with their evidence, you might have to provide them with yours - for example, something that ties you to a real world location such as your place of education or workplace. This might enable the CU to determine that you aren't a sock, or at least increase the likelihood that they believe you. However, should you be thinking about doing this I strongly advise that you are very cautious about what you share, and who you share it with, to avoid the risk of your personal data being disclosed. You might want to ask a Steward if they would talk to the FA CUs for you by posting a request at SN - at least one Steward is fluent in the language of the project. Good luck. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual Dear Friend,

Thank you very much for your kind reply.

I am ready to prepare any document in real life even to meet any OC or foundation Trustee or stewards if WP want to prove this. I haven't any problem about personals data because i don't do any special edition in WP. Also i wrote to stewards but their response is as " The stewards are not superior to fa.wikipedia functionaries. You need to appeal their decision to them. The stewards cannot help you in that case."

How is this anyone in WP don't want to stop their abuse even don't want to check their action or ask their reason. WP don't accept any without citation, then how accept their abuse without checking?

I declare am ready to talk and meet with any responsible in WP in anywhere to clear my data, personal data and any they need to prove i am not sockpoppet and FAWIki check user abuse and block all easy. Because of most users don't know English even they can't send complaint to OC or any related.

My request is easy, Check the action of FAWIKI checkusers and ask them the reason of my account blocking. Even they have declared haven't reason and have doubt only as a.m link.Shahram 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, friend, checkusers are not allowed to disclose the evidence (i.e. data) for their decision. Usually, at first offense, en.wiki checkusers unblock on the condition to never do it again. But there is no mercy for those serially engaging in sockpuppetry. So: who checks the decision of one checkuser? Another checkuser of the fa.wiki. No wiki is allowed to have only one checkuser, so that what one checkuser does can be checked by another checkuser.

Also, if you got blocked in March 2021, the evidence has evaporated by now and no check can be performed. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I asked them to disclose evidence clearly and there is no problem from my side. Because i am sure i haven't another account. But he never gave any evidence and even closed my talk page. But second check user stated clearly: there is no any evidence but he has doubt about me then my account must blocked unlimited and i cant return to WP else i to confim and accept my account is suckpoppet. Anyone can read it by translator easily. is not this evidence for their abuse? Which policy let checkuser tell to me i can never back to WP? Am I a guilty which they wants to confess to me? According to which policy? Also for information, Fawiki has two checkusers which one has introduced another and they are friends.

I got blocked in March 2021 but sent my complaint to OC at that time with all related links. Then there was no problem about it. Their clear statement is not enough evidence? They accused me to Sockpuppetry, but can't even say for which account .Shahram 10:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat: that evidence is for the eyes of the checkusers only. If they even mention it to anyone else, they will be banned form Wikipedia. Besides, after certain time (90 days I guess), that evidence gets permanently deleted, so there is no way to check it now. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Ok. if it to be right, how about their statement? While they blocked my account i asked them about the reason but The checkuser declared clearly: their is no evidence in their hand and it is doubt only. IS not this statement enough for their abuse.? This is best evidence and it never can be deleted from WP by date. Shahram 11:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: See WP:DUCK: once is a coincidence, twice is a bad move, and thrice you are a WP:SOCK. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu once with which account? there is nothing. twice which bad move? there is no thing. thrice WP:SOCK sayes clearly :"The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases"

If this policy to be applicable, then they must show duck in first and next show me am like that duck. Even I asked this from them, but they haven't it too. They cant give any reason. Also there is no any bad edition by me. Shahram 11:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: WP:BEANS. OK, to spill a bit the beans: there is a banned Romanian user BAICAN XXX. Every time he comes back to Wikipedia we know it's him by the way he writes Romanian sentences. He used words that simply don't exist in Romanian language, most often he literally translates German terms into what he deems those would be Romanian words. But those words don't exist in dictionaries and don't even appear on Google. Usually, I could parse and understand what he wrote, but strictly speaking it is not written in Romanian language. He writes in a Romanian language that would have eventually emerged if Hitler won the war. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I understand. You know the main account. When one like to your example comes back to fawiki, they tell about his main account but about me, there is no any account, there is no any similar editon, I am sure my account isnt sock and sure thre is no any account same as me and my interest. But they haven't any main account if i am sock or there is no any edition to me. I asked to give once one reason but there is no anything.

The main reason is about checkuser bias which he has declared it clearly in fawiki and some manager has told him to prevent from action on some subject. In my case i wrote a comment on an article talk page for a user and asked to talk about it -which i found later it is interest of checkuser and has bias about it- . Then he blocked me with fetch of sock.

If they to give me bean once, i will stop my complaitn all but there is never any.Shahram 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual I found Mardetanha is Persian language steward. Also he is one of Fawiki manager. I sent an email in last to him. Also pinged him while CU blocked my account but he never replied me. Then what i should to do?. Also i left a comment at here. But i don't think to get result from there. Shahram 10:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia

Larry Sanger in the news today.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Iignore as always. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Errm, you mean one of the men, who started, the very early version of Wikipedia? But beware, he does talk about "the t-word". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Very shoddy reporting by The Independent, who fail to give any contextual information about how Wikipedia is written and maintained or what it is, likely because the journalist assigned this doesn't know any information about Wikipedia. I didn't expect the publication to essentially write a press release for a far-right (at least by British standards) person with no contextual information about Sanger's biases or history with the project. It also doesn't indicate that this isn't a new development and give any other instances of Sanger saying the same thing (which you can find stretching back for 90% of Wikipedia's history). — Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanger's descent into right-wing tinfoil-hattery has been most dispiriting. The last thing he did right was call out Commons for its hosting policies, and that must have been ten years ago. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems he's been busy with Everipedia, encyclosphere.org and mobile phones lately. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I do hope Sanger wasn't responsible for the blatant use of Wikipedia for advertising purposes you've just linked... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have taken a stab at trimming the more blatant advertising aspects of that Phunware article, but more eyes would be nice. We may need to discuss possible paid editing, and whether it even satisfies the notability guide. ValarianB (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The recent promotional edits also removed sourced content that didn't cast the company in such a glowing light. This should probably be looked at, to see if any of it needs restoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"He'll have Phun, Phun, Phun till "his Daddy" takes the artcle away!" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I've ever heard of Everipedia before. It seems like Wikipedia but worse. As in, their literal first step was copying the contents of Wikipedia and their subsequent steps were to add features that make the site worse. If you want a functioning spin-off of Wikipedia without notability guidelines then that's Fandom. — Bilorv (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There you go: Everipedia. Awaiting your (wholly unbiased) input. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also on Fox, Daily Mail and OpIndia. Enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that what he ACTUALLY said was carefully calibrated and correct. IMO the heading of this section is an incorrect overstatement of what he actually said. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The heading is just the literal headline of the article (which is misleading, I agree with that). — Bilorv (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence WP:HEADLINES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"Mr Sanger cited the example of an article about US President Joe Biden and says it doesn’t include information from the Republicans’ perspective.

“The Biden article, if you look at it, has very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him. So if you want to have anything remotely resembling the Republican point of view about Biden, you’re not going to get it from the article,” he said.

He argued that there should be at least a paragraph about the Ukraine scandal but there is very little of that.

“Very little of that can be found in Wikipedia. What little can be found is extremely biased and reads like a defence counsel’s brief, really,” he said."

But the Republican's' perspective on almost any subject is based on their disinformation campaign. We don't include the views of Putin on US topics either. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the word Neutral in WP:NPOV is misleading to many people. NPOV should be called instead Good Bias Policy or Wikipedia favors mainstream science, mainstream scholarship, and mainstream press. Reason: I'm not unbiased and I don't know anyone who is unbiased, so the best thing to do is admit that everyone is biased and state Wikipedia's bias upfront. As Bart Ehrman stated, I am not saying I have no agendas and no biases. Let me be emphatic. I DO have an agenda and I DO have biases. My agenda is to propagate a scholarly understanding and appreciation of the Bible. And my bias is that a scholarly understanding can NOT be determined by theological dogmas. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's actually two parts of neutrality at play. Once is the source neutrality which this comment gets at - we're going to be using the best possible sources, which may not always treat a topic that has two sides in a purely 50-50 manner and may reflect ideological systematic bias (eg the nature of the the last four years with US media). That's reasonable, and that's what Sagner doesn't seem to get. The other aspect, however, is the writing neutrality, which the Ehrman quote is alluding to, and a major problem with how WP has been treating many people and groups on the farther-right given that there is the systematic source bias from the first point. We're supposed to write clinically neutral, impartially and dispassionately, as to not have Wikivoice seem judgemental as what Ehrman implies. But instead, our articles on these farther-right people and groups tend to be overzealous to be accusations and far from the clinical treatment of topics. We can do this for people and groups at the extreme of ideologies - not to bring up Godwin's so soon, but Adolf Hitler is written in the appropriate neutral way that still documents his crimes against humanity and expresses the numerous judgements about him but in a manner that leaves it to the reader to come to an alternate conclusion. But with many contemporary figures, editors seems to feel that Wikivoice must identify strongly and harshly that these people and groups have bad ideologies (stemming from our high-quality sources) and thus lose any context of clinically-neutral writing. And that feeds into exacerbate the percieved problems that Sagner talks about, as if Wikivoice is being that critical in tone, then of course one that has ideological opinions on that side is going to feel the situation is unbalanced. Sagner wrote a prior piece to this where this facet of writing neutrality wasn't expressly touched on but his points danced around it - though the bulk of his "demands" were unworkable related to source neutrality (eg purposely introducing false balance, etc.) And it is very very difficult to try to get editors who are deeply invested on these farther-right people/groups to see that their writing is not neutral, since the facts incorporate seem to all stem from proper source neutrality. This is something that we can fix. --Masem (t) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A major difference is of course that historians have written a lot about Hitler's life. We don't have to work from recent news reports. As for 50/50, there of course are uncertain topics, then more informed ones where presenting all sides as equally valid is inappropriate (sources will help to determine this too). I'm aware that you know this, but found it worthy of mention, considering that it too is a constant challenge to get right on WP and is also very relevant in the case of Sanger, since we often hear complaints that the WP coverage of pseudoscience is biased... —PaleoNeonate – 11:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bias on US political and US culture war topics is a problem. To address this, it first must be recognized that there is so much subjectivity and complexity in defining any high "unbiased" standard that such does not exist. Nevertheless, meeting a much lower bar is achievable and needed. The lower "bar" is of not having one "side" of that battle influence Wikipedia's content so much that it degrades informative coverage or that it garners such widespread disdain in the outside world that it significantly damages Wikipedia's reputation as a source for enclyclopedic information, and/or as a source of enclyclopedic information in those areas. Currently Wikipedia often fails at achieving that lower bar in those areas. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanger is exaggerating overall, as Wikipedia is a massive encyclopedia covering a massive range of topics, and most articles don't require American conservative sources. When it comes to US politics I would agree that there is a strong bias against Trump and Republicans on here, articles I've seen tend to be written from a liberal perspective, a refleciton of the sources used to write them. The 2020 election coverage for instance is a shambles and anybody who said there was fraud is branded a Qanon conspiracy theorist and their articles trashed. They can be frustrating to read for somebody who is British and a solid centrist like me and wants a fair overview of both sides. The problem is that the media is so biased and often not even accurate, and there's very few conservative sources for US politics which seem credible, OAN and Newsmax for example are certainly not. We also seem to be censoring when it comes to COVID, most of the people who've spoken out against the vaccines have had their biographies somewhat unfairly trashed and editors seem to be protecting them in that state.. † Encyclopædius 12:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Had you thought of starting Encyclopædius.com? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Where we edit one we edit all? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Phew!! Sounds a bit too darn complex fur me! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me say this: I loved Reagan and Thatcher. They were conservatives. Trump is not a conservative, he is a radical. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, and they sure loved each other. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased against the views of anti-vaxxers and stop the steal people because their views simply don’t reflect reality or the truth in any way. X-Editor (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This too sounds reasonable perhaps at first glance, but this basically assumes that English Wikipedia should represent a balanced USA point of view.. whereas English Wikipedia is pretty much a global project and much of the USA is perceived as certifiably batshit crazy by the rest of the world. And their opinions also weigh in on political topics of this country that so heavily influences the rest of the world. So no, there is no reason it should be balanced between those two particular viewpoints, because those 2 viewpoints are already biased even when taken together. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Belgium is a city"?. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia coverage of American politics is an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia it should provide information, not a point of view, and that goal would help navigate the current mess at such articles. The behavior of wikilawyering an article to give the article subject good or bad optics (instead of providing information) for the subject should be identified and ostracized. Major topics should not get hidden and minor ones not get overplayed by pov warriors. Major political points of view should be presented, with attribution. Not wikilawyered-out, and not wikilawyered into presenting them as fact in the voice of Wikipedia.

With the changes in the media, wp:NPOV has become obsolete in this area and instead become a tool of POV warriors, so that need fixing. Finally, the idea that objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it is a key measure of a source should get infused throughout. Generalizing sources only by their trappings is not enough, that the idea of officially deprecating overall sources should be ended and undone.....it's yet another tool of POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The idea that one can be 100% unbiased or 100% objective is puerile epistemology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, on the "100% unbiased", because, because there is no such thing as a standard for "unbiased". "100% objective" is possible as applicable to certain more specific frameworks such as that for building an encyclopedia.North8000 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Everybody has made some kind of contribution and also damage to humanity writ large or small and he has come out way more of a contributor than 99.99% of us, I'd say. I mean just look at this. His 2001 start has held up pretty well over 20 years even with a lot of eyes and thoughts on the content. I think everybody needs to feel and show more respect for the cool things individuals do and just show deference or at least ignore the silly stuff the top .01% do or say. CONTEXTKID (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"the changes in the media" seems to be mainly or entirely a US thing. CNN, Fox etc are ridiculously partisan, to the point of almost being a parody. But read European media and, while the bias is often obvious, the media outlet can still attempt some kind of even handed approach. The overall principle of NPOV is still a good one. Valenciano (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If "neutral" means "unbiased", then Wikipedia is not neutral by design. Wikipedia is biased for WP:DUE. More eloquently explained at WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Wikipedia does take the side of mainstream science, mainstream scholarship, and mainstream press. So, of course, it has a mainstream academic bias. Tried to make that clear at WP:ABIAS.

People construe neutrality to mean nothing is true, everything is permitted. And they construe objectivity to mean it was true since forever, and it will be true forever. While if you look at epistemology, objectivity is defined as what is intersubjective. I mean: it might not be true, but it commands the consent of informed people from the beginning of the 21st century. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Then you might need to make a few adjustments over at Objectivity (philosophy). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, I forgot. WP is objectively unreliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Objectivity (philosophy)#Objectivity of knowledge has four short paragraphs which basically say that many views exist thereupon. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Phew, I forgot. WP is objectively reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So you’re saying that fake news websites like infowars don’t deserve deprecation? Because they definitely do. X-Editor (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

National Review (which is right-leaning, so keep that in mind) has a article that sorta follows on to Sanger's rants [2]. Now, I'm not saying they are 100% right, but they point out that WP by design (at least through our RS/NPOV policies) tends to favor the academic coverage, and it is known that even in academia, they tend to favor the "right side of history". They use the example that academia in reviewing the 1950 McCarthyism era, that rarely can one find information about those that supported those McCarthy panels or other similar actions taken. And since academia doesn't cover this, neither will Wikipedia.

Now, I argue that in that example of McCarthyism, as we are covering it now, that we're doing what our function should be, documenting what is reported by high quality RSes, which as time progresses from an event like McCarthyism, will be academic resources. If academia 50 years after an event has opted to take one side, we really really cannot change that. This is a consistent approach to how we treat proven scientific theories proven out by the scientific method over hypothetical nonsense (eg global warming). But all that has the key factor of time involved - these are works and sources well separated from initial formation or occurences, and if the best sources that far down the road have selected a side, WP is pretty much bound to do that.

Where we fail and this is a point I've made many times in relation to NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM is that on these current controversies (eg such as the points Sanger made) we're relying on mainstream media for the information to include, and in such a case, both these sources and the lack of passage of time make them far too close to have a reasonable historic view of the situation. Moreso with the changes of the media over the last decade which has made them less objective even though they retain their reliability. We have far too many articles on present, controversial situations that try to weight the "non-factual" part of a story - the reactions, analysis, and criticism - based on these current sources. It may be in 10 years that that's the view that will prevail in academic sources, but we should not be making that presumption in the short term. Things like the Gulf War which at the time they happened were generally treated positively by the US press have since become one of America's follies in most academic sources. We simply cannot infer that from when an event is current. As such, we should be much much more careful with how we handle treatment of characterization and opinion on these articles related to current events, and not preliminary pick a side that the media seems to enjoy. Solving that, as I've mentioned before, is not a matter of trying to follow what Sanger wants - creating false balances and equivalence - but mostly a matter of article content organization and tone of Wikivoice writing as to keep to an objective approach about these topics, until sufficient time (5-10-20 years) has passed and we can use more academic sources looking from a distance to evaluate how to present the characterization of that past event. --Masem (t) 21:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no "trust", with anything, and "success" in anything important, is a journey, not a destination

I was hoping Sanger did not use the word "trust" in relation to an encyclopedia, especially a living, constantly updated encyclopedia. I was hoping that was an editorial usage. But Sanger did use it: “Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” We mostly all believe that "truth" is not an exact, existing thing, but, amazingly, most of us still think of "trust" as an exact, existing thing/condition. Yet a thought experiment quickly reveals that there is no such thing as "trust"; it is only an illusion people made up for convenience of things like monogamy. Many of us have used reviews to make a consumer choice only to discover the reviews are manipulated. Many of us go to an "established" name brand company out of a "trust" hope only to find the company's name and operations are now run by a crooked or incompetent outfit. So, 25 years ago Scott of Sun Microsystems shockingly said "there is no privacy. get over it". We all know in our logic that there is no trust, so don't make any important decisions, like what to read, out of "trust". More so, The wonderful and most important aspect of Wikipedia is its "Thought Provoking" feature. Where the Reader can take anything from an article or Blp and persue it elsewhere or in their own individual minds. Providing some sort of temporary illusion of "fact" or "truth" to some lazy mind that is looking for something they can "trust", so they don't have to think for themselves is exactly what CNN and Fox are selling these days and its actually a destructive product to the mind, just like heroin to a body. When it comes to a conflict between "Due" and unbiased, that's actually a cool, constructive conflict, much as Hegel's ideas uses conflict to move forward. Wikipedia is simply an ongoing adventure into an unknown future of concepts, history, personalities. And that is a helluva product which, when promoted as the thought provoking adventure that it is, will see its full blossoming, yes, a blossom, an explosion of interest in editing and reading, that should be what lies ahead.. At least that's my opinion. CONTEXTKID (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Simply on the matter of trust - even as we defend and stand by what sources we use and don't use and what narratives that may be out there that we don't include - we can improve the trust in WP by staying more objective (impartial, dispassionate) in our writings about these articles, being careful that Wikivoice does not take up the appearance of favoring one side of the other. I think we see these continual criticisms and the like about certain topics on WP (eg those mostly in the right-leaning ideology) as our writing style on these articles leaves little guess to which "side" Wikivoice is on, and thus creates distrust in our content. We can keep to the same facts and sources but written in a far more objective style which won't change how these people and groups are perceived by the media, but done right would not show that bias in Wikivoice. Keeping our view to a 60,000 ft level of a controversial topic will significantly increase our trust. We'll still have some demanding a forced false balance or the like, but I think we can help cut back the constant criticism with better writing. --Masem (t) 14:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me tell you how conservatives view the pretense that Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral: they see is as liberal hypocrisy (doublespeak). While if we say Wikipedia is biased for WP:CHOPSY then it is clear for everybody what we stand for, even if they disagree with us. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to just start with striving for the lower bar where the bias does not impact being informative. And in many cases, we fail at even that. In those cases, material gets left out, hidden or deprecated depending on what the mob at the article wants (of course, clothed in wikilawyering) ....material chosen for being good or bad optics for the topic rather than for informativeness.North8000 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree that we have an issue with not being objective (different from neutral) on many controversial topics (primarily in politics). While this is too broad a statement on its own, for most topics that have a form of controversy, we should be laying out the arguments from all side briefly, like in the opening debate round, before then applying WP:DUE factors to which side will have more debate. The problem that tends to happen is that on controversial topics on which the media has come down strongly on one side, the common WP logic is often "Oh that other side is fringe" or "we can't make a false balance", neither of which we'd do if we briefly open with what the situation is from all sides. That's documenting the controversy before delving into which side appears to have won already. Again, this is too simple a statement for a broad approach, but that concept needs to be kept in mind, because we are often omitting one side of a debate on the pretense that that side may be UNDUE to include or fall into FRINGE. --Masem (t) 00:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: I agree 100%. The bar I was seeking is a lower one, which is not bias so bad that it damages coverage. For example, during Mitt Romney's presidential run that we'd be more likely to have a separate substantial article on his beliefs, ideologies, programs than one on a ride he gave his dog 25 years earlier Mitt Romney dog incident highlighted during the campaign because it was bad optics for him. Of course, it was easily wiki-lawyered in because in the post-journalism-for-big-media era, the big media was doing the same thing. BTW that last sentence points to two of the ways to fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We tend to have a problem (as a mass of editors, no single individual or specific group to point to) that we generally look to cherry pick characterization information, particularly if it is well-backed by sources, and give that preference over elements that may be more objective, such as that point regarding Romney's run. This is particularly true when that "characterization" information tends to align with the broad liberal nature of WP editors - eg the media's overall scorn for anything alt/far right. We're including top tier RSes, and some of this characterization is readily sourcable but its a "seeing the forest through the trees", we're focusing on specific trees and not the forest. A good example of this in action right now is over at Talk:Andy Ngo, where there is discussion that we should not be calling him a "journalist" in the lede (despite having worked as a reporter for a newspaper) becuase reliable sourcing do not want to call him that. Objectively, he's a journalist, and we should absolutely include the criticism about his "journalism" if that exists, but the focus is so much on the media's refusal to consider him one that the who discussion shows a loss of the objectivity we need. And that's a tip of the iceberg situation. --Masem (t) 13:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In EU being a journalist is a legal matter. Journalists are allowed to protect their sources. But not every blogger is a journalist. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My two cents. When talking about bias, that all first begins with understanding your own. Most people really don't, I think. It's something they spend a great deal of time teaching you about in journalism class (or at least they did, back when reporters cared about expository writing). It is impossible to even shoot for neutrality if a person doesn't know where they stand in relation. That doesn't mean boasting it to the world, but quite the contrary, it means being able to write without letting the world know one iota of your personal stance. The real problem, of course, is one of confirmation bias. For example (and they do this on TV all the time), if a cop is out to get a suspect, they can most assuredly make a case and get a conviction, but when a cop works to eliminate suspects until there is only one possibility remaining, then they're far more likely to get the right suspect. Likewise, anyone on the left thinks Fox News is biased, and anyone on the right thinks CNN and MSNBC are totally biased. As an outsider who has had a lot of training in the field, I can agree that they are both correct. In all of these discussion right here on this page, you can see a huge amount of confirmation biases coming from all sides. "People see what they expect to see. It's the principle of association." Zaereth (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanger's Tucker Carlson appearance

Disappointing. Instead of discussing Wikipedia's American current-events bias, which does have its easily debated weak points as discussed above, Sanger impugned the entire site, its editors, and actually said he was embarrassed to have been associated with it. What a maroon, at least in this appearance. Maybe you can consider going on Tucker Carlson to at least balance what now seems to be misinformation from Sanger (or other shows, the airwaves should probably be seeing more of you as the public face of Wikipedia). They should allow you access to counter the appearance, although on the other hand it would keep his statements in front of the audience. But the damage he attempted to inflict upon every article and editor with his words today maybe should find rebuttal on the same media platform. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

After a think or two, Sanger's sweeping criticism seemed so over the top that maybe it is best to let him stew in his own juices. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed often a good idea to not give more attention than deserved, —PaleoNeonate – 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson is a carnival barker, not an honest interviewer. Not that he couldn't handle it, but anyone like Mr. Wales going onto that show would be heading into a trap, it would just be a waste of time. Now if a reputable outlet wanted to send an invite to give an opportunity to rebut Mr. Sanger, that would be great. I'd love to see you and Lawrence O'Donnell have a sitdown. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Tucker Carlson is about the last person I'd want to interview me; he's far more opinion columnist than honest journalist. Though Sanger's criticisms are hardly criticisms at all...he claims that we are pushing establishment views, and darn right we are. As my favorite part of WP:FLAT goes: If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing. We publish a mainstream view because how could we possibly choose what nuts, off-road versions of reality to report. We no more adhere to Tucker Carlson's version of the universe than Joe Rogan's. Sanger's concerns about us being edited by governments and companies is warranted I'd say, but his implied solution that we remove anonymity and force contributors to reveal who they are is untenable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are supposed to primarily be for pushing facts, not views. One problem with today's media is that they have a way of converting opinions into news reports where someone's opinion is stated as a fact. Really, Wikipedia would be better off if it just avoided covering such "news". Why does media do this? I think it's because opinions are cheap, but real news-gathering costs money. One would hope Wikipedia would also report the views of Eratosthenes as controversial or fringe rather than refusing to report those views at all. Wikipedia is balanced when it includes minority (a less-derogatory term than "fringe") views, it's not balanced when it rejects reasonable minority views by transforming them to "fringe". See "lab leak". – wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wbm1058, what do you mean about the lab leak? We do cover it, we explain what it is, the different formulations of it, we talk about its proponents and the origin of the theory. And we also talk about the mainstream view re: whether or not it is "likely" (the scholarly view is that it is not very likely). What would you change about this?

There seems to be this enduring rumor that Wikipedia is "silencing" the lab leak. Which could not be further from the truth. Is this just an outdated thing that was true 6 or 12 months ago? We now cover it in proportion to its coverage in secondary sources (or attempt to), and in context of what those sources say.

I think it is our duty to cover these things, not only because they are DUE, but because our readers are already thinking about it. Anyone who thinks the lab leak is not very likely should be on board with this. Because it is better to "inoculate" the reader with all the facts of the situation, no matter where they will lead. Any attempt to obfuscate just blows back in your face, exactly as we can all see with how China's obstructionist view (as a totalitarian government) has blown up in its face. Regardless of whether or not the CCP actually have something to hide. (The international relations experts think they don't, not necessarily anyway [3])

I'm a virologist who earned a PhD studying BSL3 and 4 viruses. I have performed these experiments (creating new viruses from scratch, developing vaccines/drugs against them, etc), I have worked in these "high security labs" (although I have never been to the WIV, I did meet Drs. Shi Zhengli and Peter Daszak at a conference in Hong Kong once (in 2018), they weren't famous then and I didn't pay much attention, lol.) Personally, I think the lab leak (in all its various proposed forms) probably isn't what happened. But I also recognize that on Wikipedia, we have to talk about it, and we have to put it in context. As they say, "inquiring minds want to know."

I don't understand where everybody got this idea that there are lots of editors who "don't want to talk about it." That just sounds like more conspiratorial thinking in my opinion... "they don't want you to know" etc. I know that's not what you're saying here Wbm1058, it's just what I've heard others say again and again. I truly think that, at this point, this narrative of Wikipedian obstructionism has entered "folklore" status. It doesn't matter what we actually do in these articles, or how NPOV we try to be, because it will be forever an accepted fact in the collective consciousness of Wikipedia that we "didn't get the lab leak right" in some unspecified way. This saddens me.

As for Jimbo Wales, from one Jim to another...I don't think it would serve him or the project to comment on this in a venue like Tucker Carlson... It only legitimizes the complaints of partisans, and puts them on equal footing. As they say, the best revenge is success. I think if we make our coverage in this area as excellent as it can be, include all relevant viewpoints as covered in RSes, then our NPOV and consistent coverage will be its own reward.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The goal of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins. was to deprecate all general mainstream sources as "reliable sources" for "medical information" and declare medical journals as the only reliable source for this information – with the origin of COVID-19 declared to be "medical information". And while Wikipedia is "conservative" about jumping to conclusions, these reliable medical journals were anything but when they with all due haste quickly declared a lab leak to be virtually impossible (i.e. "fringe"). Like the Catholic Church declaring they are the only reliable source for the shape of the Earth. Never mind that the medical insiders have an obvious conflict-of-interest in that findings of accidents would likely dry up their funding (see nuclear power industry). What is the medical explanation for the Chinese government's taking Wuhan lab databases offline and sealing all records of the research conducted in Wuhan circa December 2019? – wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Censorship crying is indeed usually part of conspiratorial discourse. Moreover, a textbook propaganda tactic is to attempt to foment controversy over it just so that the idea gets echoed again and again. As for MEDRS, one of its goals is also the avoidance of primary papers, favoring more credible reviews, so the above portrayal is not completely true. Comparing to Catholic imprimatur is also a false equivalence, this is the scientific community, not a fundamentalist religious organization that resisted the collapse of the view that humans are at the center of the universe... Most of the time, people who complain about peer review or "dogmatic" science, tend to push for views that are also wrong. —PaleoNeonate – 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger complained on an establishment conservative news outlet that Wikipedia pushes an establishment point of view. Ironic. X-Editor (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just musing about how different Larry's attitude, and Wikipedia, might be today if, rather than lay Larry off because of financial pressures, Jimbo had realized a bit earlier how easy it was to raise funds to support this project, and had raised more than enough money that he could afford to keep Larry on the payroll. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Aggrepedia

I am in complete agreement with Randy Kryn that the Sanger interview was disappointing. I am creating a different subsection because the discussion above is primarily about some aspects of the interview and other issues, but I'd like to explore a proposal that came up in the interview but not discussed above. I fully understand that the fact that Sanger proposed it will create some knee-jerk opposition, but I hope readers can move past the messenger and evaluate the idea on its merits.

An encyclopedia (if one can believe Wiktionary) is supposed to be "a comprehensive reference work..." That sounds very broad, but, by definition, the contents of an encyclopedia reflect the consensus views of the contributors. That's hardly surprising, and one's reaction might be "how could it be otherwise?", but despite having hundreds of thousands of contributors, the content in many articles reflects the consensus view of a relatively small handful of individuals, often times driven by those who are passionate and persevering. This seems inevitable, and I'll emphasize that I am impressed at how well it works. When I'm talking to friends about Wikipedia, I often tell them about an article I ran across where I started by reading the talk page before reading the article. As I read the infighting and name-calling and arguing, I despaired that this process could produce a decent article, but when I read the article it was surprisingly good. We all know the adage about not wanting to see how the sausages are made, but it is somewhat surprising how good the product is given the ugliness of the process at times.

I've occasionally tried to think about how to improve the process, but other than minor suggestions at the margins, I haven't come up with anything earth-shattering. Then I watched the steaming pile of crap that was the Carlson - Sanger interview, and think I saw a nugget of gold. He suggested creating a work that would include multiple encyclopedias. Readers would be able to pick a subject, whether it be something relatively noncontroversial like Jupiter or highly controversial like Israeli–Palestinian conflict and see how the subject is covered by several encyclopedias including Wikipedia. Some will be sure to point out that there is nothing preventing people from doing that now so what value does this initiative deliver? My response is that one could equally say why should we write a crowd sourced article about Jupiter, when anyone can do a casual Google search and find all of that information? Wikipedia succeeds partly because it makes that exercise easier, pulling together a wide array of facts from various sources into one coherent location. While anyone could look up "Jupiter" in Wikipedia then in Encyclopaedia Britannica, then in some other encyclopedia and see how they compare, I suggest that almost no one does this on a regular basis. What if we could deliver a site that would pull the various options together side-by-side so that they could be easily compared?

I fully understand this is not a trivial initiative. While a subject like Jupiter has close to a one-to-one correspondence between various encyclopedias, subjects such as "Israeli – Palestinian conflict" probably don't map so nicely. But if the initiative were trivial it would probably already be done. The value added is sorting through the issues of how to map the articles in a way that readers can compare similar subjects.

I wanted to call this initiative Polypedia or Multipredia, but both of those terms seem to be taken so my placeholder for a name at the moment is Aggrepedia, connoting that the product is an aggregation of encyclopedias.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

• News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories

• Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong

• In the media: Larry is at it again

• Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates

• Recent research: Gender bias and statistical fallacies, disinformation and mutual intelligibility

• Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki

• News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department

• Humour: A little verse

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record.

Have some pancakes while we wait for enlightenment

I would take a bullet for you in a heartbeat. We need you like the world needs a sun. But I wasn't in for a suicide pact wrt the Commons porn thing. I'll play on side with the sites integrity even against you. But my abiding faith is in you remembering what got you into this in the first place. Do not despair. Help is always nearer than you believe. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

This post has no links to other Wikimedia pages. Please help improve this post by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. (July 2021) Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation broke Russian Wikinews again

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T287362
Resolved

This is the current news now

The Wikimedia Foundation engineers have turned off the news feed on Russian Wikinews again. This is a key feature of any news project. And now it doesn't work again.

For example, the latest news list on the title page looks like the picture on the right. Latest news page about you looked like this and now so. All the recent news looked like this, now look so. There is one and a half million news in alphabetical order. But no one can find the latest news anythere.

The problem is that no one at the Wikimedia Foundation bothers nor solves it (see phab:T287380).

I have no idea what would have happened if the BBC or CNN had lost their news feed. I'm sure management and technical services would do just that. However, nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation does this. There is no news feed for three days. No one worries.

Moreover, the engineers openly stated that they would never return the news feed to Russian Wikinews. It is not right. Even if someone said or did something wrong, emotions should not harm our projects.

I don't want to blame anyone. Time will judge. I just want the Wikimedia project to work and develop again. This is not my project. This is a Wikimedia project. But it seems that I am the only one concerned about his fate.

Our very small team came to Russian Wikinews about ten years ago. Then it was a microscopic project that was between life and death every day. Now Russian Wikinews is one of the largest Wikimedia projects, ranking 16th in terms of the number of pages in the main space and fifth in terms of the total number of pages. Now Russian Wikinews is one of the largest open and free news archives. There is a continuous chronology of all events for each day since 2000. Now Russian Wikinews is one of the largest providers of current news. We publish about 600 news items a day. Now Russian Wikinews is a great place to publish original reports, exclusive interviews and photo reports. Our citizen journalists publish exclusive stories almost every day. Most of us live in countries where journalists are massively repressed right now and our work is very important for everyone. We know how to develop. We can become one of the best Wikimedia projects and one of the largest news agencies in the world. We are proud of our work.

But we cannot develop if we do not have basic support from the Wikimedia Foundation. When the servers are down, when the software is broken. When the management of the Wikimedia Foundation does nothing for wikis. We cannot develop when we are bullied and mocked by Foundation employees and contactors. When T&S openly threatens us with violence.

I have no one else to turn to. Therefore, I am writing to you. And I have one single question. Does the Wikimedia movement need wiki projects and does it need Russian Wikinews? If not, I thank you and everyone for the years here and I am ready to leave the Wikimedia movement at any time. If Russian Wikinews are needed, then please create for us at least minimal working conditions and protect us at least from harassment by employees and contractors.

Russian Wikinews is a very large project and it should be located on a dedicated infrastructure like other equally large projects. I don't understand why this has not been done until now. Even this alone would have helped to avoid many problems. This needs to be done urgently.

But most importantly and very urgent, please help launch a news feed on Russian Wikinews. If the engineers at the Wikimedia Foundation are unwilling to do this, you can announce a contest. I am sure that there are talented programmers in the world who can quickly solve this problem, and you can find and interest them. --sasha (krassotkin) 06:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the details but this has been discussed on-wiki—see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Overflow error (permalink) which leads to phab:T287362. It appears that developers responded to severe slow-downs of a large number of projects by disabling an extension called DPL (DynamicPageList). That was because DPL is not supported and was not designed to cope with large numbers of new pages (see July 2021 Signpost). DPL was previously temporarily disabled in September 2020 (archive) but has now been switched off indefinitely after this second incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)