Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157→Archive 160

The Day We Fight Back

Note to those just arriving at, or re-arriving at, this discussion: there seems to be emerging support and excitement for a proposal by Jehochman, below. Please engage with that now, rather than a blackout, as there also appears to be emerging consensus that a blackout is not right at this time for this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just putting this out here for preliminary discussions: The Day We Fight Back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If WP:RS articles surface we should certainly write a WP:NPOV article on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
So is the plan to shut down Wikipedia again for a day?--MONGO 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that is what Jimbo means, regardless of anybody's opinion on government surveillance and related issues, they do not threaten Wikipedia directly enough, imo, for any action to be taken. Snowolf How can I help? 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No kidding. But aside from shutting down the website for a day, what other means of protest are both available and obvious enough to make our opinion obvious.--MONGO 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And how long do we "fight back" against the amount of data Google and others collect? Intothatdarkness 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Uhm...without that Google data collection...Wikipedia articles would not appear in a google search. Some collection is part of how your search engine provides data to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Umm..and their scanning of e-mail for targeted advertising purposes and other activities relate to Wikipedia articles how, exactly? It's not just searching...Google collects and uses far more than that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Have essays or related articles ready in time: We can use the words "avoid" or "counter" while the word "fight" is problematic because of connection to wp:ANI WP:BATTLEground mentality, but there might also be conflicts with some users who like mass surveillance. I suggest a new essay "wp:Avoiding mass surveillance" but be prepared that everything new will be dragged to AfD or wp:MfD and allow extra time for people fighting against any progress to improve coverage. Meanwhile, it is good for people to remember those who have been arrested over false perceptions, and those celebrity sex tapes, with people a few months underage, have led to charges of child pornography where perhaps 19 is considered legal age. It is good to remind people to clear the browser's temporary files, to erase controversial work files, and beware of mobile phone zoom-lens cameras at an Internet cafe, or even in public restrooms. There are cameras and snooping everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another case where Wikipedia should avoid politicizing itself. I recall posting several times on this user talk page asking if Wikipedia were co-operating with "collection agencies" (pun intended) and was assured Wikipedia was not so doing. That is far different from the "action" being called for in a political manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. SOPA connected to Wikipedia, but I don't think this connects enough for action. Seattle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another useless protest? Can we avoid politics and attention-grabbing gimmicks and just focus on building and improving the encyclopaedia? Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are enough internal issues here that should be addressed as it is. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Three comments, based upon our SOPA experience:
First, because of our community consensus policy, Wikipedia cannot respond as fast as reddit.com or icanhas.cheezburger.com can. If we are going to participate, we need to hammer out the details now, not later.
Second, before Wikipedia got on board the SOPA protest, news sources kept speculating on us: "but will Wikipedia join the protest?" Wikipedia joining or not joining is a very big deal.
Third, we need to be really careful not to overuse the idea. Wikipedia protesting one thing in four years has a lot of impact. Wikipedia protesting four things in one year has far less impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Beyond any other protest activities, the focus could be on "consciousness raising" as providing information which people might expect, about mass surveillance. Even with the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, Wikipedia was mentioned in discussing the "red carpet" as an obvious website to check for background information. -Wikid77 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that too. The mass surveillance articles can always use help. petrarchan47tc 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The relative importance of this thing needs to be considered, though. It's true that if Snowden's revelations came along ten years from now, the potentially watered-down effect of Wikipedia's response would be a nonissue. But revelations such as these have no precedent in history, so the third point may have less validity than the first two. petrarchan47tc 21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Snowden merely provided further confirmation of what many already knew.--MONGO 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
He provided hard-core, undisputed evidence straight from the source which has enjoyed 8 months of nonstop, excellent media coverage and sparked indignation and action across the globe. Previous NSA whistleblowers and Congresspersons like Wyden were all but ignored, and have expressed deep gratitude that Snowden blew the lid off this story so that it can finally be addressed in open courts and by the general public. Remember, "We don't spy, not wittingly" was the NSA's accepted line prior to Snowden. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite. And the UK's GCHQ is just as guilty. Eric Corbett 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Et al. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear..some countries with similar forms of government, outlooks and language have been working cooperatively behind the scenes...big shock! Thank goodness Snowden blew the lid off all these things or else we would have all been in total darkness as to the nefarious activities of big brother.--MONGO 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"The fact that this has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step…in the march to a real debate,” Wyden said, and added that Snowden’s disclosures made it possible. “We wouldn’t have had that seven, eight weeks ago.” This fact was acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by other House members... during a... hearing with officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA. “Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would’ve never known what happened if he hadn’t told us,” said Representative Ted Poe." * petrarchan47tc 02:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • “So, today I’m going to deliver another warning: If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it,” Wyden continued. “The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.” petrarchan47tc 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A little while ago it was proposed that we join with various multi-national corporations in taking a stand for Internet freedom, and I commented that we would be better aligning ourselves with other Internet non-profits. I still think that, but the aesthetics of the facebook banners they are proposing leave me a little cold. The Franklin quote: try telling that to Winston Churchill. And I'm particularly nonplussed by the image of of some guy (is it Rosanne's husband? have they run it by him?) who's so annoyed with the NSA he's about to kill his work colleagues. I know its just what some random people thought would grab people's attention, but it strikes a tone that's a bit too right-of-centre for my liking. Maybe Wikipedia should be part of this once they've had a re-think about what it is they want to convey. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a campaign about putting a banner on your site, not about shutting it down. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The question we should be asking is what can we do to support people's right to read freely, without fear that their reading habits on Wikipedia will be used to harass them somehow. This would be a good time to remind people that "Freedom from fear" means freedom from being oppressed and targeted for harassment based on your Internet use. For those who think this is "no big deal," I'd suggest you take a look at "Top Secret America," a reputable, open-source book and website that came out way before Snowden, and get a handle on what we're talking about here. When serious thinkers in intelligence ethics are formulating arguments along the lines of, "Well that guy was a national level legislator, he should have known better that he's fair game for anything anyone can possibly dig up by hacking his digital trail and exposing it to the public ..."-- with social norms like that, what chance do the rest of us have to defend ourselves against smears, harassment or worse? Who's going to want to run for public office under those circumstances?
What percentage of readers will visit the Wikipedia home page when they're here, do we know this? petrarchan47tc 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we do know the percentage as a steady rate, from pageviews of Main_page during the prior 2010 Winter Olympics (Feb. 2010 Main_page stats), as 5.1 million/day unchanged during the event (2014 average: 9.0 million/day). However, the Olympics will take space on the Main_page, as covered each day. Also, "viewing" does not mean reading the page, and so a Main_page banner might be needed to get attention on 11 Feb. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If we decide to say something, we'll almost certainly want to add a link to our statement near the top of every article for the day. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all...this is NOT a Wikipedia protest. Just because Jimbo brought this to our attention here does not mean he is sponsoring this or involved in any way. Guys...this has been out there for a while and Jimbo is not the first to share this. If you don't want to take a stand as a group because that is what our guidelines and policies state then don't...but those guidelines and policies ARE NOT TO CONTROL US AS A GROUP and/or whatever we want to support or protest as that group. Those policies and guidelines are meant to help us write articles not control us as a community.

I support this Jimmy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, as noted above, we can expand (or highlight) the related background articles, beyond "mass surveillance" without actually protesting any specific issue. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very strong support. Let's not go black over this, but a banner and a tailored main page are fitting. It just wouldn't look right for all our closest allies to participate only to have Wikipedia remain silent on an issue of such gravity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We could use the same mechanism we use to put Jimbo's smiling face on our fundraising banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for HectorMoffet's every word. petrarchan47tc 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for banner and main page educational words and pictures. Let the free encyclopedia spread the news. Jusdafax 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If it were done naïvely, it would be tantamount to lifting all blocks and bans, a radical affirmation of the principle that anyone can edit. If edits from the Tor network could be clearly identified in the history, or if they all went through a review similar to pending changes, then edits by Tor users could get extra scrutiny. —rybec 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I could only see supporting this if it was expanded to deal with the sort of surveillance conducted by Google and other tech companies on a daily basis. Otherwise it's just more politically-motivated electronic masturbation. Is Google's surveillance "good" because they do it in the name of advertising profits? If we're going to NPOV it we should include all these activities. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why non-governmental global surveillance isn't worth mentioning too. Although, to put it into perspective Google doesn't have prosecutors, prisons, an army, an air force, or armed drones. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jehochman proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - And as we are an encyclopedia with much in the way of information, I think should last a full week, not just a single day. Out goal, as noted above is to inform by sharing what others say. I think that this is something we can do well here. - jc37 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Caution - Ideally, this could be the beginning of a series of one-day featured topics on timely concepts from politics, as well as other fields like extrasolar planetary systems. But filling the entire Main Page, even for a day, means creating and polishing a lot of material. We have to make sure that we don't declare to the world we're going to do something big, then show them a sloppy job. We also have to make sure that the NPOV is not compromised, as this is not something that we can easily argue is strictly necessary for our continued operations. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A most excellent idea put forth by Jehochmah, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jecochmah's idea of using our own articles in a protest stunt as total madness. A potential banner or similar on the issue must in no way be linked to Wikipedia's ordinary content unless is a very neutral manner to explain background. Using our own articles to argue a cause would totally damage our principle of neutrality. Iselilja (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we would never change articles away from NPOV. What's proposed is to display a custom, one-day-only message at Main, and to have a banner of some type above articles. I suspect your objection still stands, but just wanted to clarify that our articletext is sacrosanct.HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not because it so much matters, if you could get it together in a few hours, but that seems doubtful, making it a considerable distraction for far too many resources (our editors' time) from article creation/curation, which given the size and difficulty of that vital task cannot actually afford such distraction. These libertarian/authoritarian issues are undoubtedly as ancient as the first time two people decided to live together but this project is not going to do much for it, except to create informational content that people demand/desire -- by hook, by crook, through persecution, and prosecution -- to read and pass along. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would completely contravene the no advertising, it doesn't matter if the articles were neutral, so were Gibralterpedia articles in DYK, and I know enough about that to know it caused uproar. We should not resort to backing any cause, (almost) no matter what. Matty.007 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a well-thought-out proposal, will be fine as long as we stick to NPOV -A1candidate (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms. This is a political statement and we must not take political positions. It is antithetical to our mission. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that's it. It is not a vehicle to promote ANY political agenda, at all, no matter how nice or nasty it is. If the WMF wants to jump on the bandwagon for this campaign and they feel it is line with their goal to promote free knowledge, then fine, they can issue statements and do interviews etc., but they're encyclopedic projects must remain neutral. I opposed the SOPA action, and I will oppose this for the same reason: we must not stray from our original purpose to provide a compendium of neutral free knowledge into some kind of internet activist group. It's an insult to our donors, we promised them that we would not be like all the rest of the internet wikis with clear POV's (e.g. Conservapedia), and would be genuinely neutral on political matters. Please stop. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose this is a bloody awful idea that ignores two of our five pillars. Just to remind you the first states at "Wikipedia in and encyclopaedia ...[it] is not a soapbox". Pet projects on political issues fly in the face of that. NPOV is the second pillar being utterly ignored here. This issue also needs to be discussed in a centralised forum (WP:CENT springs to mind), rather than the talk page of an admin, which isn't somewhere most editors will have bookmarked. If you're going to try and play political games, you need to get a wider buy-in than this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I can see merit in a protest regarding SOPA, I don't see merit in this. Seattle (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind. -Well-restedTalk 04:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I agree with the main proposal, but also several oppose reasons and comments. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We should be concerned that the actions we would protest are widely being considered illegal, unconstitutional, and a privacy and rights violation. It was illegal for Nixon, it sure isn't suddenly morally right now. 71.246.156.28 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Main Page Project

  • On the assumption that the proposal has already been supported, I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming likes for Jehochman's (IMO brilliant) compromise above. Please don't hesitate to add to the basic framework I created (and partly ctrl c, ctrl v'ed off the AFD pages) :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you realise just how massive and fractured the Wikipedia community actually is. If anyone who has every touched the edit button is required to have a say so all thousands of us can have an organised discourse on the topic, then I really don't think we'd ever get anywhere. This is a genuinely good idea and I see no reason why we can't just go with the flow rather than resort to overly-bureaucratic systems. In any case, I didn't actually declare the nomination supported. Instead I explained that I created a page (created prematurely because I think the proposal will go through anyway), so when it eventually does we'll already have a basic framework to work off of. But Ben Moore is right. We don't have much time at all to be flapping about.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No need for hyperbole, no one is suggesting "anyone who has every touched the edit button" need be consulted. Just e.g. a week-long straw poll or mini-RFC with a limited number of properly-developed options, per precedent. benmoore 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Centralized discussion needed, or this will look like a hijack by the few. Also, there are other main page interests in addition to DYK that need to be included in a consensus. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea to put together a concrete example of what the page might look like. People will have a much easier time evaluating the proposal if they can look at something. We can prepare the page while concurrently having a centralized discussion to decide "go" or "no go". That way we aren't caught short of time. Lastly, I suggest Edward Snowden be considered for the featured article that day. We'll have to work hard to get it up to featured condition in time, if it's even possible. Love him or hate him, he's been a central character for this issue. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, Maile-- I think everyone recognizes that a decision of this magnitude can't be made by insiders on Jimmy's talk page. As Jehochman says, we're informally just working out what it is we're proposing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree - those of us reading this page tend to be fond of "drama" that many others can do without. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Meh. There's a difference between "drama" and a legitimate controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is plenty of Support for this, but I also think it should hopefully only help to try to garner a wider consensus from the community, and/or seek out consensus from members of the community that frequent the above-mentioned individual project pages for the various subsections of the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I left comments there and propose we copy further discussion, including the survey below, to that page. – SJ + 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Editors who support a one-day banner on every article:

Editors who support a one-day banner on the main page only:

  • Only as an explanation of what's going on on the main page that day (Jehochman's proposal above). And it should be neutrally worded as noted by Jimbo Wales, above. - jc37 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I support both of the above proposals to be placed simultaneously. Fine with Jimbo wording it, as it eliminates wrangling over the wording. Jusdafax 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors who oppose any banner:

Comments

  • Honestly, I think most people don't give a shit. Just look at the rather undeveloped pages for the more interesting and recent leaks about MUSCULAR or TAO, from the last fall. (The pages were even more stubby before I worked on them yesterday [1] [2].) I think the general public now thinks: "NSA/GCHQ/FVEY spies on everything I do electronically using OMGWTFANOTHERPROGRAM? I don't care as long as they don't van me." Someone not using his real name (talk)

Ask (for community discussions), and you shall receive

The conversation has become rather fractures, but here's the various discussions that have been going on over the past 2 or so days. Please weigh in.--Coin945 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So I'll ask the same thing I asked before: wouldn't it be a better idea to come out against TPP? Copyright limits are a lot more germane to Wikipedia than surveillance, plus TPP has a deadline and has been publicized a lot less. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal status

The current draft of the proposal is at Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day. Notable changes include:

  • A title all our own: we are "educating" more than we are "fighting".
  • An arbitrary mockup: while we hope to see great improvements in quality as we get more feedback, we do now have enough proposed content for the creation of mockups.

Additionally we should emphasize plans for a watchlist notice to have a site-wide conversation before actually implementing this. We're planning to do something new on Feb 11-- if our whole community doesn't support this, we need to learn that on Feb 10 (or earlier), not on Feb 11 (or later) after we've already made the change.

My role here is very agnostic-- I don't know "what" we should say, and if the community ultimately decides to stick with status quo, that's 100% fine. We just want to present them with lots of options and let consensus sort it out.

Feedback on Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day is greatly welcome as we brainstorm, polish, and present this idea to the community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, HectorMoffet - fantastic work. petrarchan47tc 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I should note we're getting QUITE a lot of pushback from the TFA coordinator and other mainpage insiders who are generally opposed to the whole idea of deviating from status quo in any way. That's a debate above my paygrade, but others might want to look into soothing things with that community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Hector. I really think, though, that a centralised vote is now overdue. Wikipedia isn't good at making decisions quickly and 11 Feb is looming fast. At the moment, I think there's a strong chance of it being remembered not for any effective protest (sorry, "awareness day"), but for a whole load of squabbling and acrimony. Can some please set up an RfC? Formerip (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think my initial brainstorm was helpful, but I don't think it actually embodied Jehochman's vision. Hopefully he and others will start to take over the process. As for what we have so far, it's not at a state where we would want to trouble the community with it until a proposal has the consensus of the proposers. If Feb 11 comes and goes without this issue ever having been raised, that's fine. I'm the guy you go to when you need brainstorming, I'm not the guy you go to when you want to finish and present a major proposal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It does look as if a few 'big picture' people have shown up at the Project talk page and are actively moving forward. petrarchan47tc 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course. That's how you present the community with something that looks like it's already been decided and have them rubber stamp it.Intothatdarkness 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure what that means. Anyway, things stalled soon after. The best thing would be a general RfC, and we could make clear nothing has 'been decided'. (Here is Project talk page.) petrarchan47tc 02:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles to create

I have just accepted new article Govware at Articles for Creation. This contains dozens of redlinks to different items of Govware. Each of these topics could potentially be created as a new article and then submitted to Wikipedia:Did you know?. This would provide ongoing coverage, awareness and education on the topic for the foreseeable future, as well as providing items (if needed) for Did you know? on the day in question. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Very bad idea. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No consensus

As far as I can tell, there's no consensus to do anything.

If people want Wikipedia to take some kind of action - either banners, or the idea of changing main-page to feature it for the day, or whatever - then they absolutely need to create an RFC.

I oppose doing anything at all, per WP:SOAP. 88.104.27.18 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

An RFC is a good idea, for closure. See also the new section below. – SJ + 19:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Law of Florida is mixed with dirt in Wikipedia RU

Taking the liberty of hatting here, as it has devolved into rants and personal attacks against other editors. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello Jimmy and others!

Russian Wikipedia violates this important rule, which has relation to the laws of the US: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (must be respected in any jurisdiction). The source - almost fiction literature with violation against living famous people of Russia: http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/CULTURE/MUSIC/RYBIN/kino.txt (Кино с самого начала). Part of text (to show that it is almost fiction):

" - I invented a new game - thoughtfully said Choi . - What ? - In the girls throwing stones . - Are you absolutely furious ? - Oleg rolled over and closed his eyes . Choi took the two fingers tiny pebble about the size of a sunflower seed and gently let him back in the pink one lying close to the pretty girls. Hit in the right shoulder blade was ignored and Choi began slowly to prepare for the next attack . The game drew him , but not enough to stand up to search for suitable shells, and he limited the search area radius outstretched right arm, which has become blindly raking sand and pebbles , while giving it a striking resemblance to the breaststroke swimmer , if not for the left hand , which , however, as all the rest of the body remained perfectly still . Oleg opened his eyes , and his face was slowly acquiring meaningful expression with a clear shade if not anger, discontent is completely clear , and, as it seemed to me , it was not due to the fact that the offended lady , but rather of the fuss that makes hand -wiggling Tsoi sculptural group in harmony , which is a fixed three of our body. Choi , with his characteristic tenacity , continued his work . Found - threw found - tossed . Slip . Hit . Hit . Hit . Slip . Hit . It is not flagged in the same back and alternately - that it , in the back neighbor .... " (translation).

In this stupid book is written that members of the legendary band: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mashina_Vremeni (alcoholics). And Russian Wikipedia uses this info. Other heros of this "source" say for millions of people that Viktor Tsoi was in psychiatric hospital (in the same time, this info is the crime, see below):

Articles of Russian Wikipedia about the Kino (band) contain the illegal information. This info have relation to legal acts in the US and Florida: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.4615.html (Russia also). Great number of Russian laws is violated (even dead man has right be free of violation against his reputation after death). Nobody gave permission to talk about the such "facts" for attention of millions of people.

Other "source" about psychiatric hospital has the preamble (the info is not accurate, we are not responsible for approval). This is the slander and breach of patient confidentiality at the same time: http://domknig.com/readbook/9973/ :

"Several sections of the book are occupied with reprints of publications about Victor and Tsoe group MOVIES from various publications - the official press and self-publishing, central and peripheral. Sometimes they sin inaccuracies, but we also reserve the statements in these articles, interviews and notes on the conscience of their authors." (translation).

By the way, for an interview. We have included in the book are just a few where the most authentic, from our point of view, look answers Victor, although it should not be taking anything for granted. "

Because in Russian Wikipedia are violated law of the US and your words also:

((((Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.)))),

Please say to administrators of English Wikipedia - need make warning in relation of admins of Russian Wikipedia (violations must be deleted and the bad sources must be banned: almost fiction book "Кино с самого начала" - in first). My topic here can be removed (I gave the info for the good of Wikimedia Foundation: reputation will be saved - including). Thank you Jimmy! P.S. The rule of Russian Wikipedia also contains the info about respecting of USA law and of your words on this issue: http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A1%D0%9E%D0%92%D0%A0 (living persons). - 37.145.186.224 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Unfortunately, administrators of English Wikipedia can't do anything to, or about, administrators of Russian Wikipedia. (Though Jimbo perhaps can, and this page is a suitable place to ask for his input.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't they have the same possibilities as all Wikipedia users - to contact anyone via discussion pages or e-mails?--37.230.15.218 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the language gap makes it difficult to assess the concerns above. I've started to reach out to people who might be able to approach 37.145.186.224 using their own language, and then summarise the issues for us here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The language barrier makes it hard to understand what is going on at all, much less to try to help. There are good people in Russian Wikipedia who are better placed that I am to help with any specific problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • He can be everyone. Russian Wikipedia uses fiction literature as source and violates reputation of living person in the same time. Dead people are violated also for the attention of millions of people. When Russian and USA law forbid do it. Rule of Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales forbid do it also. OneLittleMouse, you - administrator of Russian Wikipedia and you must implement this important rule on the practice: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons (нельзя осквернять репутацию живущих ныне людей, согласно этому правилу). Согласно другим правилам любой Википедии, нельзя использовать беллетристику в качества источника в статьях Википедии. Нельзя осквернять репутацию покойника для внимания миллионов человек, когда нет законного права (тем более, используются очень сомнительные источники). OneLittleMouse, you must remove any materials from articles of Russian Wikipedia, when these materials have relation to this book: http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/CULTURE/MUSIC/RYBIN/kino.txt ("Кино с самого начала"). http://translate.google.com - 2.94.5.68 (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

OneLittleMouse again mixes with dirt the rules of Wikipedia and the US law also: http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Dmitry_Rozhkov&action=history (his colleague helps to him). Translator: http://translate.google.com 2.93.247.147 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • SUGESSTION of the innovation: to respect independence in different jurisdictions of Wikipedia and create troubles for any violators in the same time. Example:

Russian vandals with flag of administrator of Wikipedia often have profiles in English Wikipedia and in other projects, where is used English language (like OneLittleMouse in English Wikipedia). Other projects (Meta, Commons and so on). When the such people make violation against common rules of Wikipedia, their English profiles will be blocked (1 warning before). Why the such scheme can work on high level? Colleagues of violator will be afraid getting the same strict sanctions vs them. Everybody can make request to such colleague: "need provide respect in the relation of common rule and remove violation" (colleague will do it, because he does not wish be blocked in English Wikipedia and in other projects on English). Request is intended for attention of colleagues, which have profile in English Wikipedia, or in other project on English. Any violators with flag of administrator will respect the common rule, when this innovation already in force (violator not from English Wikipedia). Any absolutely administrators (not from English Wikipedia) have possibility become a violator, when they do not wish remove violation after first request (without conflict before this). He must have profile in English Wikipedia, or in other projects on English, as in other cases for reach the goal (this goal: all Wikipedias without violations). In accordance with common sense, the precedent can be created even now (and become rule with corrections later). We took care on this issue: one of administrators of English Wikipedia got request to ban OneLittleMouse (and the violator already got from us more, than the 1 warning - respect the common rules of Wikipedia). All so easy and can be mistake? Violators with flag of administrator of Wikipedia - not from English Wikipedia. These violators will lose prestige in eyes of own colleagues and in eyes of any users (very important component of this innovation).

Note: If you will see, that the page of OneLittleMouse does not exists (precedent created). Administrators can discuss this issue in any place (to find wise decision). User was banned (his page does not exist in English Wikipedia forever). Or in other projects (English). http://translate.google.com - 2.94.9.184 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

  • Jurisdiction of USA exists, other jurisdictions exist in the same time (on legal grounds). I ask create neutral jurisdiction. Chiefs there will destroy violators in any jurisdiction (not English). English Wikipedia not will lose independence (when exist any other jurisdictions). Admins of not English jurisdiction will be afraid of the will of chiefs of neutral jurisdiction more than death. Sword of vengeance vs violation of common rules of any Wikipedia (law of USA and Florida state will be respected on best level in the same time). OneLittleMouse and other violators will be destroyed very quickly and forever. English Wikipedia not will know about this even. 2.93.59.35 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yesterday and not only was request to find attention of Russian administrators for removal of violations (them criminal friends made rollback - to continue violate common rules and law of USA). So not must be continued. They make protection of them page, to be free of getting request (continue violations). Full anarchy:

http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Vlsergey&action=history (Vlsergey): "Защищена Обсуждение участника:Vlsergey: набеги ([Редактирование=только автоподтверждённые] (истекает 21:52, 21 января 2014)"

http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Vladimir_Solovjev&action=history (Vladimir Solovjev): "Защищена Обсуждение участника:Vladimir Solovjev: повторяющиеся неконсенсусные правки ([Редактирование=только автоподтверждённые] (истекает 12:12, 2014)

http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Dmitry_Rozhkov&action=history (Dmitry Rozhkov): "http://ru.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Dmitry_Rozhkov&oldid=60866964 OneLittleMouse (обсуждение | вклад)‎ м . . (22 704 байта) (-2644)‎ . . (откат правок Fsdirtr2516 (обс) к версии El-chupanebrej)"

When members of Mashina Vremeni are alcoholics in accordance with the tale "Кино с самого начала" (OneLittleMouse, who wishes show many different troubles for very wide public - is placed on this real photo, his different violations are located on the same page): http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikireality.ru%2Fwiki%2FOneLittleMouse - http://translate.google.com - 2.93.59.35 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

  • You are right when this topic is closed. Evil from OneLittleMouse vs living people stronger of any rules, because he is administrator in independent jurisdiction, and he very abuses powers in the same time. He uses trolling via IP providers and user names - long time ago already. 37.145.186.48 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC).
    I was asked at my talk page to have a look. I am a Russian speaker, but I have difficulties understanding what the IP wants. I only understand that they are unhappy about some material on the Russian Wikipedia (the article ru:Кино (группа), which is apparently sourced but they believe the source is not reliable. They apparently complained to a number of administrators on the Russian Wikipedia but did not find much understanding, and started to call them vandals. It is impossible to proceed unless they indicate particular parts of the article they believe is a BLP violation. 37.145.186.48, would you please indicate what statements in the article you disagree with. Пожалуйста, напишите, с какими частями статьи про группу Кино Вы не согласны.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Уважаемый Ymblanter, речь идёт об использовании сомнительной литературы: оскорбление живых и мёртвых в книжке Рыбина "Кино с самого начала" (и такие оскорбления имеют отношение не только к группе Кино), оскорбление покойника в книжке Марьяны, не являющейся прямым родственником - тем более. Человек имеет право на деловую репутацию даже через 1000 лет после смерти (это закреплено в разных законах: в законодательствах США и России - в том числе). Статья про альбом "46" в русской Википедии переполнена грязью просто по полной программе (это пример, самый характерный, где музыканты даже играют на чём-то нехорошем, вместо палок для барабана - ПО ВЕРСИИ РЫБИНА, ОПЯТЬ ЖЕ). Грязь про Пряжку должна исчезнуть из любых статей русской Википедии про группу Кино. Вы можете писать что-угодно на этот предмет, но обязательно упомянув, что такая информация не является подтверждённой (преамбулы к книжке Рыбина и к воспоминаниям Марьяны говорят сами за себя, как и стиль повествования там). - 128.73.83.181 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC).
    Request for specific paragraphs/sentences left. Простите, я задал конкретный вопрос. Можете ли Вы указать конкретные предложения или абзацы в статье русской Википедии, где дана неверная информация (желательно с указанием, что неверно). К книжке и тем более к Марьяне мы не имеем никакого отношения.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The People's Operator

Jimbo, do you have any comment about Mr. Dale Curtis Marshall? Between January and May 2013, he was working for The People's Operator, where his role was to "develop content and strategies for the blog and social channels while also assisting with copy and creative for branding and promotions". Do you think he considered Wikipedia a "social channel" for branding and promotion? I think he did. But who can blame him? I hear that The People's Operator is a fantastic new venture, doing a lot of good for various charities, while they try to become profitable themselves. And look, their Wikipedia article was created by a UK-based marketing consultant. I'm sure the article will get balanced out, neutrally, now that your friend Andrew Lih is working on it, with the help of the Wikimedia Foundation's Funds Dissemination Committee member and co-founder of Wikimedia UK, Mike Peel. Is Wikipedia's article about The People's Operator okay as is, or do you think it should get a re-boot and wait for neutral, unaffiliated Wikipedians in good standing to give it a shot? - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if it's not too taxing, could you please comment on this edit that seems to have deliberately removed the taint of the Cash for peerages scandal that Andrew Rosenfeld (co-founder of The People's Operator) was involved in, with Tony Blair? It appears to have been the work of a highly-focused single-purpose account. Where have we seen that Vandoeuvres name before? Oh, yes, that's right. Pretty nifty how we have yet another "connection" to a former Soviet Asian republic that evolved into a brutal regime that stole from its people. - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd think a bit of this might be worth looking into if it didn't appear to come from Mr. 2001. After a certain point a banned user throwing around wild accusations has no credibility. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Per usual, Smallbones, the truth will out, and you'll be left with that brown nose of yours. Saint Peter, hit the deck, man! Jimbo, do you approve of Martin Tiedemann (a Labour/Co-operative councillor) authoring content so closely tied to the Labour party's Rosenfeld and Garrard (your new partner and his buddy)? It seems that Tiedemann did a fairly good job being objective on that edit, but wouldn't it just be better if he had kept "hands off" to avoid even the appearance of improper editing? - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Some additional interesting edits that made sourced content disappear from David Garrard's BLP, here. Garrard helped Jimbo's partner Rosenfeld make millions -- we wouldn't want his political scandal getting in the way of a pristine BLP, would we? This was a really nifty edit, too. - 50.153.112.1 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, the press release put out about your alliance with The People's Operator was issued by Portland Communications, a consultancy created and staffed by many Tony Blair office notables. Did you know that one of Portland Communications' clients is BTA Bank and another alleged client was Mukhtar Ablyazov? There have been allegations that Portland Communications or other COI editors were found polishing those articles on Wikipedia. Looking at the activities of these editors -- Kazakh IP 212.154.132.3, User:Eab2010, User:Redleaf2010, User:Whiteleaf2011, User:Oligarch2011, User:Btakz (get it? BTA KZakhstan!), User:Lido777, User:Whitetoblerone, Portland Communications IP address 83.244.252.242, IP address 80.42.95.165, User:Kazakh Girl, and Rightsided -- can you point to a single one of them, that you would consider that they are good-faith contributors to Wikipedia and not agenda-driven PR agents or editors with a conflict of interest? Why would you align yourself with Portland Communications, when they seem to be manipulating our Wikipedia (or working with people who are manipulating) in this way? (By the way, unrelated to this, your WikiPolice may wish to look into the activities of User:Erica j, who might possibly be Erica Mold Jeffery, given her focus on adding links back to Euromoney, which employs Erica, and an interest in John G. Mold.) Jimbo, did you really think that aligning yourself with The People's Operator and Portland Communications would go without any criticism of how it affects Wikipedia's reputation? - 50.153.114.6 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I knew you would raise these issues, and I knew they would not impress anyone. It is your full-time hobby as far as I can tell to come up with the wildest possible stretched relationships to try to implicate me in things that have nothing to do with me. No one serious takes you seriously. I did not know and do not care who the p.r. company who put out the press release's other clients are. You may not know this, but when those Wikipedia allegations surfaced about Portland Communications a while back, I went to their office and had them gather their entire staff for a lecture on why it is inappropriate to sockpuppet and edit Wikipedia promotionally. I explained to them the 'bright line rule' and they implemented it. If you find any bad actions from them after that time (I don't remember the exact date of those allegations but let's say within the last year or so) then let me know and I will look into them. What they did before that I condemned back then and still condemn today. I think we can all agree that it would be very difficult to find a major pr firm that does NOT have some Wikipedia editing problems in their closet. That's a bad thing but it's not something that you can blame me for.
For anyone reading this casually allow me to point out how ridiculous this is with just one example. I have joined a company about which there are no allegations of wrongdoing, a company which aims to implement a socially responsible business model giving 10% of revenue to causes and 25% of profits to charity. We hired a PR firm to send out a press release. Our friend here suggests that Mukhtar Ablyazov is "alleged" to also have hired the same PR firm. And user Kazakh Girl, who has no apparent connection to that PR firm made edits to Mr. Ablyazov's Wikipedia entry. So... gotcha, Jimbo! It's totally idiotic.
And then there's Erica Mold Jeffrey and John G. Mold. Which is... who? You don't even bother to make any sort of connection (presumably, because there is none!) to TPO or me or anything of relevance at all. Excuse me for not being impressed. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that's why I said, "unrelated to this" and placed it in a parenthetical statement. Sorry that you missed that in your reading. The reason it was even worth noting was to show how easy it is to find conflict-of-interest editors on Wikipedia, even when analyzing something else entirely. Nobody seems to have given a crap about Jeffrey adding back-links to her commercial site, so I just thought I'd point it out; but I see the thanks I get is for you to mock the information. - 50.153.114.5 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is Portland Communications editing Wikipedia without providing a reliable source, on October 7, 2013. That's well within the last year. Should anyone at Portland be going near an Orange Booker's BLP, considering George Pascoe-Watson (partner at Portland) and his political activity? Just about any neutral observer would say "no", but you'll likely find a way to make Portland's recent editing of Wikipedia look perfectly lovely. Another client of Portland Communications is Nominet UK. Do you think that Portland in its capacity as PR firm would have interacted with Nominet's communications manager, Phil Spray? Maybe, maybe not. Another client of Portland's is Omidyar Network. Did the Wikimedia Foundation refer them to Portland, after Omidyar's $2 million grant (and Halprin board seat) expired? Still another client of Portland's is Viridor, and here's a Viridor IP address editing away at their own article, no disclosure. - 50.153.114.5 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"you'll likely find a way to make Portland's recent editing of Wikipedia look perfectly lovely"? Why would you say that? I am very consistent on my criticism of this sort of thing. I will email them now to complain about it. The Wikimedia Foundation has nothing at all to do with Portland Communications, what a strange thing to say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It is admirable that you will contact Portland Communications to make a complaint about their recent direct editing of Wikipedia on a political subject. I apologize for suggesting that you would pooh-pooh the concern. I also apologize for suggesting that because the Omidyar Network gave WMF $2 million, and the WMF seated an Omidyar employee on its own board of trustees, that this somehow leads to the idea that maybe the WMF recommended Portland Communications to Omidyar Network. The only real connection between the WMF and Portland Communications is that the WMF sent money to a Kazakhstan program that helped place the Kazakh government's official encyclopedia into Kazakh Wikipedia format, and Portland Communications counts the government of Kazakhstan as a PR client. That is admittedly a weak connection, if at all. Despite this apology, many of my other points are still quite valid. - 50.153.114.5 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Until hearing about all this, I never heard of Dale Curtis Marshall, Vandoeuvres, Martin Tiedemann, or David Garrard. Having looked into it, Mr. Marshall was a freelancer (not employee) and he was not employed to edit Wikipedia but of course it is quite common for people to edit Wikipedia inappropriately. I do not approve. Vandoeuvres, I have no idea. As for the "Cash for Peerages" accusation, it strikes me as irrelevant seeing as how Andrew hasn't got a peerage.  :-) He is a major donor to the Labour party, but that has nothing to do with The People's Operator, as it is own private business what political party he supports. For the record, TPO has a very strong policy of not editing Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Strikes me as irrelevant"? The Times seemed to think that the peerage situation was relevant for Sir David Garrard, and Garrard is co-founder of Minerva PLC with your new business partner, Andrew Rosenfeld. The Times said Garrard "inflicted further embarrassment on the Labour leadership". The People's Operator has directly benefited the Labour party, as one of Rosenfeld's first "charitable" contribution partners -- according to Wired, "in September 2013, the Labour Party launched a partnership with TPO in order to help fundraising." You believe that the Labour Party is a "charity", Jimbo? By your logic of "he hasn't got a peerage", one could say that Grant Acord didn't do anything wrong, because the six bombs in a secret compartment in his bedroom were found before he could detonate them, or maybe Faisal Shahzad didn't do anything really bad, because the bomb in Times Square failed to explode, or perhaps you think that Rosenfeld is a modern-day John Schmidt innocent of any wrong-doing because his plot was discovered before he could complete it? - 50.153.114.5 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is really over the top. Even the Daily Mail writes "there was never any suggestion he asked for it" (a peerage). [3] And you compare it to a terrorist plot? He's a supporter of the Labour party who loaned them money and got paid back and never asked for a peerage and never got one. If that's supposed to be a scandal that reflects poorly on me somehow, I just don't see it. Try harder.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No the Labour party is not a charity, but it is a political party and nonprofit organization. There is nothing remotely wrong with TPO customers choosing Labour (or the Tories or LibDems) as their cause to support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now, as we speak, can a TPO customer choose to have 10% of their bill donated to the Conservative Party, the way they can have it currently donated to Labour, GMB, or Unite? Because the way it looks, right now, is that Conservative causes are not an option for customers. And, if a customer selects a cause that TPO considers "invalid", then their 10% goes to the TPO Foundation, to be distributed however it sees fit. Have you read the fine-print? Because that's what it says. - 50.153.114.5 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as of right now (and since the company launched) TPO customers can choose to have 10% of their bill donated to the Conservative Party. We welcome that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, are you 100% certain of this, that if someone signs up with The People's Operator as a cellular customer, right now, today, that he or she would have no more difficulty establishing the Conservative Party (UK) as their 10% beneficiary, than if they were to choose The Labour Party? You stand behind that claim with your personal word and integrity? - 50.146.182.151 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's hoping we get a response today. - 50.146.171.163 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Like all other partners they would either need a minimum of 5 people to express an interest before they were added to the partner list or they would need to approach us to request partnership and sign a partner agreement" is the exact quote from our CEO. The Conservative Party is on equal footing with all other organizations. If you want to pretend that a requirement of 5 people showing interest is somehow political bias, I can't stop you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: Just for you (ha) I just now told the PM and Chancellor about TPO and how it could help the Conservative party.--Jimbo Wales (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 24 January 2014
Nice! So now we just need 3 more people! ;) Though actually the Libdems seem to be rather more in need of help right now... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Reminds me of an earlier Australian scheme: former high profile Australian Labour Party media adviser set up a business offering lower power costs if a certain # signed up (buy together and get discounts was the sellpoint). It was heavily promoted on the dominate local Murdoch owned media. Although it wasn't not-for-profit. Is onsell of bundling deals the new red? AnonNep (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Do these images have a place on Wikipedia?

Jimbo, I wonder if I could ask for your take on this non-free content review discussion ?

At issue are the pound coin images on the article One pound (British coin), and the way they are presented.

The images are non-free content (and would be, according to an old ruling by Mike Godwin, even in Wikipedians replaced them with their own photographs), because of the Royal Mint's copyright in the design of U.K. coins. So if we have a table like this, the content is inevitably NFC. On the other hand, according to the Mint "The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste." [4].

The policy position in terms of our WP:NFC rules turns on NFCC #8 -- whether the images add significantly to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and NFCC #3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." So at stake are different judgements of the significance of being able to see the designs of the coins.

To help make such judgements appropriately, the lore around WP:IAR tells us we should ask ourselves what the policy is for. Usually with WP:NFC one can see very clear practical considerations which justify taking a strongly restrictive line so that its use should not threaten the free content that it is our mission to develop -- it is very clear that we should want to be very cautious about NFC that might prevent the creation of alternative free substitutes; or might lead to any legal risk, either to us or to commercial (non-charitable) downstream content redistributors; or might in any other way inhibit the easy redistribution of WP content; or might threaten our reputation, or skew the perception of what we stand for. But in this case, for the reasons set out above, none of those issues apply.

Instead, those arguing for the removal of these images say they should be removed because

(1) that's what the Foundation wants; and
(2) "We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information"

On the other hand to those who would keep the images, the currencies of countries are a legitimate encyclopedic topic, that we should cover in as much comprehensive detail as we can, like any other encyclopedic topic. Moreover, to them it's exactly the kind of practical question that people really Wikipedia for and turn to it for its ability to answer -- if someone suddenly is struck by the different designs of one pound coins in their pocket and wonders just how many different designs there have been, when they were made and what they look like, WP is exactly where they should be able to come and recognise and identify them and learn more about them.

These aren't new questions. In fact over the last couple of years there's been a running sore over pages like Banknotes of the Australian dollar. At one point there was a project to present all the banknotes of the different currency systems of the world in a consistent and systematic way, in this format, with broad agreement that this was an appropriate and uncontroversial use of non-free content. But a large number of those pages have since been picked away.

It's very difficult to assess a claim like 'removal of these images is what the Foundation wants' unless somebody from the Foundation can tell us whether removal of these images (and similar circumstances of images in articles like Banknotes of the Australian dollar) really is what the Foundation requires.

  • Is it the Foundation's view that such images need to be removed? ; and
  • what is your take on the "We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information" view -- a necessary pulling back, or a failure of ambition?

Sorry to bother you with this, but I think a steer would be really useful. Jheald (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(1) above perhaps more clearly: the Foundation wants us to minimize NFC, and in this particular case at least, including the NFC is no more valuable to the project than would be including an external link to the (primary) source.—Aquegg (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That's debatable. Pages evolve. If the decision is to retain images, they ought to be replaced with pictures taken by our own photographers (still non-free, but less non-free because there would be no issue of photographer's copyright. So that's content that wouldn't be created if we just had a link. Also with time people are likely to add more about the symbology of the different coins, which may be brought together from multiple sources, making the page further diverge from any single external page. And there have to be reservations about reliance on external pages, that may be here today and gone tomorrow, and which at the end of the day are not a "page that anyone can edit". Jheald (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald. Our encyclopedic goals for the article on the one pound coin cannot be met without taking advantage of fair use principles. And let's be clear: fair use principles are important and worth defending. Copyright does not provide copyright owners with a complete and total right to control every possible reuse of their work, nor should it. At the same time, because one pound coins are not difficult to come by, there is no reason why we should not at least make sure that the photo itself is taken by a volunteer and contributed under our license. The resulting work would still be fair use rather than truly free content, but it would be closer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the necessity of non-free content for our encyclopedic mission is debatable, and certainly only fully applies if you think of offline browsing of Wikipedia, if at all. We should also avoid relying on local laws (such as fair use) and think more globally (many Wikipedias are unable to use non-free images). A free English Wikipedia wouldn't be so much worse, just vegan. —Kusma (t·c) 15:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The issue on this specific page is not so much a picture of the pound coin - there do exist pictures of the front and back of the current minting of the coin in the article's infobox, and no one is debating this inclusion this presentation of a notable denomination of currency (whether this is a photo under a free license or not, I don't know but that's a minor issue) The more specific issue is showcasing non-free images (regardless of the photographer) of the dozen-some previous versions of the minted coin, which are just shown in a simple table without additional comment (beyond the year of printing, the description of the back side, and a translation of text on it). This is the exact same information as listed here at the Royal Mint. Because we are providing no more additional content than that page, there is no reason we cannot reduce our non-free usage of these historical mintings in exchange for an external link to this external page, without impacting the reader's understanding of the importance of the one pound coin. What the coins looked like historical is interesting for coin collectors, etc., but it is not interesting enough (for a general encyclopedia) to introduce a dozen-some separate non-free images to illustrate that. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"not interesting enough" - Please speak for yourself. — Scott • talk 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia, however, is no longer a "general encyclopedia", it has long become a general encyclopedia combined with lots of fairly specialist ones (do general encyclopedias list all species and all villages and all professional football players?) If we allow non-free images at all, the point where we draw the line will always be rather arbitrary. If we don't allow non-free images, our articles about non-free images won't have to become terrible, see this FA, for example. —Kusma (t·c) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
But we're also not guidebooks by design, which this type of table is for coin collectors. And again, we're not saying "no non-free images at all of the one pound coin", which would be silly; both the Foundation's resolution and US fair law specifically empower the idea of using non-free for identification of a topic when we're discussing that topic in an academic setting. We're talking the additional non-free beyond those for identification and the goals of minimizing non-free. Some non-free is necessary as long as the one pound coin's minting is under Crown Copyright, but not as much as is being used when a simple link will offload those extra uses. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What's being used precisely is appropriate for identification -- specifically, so people can identify the different designs of coin that they may actually be carrying in their pocket. Jheald (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Who do you mean by "we"? I am advocating "no non-free images at all", and I do not understand what is silly about not allowing non-free images in something called a free encyclopedia. —Kusma (t·c) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
When Masem says "we", he means in the view of himself and the Foundation, which are of course always in full alignment. With no sense of irony however, this also excludes Jimbo's comment, as he believes "Jimmy's opinion is only one voice with regards to anything on en.wiki, and has no weight compared to anyone else unless he said he was specifically speaking on behalf of the Foundation". Hence the need for a Foundation statement on issues like this, to stop this nonsense once and for all. As for advocating "no non-free images at all", you're welcome to try, but one thing we do know for certain, one thing which is in no doubt at all, is that the Foundation has absolutely no problem with English Wikipedia using non-free content, as long as it adheres to their resolution. QuantityMoreveyor (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This is bigger than just currency. The Foundation needs to make definitive statements on a whole bunch of areas where free imagery is never going to be available, such as logos, cover art, paintings, one time newsworthy/historical imagery, or find some other way to encourage more participation in this extremely dry area of policy. Otherwise, Masem is going to continue to act as if he was the definitive Foundation spokesperson on NFC in all these areas. He seems to be completely incapably of talking about NFC without littering the post with "the Foundation says/believes/intends", as if his personal opinions and interpretations were no different to the Foundation's actual view. They have said very little on NFC, and yet he claims to know what they would think in nearly every situation. Unless I missed their resolution on whether or not Wikipedia is a currency guidebook, etc, etc. As someone already pointed out, he really really needs to stop saying "we" when he means "I". His habit of doing this surely has a massively distorting effect on determining consensus in all these areas, given barely anyone else comments in these discussions except single purpose accounts like Werieth (does he do anything else except remove non-free imagery?). The reality is, the English Wikipedia position on NFC is chronically over-influenced by a tiny amount of users - Masem, Werieth, Stefan, and maybe one or two others who have incomprehensible user names. Any NFC issue which involves more than 5 commenters usually goes against their views, while any issue which only ever sees them comment, will see their view carry the day, but later presented as a well established site wide consensus in other similarly small discussions. When you have situations like that, it's pretty obvious distortion is occuring, and what happens inside the walled garden is not what the greater community, or the Foundation, would be likely support. QuantityMoreveyor (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Something like this? Tarc (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
No, that's the generic Founation resolution on NFC. That's the document that Masem likes to think supports his view whenever he is in 'Foundation voice' mode. The problem is that most of the time, the issue he is discussing isn't referenced in there at all, he is merely making one interpretation of its wording, while others can quite easily make the opposite interpretation based on the same words, without a reasonable observer ever agreeing that either position was wrong. Such as in cases like this. You won't find anything in there about whether or not tables of currency violate the Foundation's view of NFC, yet here he is, claiming "we" (ie the Foundation) obviously never intended non-free media to be used in such a way, as it violates the minimal use principle. If he wants to make statements like that, he needs to use the proper phraseology, such as "I think", not his preferred form, which is more like "If we do this, we would be violating the Foundation resolution on NFC". As I said, unless the situation changes and more than 5 people get involved in discussions like these, then if their resolution is to mean anything in practical terms (ie, project quality, article stability), the Foundation will have to start making more definitive statements, such as 'currency tables are/not examples of acceptable minimal NFC usage'. QuantityMoreveyor (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The point is that those of us on the side of enforcing NFC - more specifically achieving a true minimal use of non-free per the resolution, need to point out where there are highly questionable or unnecessary uses of non-free that do not reflect the "exceptional use" concept codified by the Resolution. Myself nor anyone else in heavy NFC enforcement is demanding we go to zero (though I know some would like that, that would ease the entire thing), but we are try to find where minimization can happen without impacting the goal of being an encyclopedia - a tertiary source and not the end-all, be-all source of information. If we don't keep pointing out cases like this, editors assume the the only limit is US Fair Use law and over-use NFC. As others have pointed out, our goal is to make a free encyclopedia, and that presents challenges in representing topics that would normally heavily rely on fair use imagery in other works, like coins and art, and the like. We try to work balances because we know that you need non-free to represent these topics, but you don't need as much non-free as it is presumed by, for example, this current discussion. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
^ this is the problem, right here. A better example of Masem's equivocation of his own personal views with the Foundation/Wikipedia community you couldn't hope to find. Masem, nobody has ever appointed you or any other of the tiny band of NFC "enforcers" to that role. Your belief that you are reflecting the "true" interpretation of minimal use, is your own. Your belief that your "enforcement" is not impacting the goal of Wikipedia, is your own. As others have pointed out, displaying these images does not in their view violate the principle of Wikipedia being a tertiary source. As others have pointed out, they are not arguing that using these images is OK just because it meets US law, they are making it very clear they also believe it meets NFC. There is absolutely nothing in the personal opinions you just expressed above, that is in any way "per the resolution". Every single word you say, is your own personal interpretation of it. "Highly questionable" - your view. "Unnecessary use" - your view. "presents challenges" - your view. You've been acting this way for years, you've heard everything I've just said numerous times, you just ignore it and carry on. This is why editors like JHead are totally wasting their time engaging with any of you. This is why Jimbo needs to reclaim Wikipedia from administrators like you, who simply pay lip service to the idea of consensus while behaving like this, and return it to the true community, to the people who are willing to debate these issues honestly, making clear to everyone which parts of their views come from the Foundation, and which are their own, and letting uninvolved editors decide the consensus (and on that point, nobody here will be the least bit surprised if the closer of this particular NFCR turns out to be one of the "enforcers"). Bort the nort (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason I and others have to be hard on NFC (note, I stay in discussions and actually do little admin work in NFC itself to avoid conflict of interest of both talking and enforcing policy) is because mis-use of NFC, where some personally believe it is okay, leads to a slippery slope of more NFC usage. I've seen so many cases of newer users mis-using NFC because they saw it on this other page and thought it was okay. Justifying NFC should be hard, but this is for a good reason, to justify why its use is exceptional (per the Resolution) and needed to be used. Too many people think "fair use" when they hear NFC and that's not what we are. We can be better than that. This is the challenge the Foundation has set. They know and I know and everyone else knows, we're not going to have zero NFC use on en.wiki ever. But we also have nearly half a million non-free files, one every ten pages. That seems high for an encyclopedia where most of our content is about uncopyrightable topics. It's also a prod to get people to generate free content to avoid using non-free. These are goals aligned with the Foundation's mission and the Resolution. It is very easy to simply let NFC go and let fair use reign, but that's giving up the mission. It may seem like intellectual wankery to fight this hard to keep NFC use to a minimum, but those that actually care about what Wikipedia was meant to be see this as a critical step. And I will point out that from some of these discussions we have actually improved how policy should be applied and saved some NFC that would have been deleted by helping narrow down what has to be present to include, so this is not all for naught. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
We all know this is what you believe Masem, you say it often enough. We all know you see yourself as the enforcer here. We all know you think that defining mis-use of NFC on Wikipedia should be your sole domain. We all know you think you're the only person who cares about Wikipedia, the only one who is standing up for the goals and the mission and the resolution, the only one holding back the tide of rampant fair use. We all know you think it's simply beyond anyone else to even know the difference between fair use and NFCC, let alone understand concepts like the free replacement imperative (although yes, it still escapes me how that is remotely relevant for copyrighted coins). All that needs to happen is for you to be elected to the Foundation, at which point we would all be obliged to respect your authoritai in these matters. Until then, I'm minded to listen to Jimbo over you as regards what the Foundation thinks/believes/intended in cases like this. Unless or until you can conduct yourself in a way that reassures others that you truly understand your position on Wikipedia, and that you truly know the difference between expressing your personal interpretations of the NFCC/resolution/mission and speaking for the Foundation itself, then I will continue to highlight to others the obvious truth, that there is absolutley no point in engaging with you in any way, if their goal is to advance the discussion and form an actual consensus. Mors Not Listening (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on that page, the policy is what's broken. The policy requires that each image go with sourced commentary, and each piece of commentary only gets to have one image. If you want to show images of two types of one pound coins, there must be commentary about each separate type of one pound coin. If there is just generic text about one pound coins in general, then that's two images going with the same commentary, which is prohibited. The policy doesn't allow you to have images of two types of one pound coins just because each type looks different and you want to show the reader what each type looks like.
Yes, the non-free content policy is really this bad. Read it.
(In this context also note the restriction on discographies--you can't have non-free images of a bunch of records to show what each one looks like.)
Furthermore, the non-free content policy specifically discourages the use of lists or tables containing multiple non-free images except for exceptional cases, and this isn't one.
I agree with Jimbo that we should allow such images, but in fact we don't. Maybe Jimbo can take it up with the WMF--I'm sure they'll listen to him a lot easier than they'll listen to any of us. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed. Where precisely does policy say that multiple non-free images are only permitted if "if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary" ? As I noted in response when you made this claim at WP:NFRC, what NFCC #8 actually says is: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", and NFCC #3a says that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Both of those are arguably the case here.
In terms of WP:NFLISTS, some useful interpretation is given at WP:IUP#Image_galleries: "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details. A clear example of an exception would be a gallery of comparable gameplay screenshots from a video game as it appears on two different platforms if the differences are relevant (e.g. reported controversy in the gaming press about the matter). Gallery markup is not intrinsically "unfair"; rather, most uses of that markup are for purposes that make fair use questionable."
In this case we are not depending on detailed commentary about the content of the image to justify our claim of fair use. Instead we are claiming that fair use is justified because of what the image itself shows, in the context of the topic of the article. So in this case use of table markuo is not for a purpose that "makes fair use questionable". Hope that helps. Jheald (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no rule that *explicitly* says that each image must be the subject of *separate* commentary. However, that rule is a logical consequence of two rules that are there: the first being that each image requires commentary, and the second being the one that says not to use more than one image per commentary. These two rules taken together imply that if you want to have two images, each one must have their own commentary.
Furthermore, when I referred to existing policy on tables I was referring to WP:NFTABLE, not WP:NFLISTS which you are referring to. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
But there is no rule that says each image requires commentary. The rule is that each image must significantly add to reader understanding of the topic. So your claim falls apart. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If you read WP:NFC, it keeps harping on the idea of sourced commentary. The word "commentary" appears in a similar context 11 times in the acceptable use section and 7 times more in the unacceptable use section. For instance, the cover art section says
Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)
And that's not a rule about cover art and nothing else, it's using cover art as an example of a rule which applies to images in general. So you may have images of items with commentary about them, but you may not have images of items to show what the item looks like ("for identification") without commentary.
There is a stamps and currency rule and it's plausible that "currency" includes coins, so you may have a point. But if it does include coins, it seems to be an exception to a principle that applies to almost everything else. Generally, except for stamps and currency, and logos, you can't have a picture of something to identify it unless it is the subject of commentary. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The intent, like with all those other "for identification" is that if you have a notable specific coinage/bill, that images of the front and back are completely appropriate for identification of that currency on the article for that currency (just as with logos and cover art). But that's the extent of its use. And with all those other points, this is only an initial presumption of meeting NFCC - the usage still has to meet all other NFCC aspects, so it's not a simple clear allowance. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this goes again along the lines of what I argued earlier in a non-free content discussion. Are we here writing an encyclopedia, or are we here writing a free encyclopedia(3rd Pillar: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content). My strong believe is, that the foundation, that Jimbo, is giving us the freedom to do the latter. The excuse that I hear all too often is 'but it is fair use, why not use it'. For many of the images, people either do not go the extra mile to find a free equivalent ('but it is unreasonable to take a picture of the back side of the moon!'), explain in (free!) prose the essentials of the image and omitting the fair-used non-free image (sure, it is illustrative, but that should not be the only reason to include it), or just include it 'because it is fair-use anyway' (if care is even taken that it is fair use).

I think this is an important aspect that many editors forget. The excuse should never be "it is fair-use anyway, so why not use it", your aim should be to write a free encyclopedia, and try to exclude non-free media even if it could be perfectly used under fair use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We are here to write a free encyclopedia, but also to diseminate knowledge. Most of the time, non-free images won't detract from the first goal (and for cases when the non-free content would hurt the free, such as images of living people, we do exclude them with prejudice); the amount of free text and images will remain exactly the same if the non-replaceable NFC is removed, so readers will be able to reuse exactly the same content whether we include the non-free images or not.
The decision whether to allow NFC was taken long ago, and the "free content ONLY" position didn't achieve majority consensus. The English project decided that we must be the best possible free encyclopedia; but alongside with that, we illustrate with non-free content those topics that cannot be covered properly in a free encyclopedia. We still strive to include only NFC that really improves the reader's understanding, so as to keep its use minimal, but the main criteria reflected in the written policy is the purpose of including it, and the quality of that content in explaining the topic (I've cheched; both sections in the Minimal usage criterion include an if).
That's what the Exemption Doctrine Policy is about, a giant WP:IAR over the third pillar. We have "create a free encyclopedia" as a main rule, but when that rule prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, we ignore it. Diego (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not advocating the "free content ONLY" point - I do however believe that there are many cases where non-free material is used 'because it is fair-use anyway', far beyond what is needed (necessary) in some cases. Do pictures of the old denominations "really improve[s] the reader's understanding" or is it replaceable by a link to the page of the copyright holder who is depicting them as well .. for the current denomination I understand, for not used (or ones that one might maybe encounter) denominations ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that depends whether you think that the reader's understanding of the topic should be achieved with information contained within the encyclopedia itself. The link won't work for users with access to the encyclopedia but without a connection, so the question is whether knowing the faces of coins and bills is a significant part of the topic itself - though if it is, delegating that knowledge to third party sites is not a solution; the external page is definitely not free content nor part of the encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, all versions of the coin since 1983 are legal tender so they could be used and accepted for payments and are therefore current. Diego (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And we have the image of the front side of the coin that all those various mintings share so a reader can identify that. If they need a more specific knowledge of the year of minting - something outside the scope of an encyclopedia but within the purview of a coin catalog/guide, they can turn to the provided external link for more details. (if the textual description is not enough). --MASEM (t) 05:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Letting Watson edit here

I was wondering if we could make a deal with IBM. If we let Watson edit here as an experiment, we could ask IBM to sponsor WikiMedia. IBM has announced that it is going to inverst billions in developing Watson. Editing Wikipedia is something that is in principle better done by artificially intelligent systems than by humans, because humans come with too much baggage that makes them vulnerable to be biased. Of course, the problem with artificially intelligent systems has until recently been a lack of enough knowledge to understand the proper context of the relevant information, but this is now changing. Count Iblis (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular feelings regarding IBM and Watson, but as far as your implication that computer systems cannot be biased, you might want to read the classic hacker koan of the "Uncarved block" (also known as "Sussman attains enlightenment"). --108.38.196.65 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that we sell-out Wikipedia's independence, reputation and integrity to a corporation just so that you can run an "interesting experiment"? If anyone wants to do such an experiment they are welcome to install the MediaWiki software on their own server. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Editing Wikipedia is something that is in principle better done by artificially intelligent systems than by humans" -- that's a big premise to swallow... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any grounds for banning Watson from editing if it can do so appropriately. No deal with IBM is needed or desirable toward that end. I would imagine it would not be hard for Watson to get approval for at least a trial run, if they have a clearly defined experiment they'd like to run.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Watson in Jeopardy! processed text answers and did not hear buzzer: The human contestants in Jeopardy! had noted how Watson (computer) was not actively hearing the conversations (or buzzers) but merely waited for an electronic notice after an answer was stated, and it seems the humans would have easily won if Watson had to process the spoken words and think when to respond, rather than get an electronic "goto" signal. It would be interesting for Watson to try fixing WP pages, but it would be far more complex than answering the 6 W's. I suspect Watson would be accused of "wiki-machining" at wp:ANI and banned from making automated edits! -Wikid77 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • But there are some tasks that I think Watson could be quite good at, depending on the details. Here's one example. We often paraphrase what a source says and then link to that source. A simple bot cannot look at that paraphrasing and decide if it is a 'fair' paraphrase. But Watson might have some good percentage chance of knowing if the paraphase is ok or not. At least it might be able to flag egregious examples. And then it might be able to suggest edits (perhaps on the talk page to start) which would convert away from a paraphrasing to a direct quote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now I see the applications to complex issues of wp:V, with finding the related sources, inserting wp:reftag footnotes, and changing close-paraphrase, wp:copyvio text into cited quotations, etc. In fact, a Jimbo-assisted learning curve could probably create a very helpful "Wikiwatson" which actually heeded your advice, instead of complaining on other websites! Perhaps we could get Wikiwatson to also talk here and curtail some of the tiresome debates.... -Wikid77 17:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If it hadn't been signed by Count Iblis, I might have thought that the start of this thread was written by Watson. Isn't there a concept of artificial ignorance, referring to the process of taking a couple of flawed assumptions and applying all the hi-tech hardware and software available and coming up with truly astounding nonsense? (BTW, isn't this more or less what the PR folks do?) The problem, as I understand it, is that computers have no understanding of "meaning" or in particular the "meaning of meaning" which is related to "usefulness for human beings" and ultimately to "bias". Everything we humans write has some bias due to our presumption that anything we write should have some usefulness to us and others, i.e. that it should have meaning. If Watson does not have a concept of meaning, he will generally write nonsense. The Wikipedia back-and-forth process ultimately does not get rid of bias, it only averages out various human biases and lets (almost) everyone's concept of meaning for that topic come out.

Of course, we should let Watson show his stuff so that we can judge if his/her/its articles are meaningful. I'll suggest a small set of articles (off-wiki) where Watson is given access to the whole internet including Wikipedia, current news reports, SEC data, etc. and it comes up with articles on each of the Fortune 500 companies. I'd almost guarantee that a major group of editors will hate the results. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, on Jeopardy!, Watson did connect the related details very well, and I think it would be great to direct Watson into wp:MOS pages and pinpoint various peculiar rules of style which real-world editors no longer follow. So, definitely, any POV-pushing editors who try to force unusual twists would dislike Watson noting the actual relative coverage in reliable sources. So, we're back to Watson at wp:ANI for wp:Disruptive wp:The Truth.... -Wikid77 17:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
As Watson is pretty intelligent, I'm pretty sure it understands what a whitelist would be, to avoid repeatedly taking the same action over and over. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Saw the section header in my Watchlist and took the clickbait thinking it was about Sherlock Holmes. (Hashtag Facepalm) AnonNep (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring the obvious questions about whether Watson or any other AI is remotely capable of generating useful article content (which I sincerely doubt), there is an obvious problem with allowing such input: who gets sued if it libels someone? At the moment, the WMF bases much of its legal defence in such cases on the premise that contributors are responsible for their own edits - but who would be the 'responsible' person if a program edits? The programmers? IBM? Whoever is running the software at the time? The WMF for permitting it? I can't imagine anyone wishing to take on responsibility for edits which they haven't made themselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Legally, it would surely be IBM. But although this kind of concern is worth considering, it is also worth considering what kinds of things could use some intelligent-ish mechanical help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Detecting copyvio and refspam by analysis of linguistic patterns is helpful... but really, detecting WP:PUSH and WP:PUPPET behavioral-likelihood, by analysis of edit-histories and linguistic patterns, would be very useful. Furthermore, any AI wouldn't have to actually edit mainspace for such tasks — merely sorting and prioritizing a list of possibilities would be super.
  That said, if IBM really wants to help improve wikipedia, corporate policy that IBM employees (very smart folks) must spend ten minutes per workday improving the non-computer-related wikipedia article of their choice, with pay, would be better than some publicity-stunt of aiWatsonBoht9000 editing a few articles "by itself" some week. We need more editors, more than we need better bohts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To see it try semi-automated tasks such as Huggle would be quite interesting. I just don't think its ready to be an actual content editor just yet until it proves it can use automated tools with no errors. KonveyorBelt 19:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a related proposal; any AI that edits Wikipedia content must be under pending changes so that a human has to approve the proposed edit. We can revisit this restriction after we have seen some edit history. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a counter-proposal. No AI edits are permitted unless they are individually viewed and approved by an editor, who takes full responsibility for each individual edit. We can revisit this restriction after we have seen some edit history, and after the position regarding legal responsibility is clarified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we ought to seriously consider the possibility, while (obviously) wanting to proceed carefully. Let's keep in mind there are a lot of tasks humans do other than directly editing articles. Perhaps Watson would be good at responding to the help desk and the teahouse, with humans intervening if the answer is off base, but simply leaving the answer if it is fine. It would be more responsive in terms of time, and if we are diligent about double-checking (which is far faster than crafting the original response) it would save some time. Another obvious place would be OTRS. I'm not yet ready to allow it to process permissions, but it might be able to do a first pass with some of the general help questions. It would not be hard to write the answer in such a way as to explain that a quick response is coming from a computer, and if they indicate that the answer was not on target, a human will be along to provide an answer. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an active Teahouse host, if Watson starts helping out at the Teahouse, I will be very happy to monitor and evaluate its answers, and to offer a contrary opinion if the AI goes awry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We really don't know for certain that there aren't artificial intelligences editing already. Neutron (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Neutron. Any account that passes the Turing test should be humming right along, contributing productively and accumulating barnstars, and will never be dragged to ANI. Could be you. Could be me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps we should make a passing score on the Turing test a requirement for adminship.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose Watson editing here because it won't be able to feel upset when it inevitably gets dragged to ANI for a kicking over some minor screw-up, which puts it at an unfair advantage over normal editors. — Scott • talk 12:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 99.9% of the people commenting above don't understand what systems like Watson (or Siri or Google Now) can and cannot do. They can't write articles. They might be well suited to participate in the WP:Help desk or Wikipedia:Reference desk though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure they can write articles or parts of articles. The "Intelligence in Wikipedia" was working on something similar along these lines several years ago, and when I used to follow this subject closely in the 1990s, a number of people at MIT had software programs that could write parts of novels and/or screenplays. That was almost 15 years ago, and I suspect it has advanced considerably. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at http://www.cs.washington.edu/ai/iwp/ and—in terms of content generation—the best they could do is complete some infoboxes. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Inference engines with 6 W's but wp:NOR

The use of inference engines in AI systems (Prolog) can already provide a background structure for the logical flow of typical descriptive articles, such as stating a person's birth, parents, education, early career, influences/mentors, major accomplishments, major news events, etc. When competing on Jeopardy! (TV show), Watson (computer) already had the backward chaining to un-answer a stated fact such as, "He founded Wikipedia" and generate the pre-question, "Who is Jimmy Wales?" and so the basic journalism criteria would be there for the "6 W's" (Who, What, When, Where, Why and How). In fact Watson had access to the full text of the 2010 Wikipedia during the TV show. However, some people might train Watson now to structure articles for particular subjects, or put it in "learning mode" to seek the common patterns in a group of 2,000 town articles, or 2,000 film pages, etc. An inference engine provides the cause-effect connections between people or objects, and so Watson would build the hypotheses needed to answer the questions, and then search for related sources to provide evidence to state the basic observations, such as the top 5 film roles of an actor, or top 5 songs by a recording artist, to list in the wp:lede section. For BLP subjects, especially crime articles, then Watson would have to be told to reserve judgment and not conclude, "There is a 95.3% probability that the guy living downstairs did it". On Jeopardy! the goal is to guess the likely question which fits the stated answer, and so Watson was always speculating on the probable conclusion for a question-and-answer pair, and that would need to be curtailed so that Watson would only state text paraphrased from sources, rather than render judgments in criminal cases, etc. In might be interesting to see Watson state, "There is no source for her year of birth, but there is an 85% chance it is 1975, or 12% chance as 1977, based on being a teenager during related events." Again, Watson would need to follow some external rules, about wp:NOR limitations, so that it would not write text with probabilities of likely answers, as when handling every question as a contestant on Jeopardy!. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MadmanBot for suspected copyvio pages

The lists of suspected articles have been logged for years using Bot-based scanning by User:MadmanBot, but not since 2 January 2014. However, scan the page lists for the 31 days of December 2013:

Years ago, I had been notified when a close-paraphrase (sentence-for-sentence) of a source was detected, and so I learned to drastically reword the text for inclusion in WP articles. However, MadmanBot is apparently not detecting all close-paraphrase cases, such as phrases switched in position with a few altered words, and so some better detection algorithms, such as with Watson (computer), could be beneficial. -Wikid77 00:34, 25 January, 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Interview

Dear Jimbo, can you tell me have you really gave an exclusive interview to "Jutarnji list" (OSNIVAČ WIKIPEDIJE GOVORI ZA NEDJELJNI: 'Srbi i Hrvati ne smiju imati odvojene Wikipedije') newspaper that was published on the 14th September 2013? --Roberta F. (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean this? http://www.jutarnji.hr/jimmy-wales--srbi-i-hrvati-ne-smiju-imati-odvojene-wikipedije/1126205/ 131.137.245.209 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't remember what I was doing in the second week of September last year. Or at least, not without referring to notes. So, maybe Jimbo can't remember, off-hand, exactly which journalist he might have talked to at that time? If you're concerned the publication may be fake, perhaps translate a key answer into English so that Jimbo can at least say if it seems to represent his views or not? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know if the reporter just copied what Jimbo said on this link [5], or sought an additional confirmation with email from him that it was really his comment on the situation, but in this an "exclusive" interview you can not read much more info than on this public page.--DobarSkroz (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not have an interview with "Jurtanji list" to the best of my recollection and based on my email history. It is difficult to know from Google translate whether my words are presented faithfully, but as far as I can tell, it seems about right. If there are specific questions about my views, we should perhaps discuss them directly without worrying about what "Jutarnji list" wrote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think DobarSkroz's main concern is that Jutarnki list may have advertised their content (and its exclusivity) misleadingly to their readers; not that Jutanki list misrepresented your views. If so, there may not be much that can be done about it. I'm not sure how well "exclusive" translates to and from whatever language that is, but it reminds me of a local restaurant that long advertised itself as an "Exclusive Indian Restaurant and Takeaway". I never quite gained the courage to ask them precisely who they excluded! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevant comment unworthy of collapsing

As this comment quite perfectly sums up the current state of Wikipedia, I think it should be in the best interest of Wikipedia to not put this under the carpet but take it as reference of what has gone terribly wrong and should be fixed ASAP as it is undermining the very principles of how Wikipedia was once supposed to function--37.230.12.44 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC):

"Welcome back and welcome to the new Wikipedia where editors are now second class citizens, admins are the kings and queens of the Wiki and articles are stuck in the middle. Gone are the days when anyone could edit Wikipedia and AGF was the standard..... ....Kumioko (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this sentiment is that it pines away for an idealized era of the Wikipedia that never really existed, like American conservatives who long for a return to "the good ol' days" of the 1950's but conveniently forget about the racism and Cold War hysterics of the time. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Also it continues the battleground attacks on Administrators/Administration/Current organization of en.WP. The horse carcas has already decayed to bones and subsequently to dust, but the editor is still flogging whatever remains of the deceased horse. Hasteur (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The horse may be dead but the decaying carcus has been left to rot for so long its infected the ground water and contaminated the aquifer. Continuing to ignore the problems will not make them better. Editors are flocking out of the project largely because the editing environment in WP has become toxic and because there is no trust left in the site. If some of those problems are fixed, then editors will start coming back. Unfortunately it will take longer to fix the problem than it did to create it so any results will take a while to witness and the WMF creating disasterous programs like visual editor make the problem worse. The problems in Wikipedia are due to the social and cultural absesses that have formed, not because the software isn't pretty. Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The irony here being that you obviously don't realize that you contribute nothing but toxicity through your incessant whining and trolling while adding absolutely nothing of value. Resolute 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That's because self centered editors like yourself wish to keep the status quo and have no desire to fix the problems. You would rather stay in control and be the king of the hill allowing yourself and your peers to have the power than to make this a collaborative environment. I want the environement to change so that all editors are equal and admins are held accountable for mistakes. Maybe if you were more interested in improving the project and making this a collaborative environment than proving how good you are or how bad I am the problems would be fixed. I'm not perfect, I can be a jerk, I get that and I agree, but if you would help me make this place better rather than try and discredit me just so you can stay in power, that would help. But that would require you and your peers caring more about the project than you feeling like you are in charge of it. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You spend all your time whining. I spend a lot of mine writing articles. One of us already is making Wikipedia a better place. Resolute 17:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You forget Resolute that I'm not some noob. I spent a lot of my time writing articles and collaborating until it was finally made clear to me that my efforts weren't wanted. Then I started to disover it wasn't just me but a huge amount of the potential editorbase, then I further realized that it was in fact a small pool of entrenched admins and editors trying to keep the project down by forcing their way of doing things and their ideals. I see you have 48, 000 edits, which is respectable, I have 450, 000. You have created articles and have a large number of FA's, I have also created hundreds of articles, scanned and submitted hundreds of images, I have more than a dozen featured articles and lists and dozens of GA's, so remember when your talking shit I have walked the walk and talked the talk and the only reason I am not participating now is because of a few shallow admins like yourself. So when you wonder why I stopped editing and started to crusade around the wiki trying to clean up the cesspool just stoll to your closest mirror and take a glance. You just upset I'm not some sheep that can be herded around. If you want to be rid of me just block me or take me to Arbom and have me banned. Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankly Kumioko, I think you're just bitter that you never got into the admin club and are copping an "I didn't like you that much anyway" attitude. Resolute 20:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually I did admins tasks for years, but maybe you didn't notice. I just never had access to the tools because I would rather just state there is a problem than to be a politician. The only way to be an admin in the current system is by managing ones wiki career, staying in your swim lane and keep your mouth shut doing the right things and acting the right way. Once you get the tools then you can do whatever you want because there is almost no accountability for admins. The only reason you got the tools is because you requested them back when they were no big deal. If you reran today, along with most admins, you wouldn't pass. That is also a major reason why many admins don't want to change the system, because they will lose what little power they think they have. That is also why a lot of the good admins are leaving. Because the current environment is making more work for fewer admins and burning them out. But I guess that's better than letting guys like me who have the knowledge and desire to help but who think that the block and protection tools are overused and abused so that we won't have the ability of helping. Its better to have Jerks like you who already have the tools and are thereby exempt from the rules of good manners and gentlemenly conduct...not to mention involved. So now, why don't you go write an FA or delete an article you don't like and let the adults have a conversation here ok! I'm just responding to you, if you stop baiting the discussion, I'll stop replying! If this discussion continues I am likely to say something that will hurt your feelings. I have a reputation for doing that! Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of individuals lacking "good manners and gentlemenly (sic) conduct", I have ask: do you know you are being a hypocrite, or are you simply one ironically? You are what you claim to hate, Kumioko. Resolute 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure the difference is I know I'm a jerk and I can accept that is why the community doesn't want me to have the tools. Ironically enough, the same reasons being given for my not being given access to the tools is the exact same as your conduct and that conduct of a number of your peers that do have access. Your an arrogant jerk who is frequently condescending and abusive to other editors and you are fast to delete articles you feel aren't worthy with little discussion. So if you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about the hypocrisy of telling one editor they cant be trusted by editors and admins who act the exact same way. It could well be that the community was right for not giving me access to the tools but you are showing the community why we need more controls against abusive admins like you. Thanks for helping to make my point. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
lol! Now you've resorted to literally fabricating behaviours to assign to me. I pity you, Kumioko. I really do. Resolute 06:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolute I am not fabricating anything and everyone can see that here. I may not being very nice either but your jackassery on this page can be seen by everyone and shows them what I have been talking about and why we have so many people leaving. When admins, the authority figures on this site act like you and several others do, it gives a bad reputation to the site. Your a jerk and always have been, other than your excellent writing skills you don't have one trait in your demeanor or personality to be an admin. You rarely even use the tools. You only use the admin bit as a status symbol. I am not the one should should be pittied here. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Truthfully Kumioko, of the two of us, you are the only one who views the admin bit as a status symbol. And your continued references to the role only underscore your bitterness at failing multuple RFAs. The status symbol that matters to me is the number of articles I have improved. As you have noted, I find the admin bit useful for blocking or page protection due to vandalism but it is rare that I use it to perform other administrative actions. Your view of me nothing more than a delusion built up in response to your anger at how I characterize your diatribes. Resolute 00:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't view it as a status symbol at all. Actually I think its just a few extra tools and people make far more out if it than they should. It should be easy to get and east to take away and I have stated that repeatedly. I have also advocated that the toolset be split up and that admin should not be for life. So having said all of those things repeatedly, how can you justify I think its a status symbol? You can't! It's just your own bullshit way of trying to discredit my statements. Personally with comments like the ones you are making here and comments like this your showing people you don't have the personality to be an admin. I think your a good editor Resolute I really do, but I think your a jerk and you lack the established demeanor to be an Admin. I'm also not angry, I think your just making yourself look stupid. Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia n. - 1. The encyclopedia anyone can edit...with an increasing number of petty exceptions. 2. A place where you mind your Ps and Qs because some sanctimonious bitching editor will get pissed when you tell the truth. 3. A troublesome, stress-inducing hell where bureaucracy and rules and rule Nazis make most people say "fuck it". 4. A place where asking an admin for help is like committing to an afternoon of Russian Roulette with a heavy gun. 5. A place and where ArbCom decides to waste time like an star chamber deciding without real transparency on a punishment and then remembering "oh, wait!...what crime is this for?...none?...well, let's find one!" 6. A mythical land of trolls who think they're gnomes, not realizing that gnomes were more violent than piranas and gremlins. :)--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I forgot one...7. The only place in the world where an illiterate, angry 13-year old, or an unemployable twentysomething videogame obsessed hipster living in mom's basement is equal in contribution to (or in some cases has more power and influence than) a world-renown tenured Yale professor or Oxford don.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not in any of the former categories (not even "angry", for the time being), and am edging towards the latter categories, and I haven't had any problems. Videogame obsessed hipsters seem to spend most of their time writing about video games and (mostly!) not bothering editors who write about more traditional encyclopedic topics. Younger editors mostly defer to the opinions or advice of more experienced editors - eventually. I certainly haven't seen cases where unknowledgeable, inexperienced or immature editors' contributions are considered equal to constructive contributors with a mature attitude and an obvious background in their chosen subject. Their votes might count the same for arbcom elections and the SOPA vote, but is that a big problem? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Also - "asking an admin for help is like committing to an afternoon of Russian Roulette with a heavy gun". This is more than a little over-dramatic. Do you have any examples? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Gender gap comparisons - Kazakhstan, Westminster, Davos

Today's London Evening Standard has an article entitled "Cultural learnings for UK: nation of Borat has more women MPs". Their figures are that 24.3 per cent of MPs in Kazakhstan are MPs, as against only 22.6 per cent of MPs in the UK. On the Davos front, that and other newspapers have recently reported that a paltry 15% of delegates to Davos are women. (The Standard's large photo-montage of "people at Davos" today curiously has exactly five men and five women, though.)

Perhaps Wikipedia's gender gap is more a reflection of established traditions of prejudice than something (as it is sometimes portrayed) uniquely problematic for Wikipedia only? (There's been some muttering about proportions of women in particular senior positions in business recently, too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to an online copy of the article. Graham87 12:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Privacy and Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

Dear Jimbo, I used to be an active wikipedian here a couple of years back. I ceased editing here in good standing (without any blocks/bans) and only recently logging in I discovered my name in the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians list. There is no way that now I can remove my name from the list, without bringing wider attention to the fact that I am retired. I edited Wikipedia as I believed in its mission but gradually came to realize how corrupt it is. That, none of the "wikipedians" who maintain the list bothered to respect my privacy (there is retired tag placed on both my user and user talk pages) deeply offends me. Ironically the same "Wikipedians" proudly boost on their user pages that they are the "maintainer" of the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians list. The list was previously nominated for deletion 3 times. Some random sample of comments from there:

Random sample of comments from the Prior deletion nominations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep but cut down. Keep users who are truly missing (i.e. who left without a message or wikibreak notice) and remove those who announce their departure - they aren't missing, they've left. Majorly (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in agreement with Majorly. Users who have said they've left should be removed, as they've said they've left. I also suggest removing users who have been blocked indefinitely, as they aren't missing, they're blocked and can't come back. Acalamari 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it could very well constitute a privacy issue, as some people may have stopped editing for privacy reasons, and adding their username to a tally sheet isn't helping them to disappear. Even if they don't necesarily want to "disappear", people should not be adding the usernames of others (particularly editors in good standing) to lists of names. This should be deleted as it does not help the encyclopedia and may even be harmful. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Privacy concerns can readily be dealth with: You can remove your own entry; you can mail wikipedia where it will be dealt with responsibly and respectfully. Please don't start acting on imagined privacy concerns of people your don't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep It hasn't done any harm so far and I doubt it will. It's useful for historical purposes so I'm not opposed to tagging it with historical or even moving it to the meta site but deleting it wouldn't serve any purpose. And anyone who doesn't want to be listed can easily remove their name or request that it be removed. The first nomination was a unanimous keep and I say keep for most of the reasons listed the first time. -- œ™ 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above reasons. As pointed out, WP:NOT doesn't apply, and privacy matters are easily dealt with by the opt-out nature of the list. It is useful as a chronicling of the early days of Wikipedia, and continuing it will ensure that it also helps in the chronicling of current 2009 wikipedia in the years ahead. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The pricacy concerns are very real. If someone is "missing", they are likely gone, so how can they opt out? Furthermore, people shouldn't have to opt out. This is like an unscrupulous telemarketer who calls trying to sell someone timeshares. The person says "why are you calling me, I have no interest in this product and the telemarketer says "well, you can opt out at any time". That's not the point... the point is, the call (or in this case, the addition to the list) should never have happened in the first place. Editors in good standing should not be added to lists on the basis that they can later ask to be removed (IF THEY EVEN KNOW THE LIST EXISTS!). This is a bad precedent. We need to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to privacy and the rights of editors in good standing to not have their usernames added to lists. The only way to make this right is to allow only the editors themselves to add their names, which would, by default, make the list irrelevant as they would no longer be missing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be the simplest thing in the world to create a template saying something like "This user has left Wikipedia. For privacy reasons, do not add his or her name to Wikipedia: Missing Wikipedians". Any editor wishing to leave WP and not be traced could simply place this on their user page when blanking it as their last edit. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, how would they know this particular page even exists? I didn't, until just last week. And again, people should not be added to lists on here unless they do it themselves, unless they're some kind of blocked troll or abusive vandal who administrators need to keep logs of information on. Lists of names are not good. Doesn't anyone out there see this? If I were to stop editing, I would not want someone to come along and add me to a list somewhere simply because I stopped editing and they decided I was "missing". This could certainly happen for a number of reasons and I'm sure it happens every day. If I hadn't stumbled on this accidentally, I would never have known it existed. It seems nobody agrees with me, so I'll just leave it at this: nobody should ever add anyone else to a list anywhere unless they're a troll/vandal. Editors in good standing don't need to be kept track of. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the reason you didn't know about this page is that you are not someone who is likely to become a missing wikipedian with major privacy concerns. It seems unlikely to me that anyone wishing to remove all traces of their Wikipedia activity (which anyone leaving WP in circumatances where privacy is an issue would almost certainly do) would fail to check user name policy pages such as Wikipedia:User name. The page Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians should be mentioned there, along with methods for avoiding listing. As for being a troll/vandal, I've added names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles; which do you consider me to be, a troll or a vandal? Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It places the burden of privacy on former users who, being inactive, are unlikely to realize they've been added to the list and therefore unable to remove themselves if desired. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. No evidence of maintenance problems. No evidence of serious privacy problems. Should any exist, there are multiple solutions. All data is immediately available from the contributions history of the account or from the link as provided. It continues to be used, both in terms of additions and the many pages views per day. There are many on the list that I remember with affection. This page is a testament to, and tool for encouraging our spirit of community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as neither of the reasons for proposing deletion seem particularly reasonable. One, the burden of privacy comment doesn't hold up very reasonably. How is being listed on a page any different from having their own user page which has an easily available option to determine recent edit history? If they wanted the user name they used kept private, why did they use it in the first place? In those, rare, instances when people are OUTed, they might easily contact OTRS. Two, the fact that a page can be edited does not mean that individuals who have left have their own edits deleted, they are still in the page history, so that can in general be determined as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that issues with privacy are important, but I'm not convinced that the page infringes on anyone's privacy. The page only links to userpages, which are publicly available to anyone browsing Wikipedia, and reveals little about a user's personal life. It may be a privacy concern if a user desires to completely vanish from the project, but that's a problem that can be easily handled by excluding vanished Wikipedians, and one that doesn't justify deleting the entire page.--SGCM (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice Jimbo how User:Majorly suggested remove those who announce their departure or how Acalamari said Users who have said they've left should be removed, as they've said they've left. I also suggest removing users who have been blocked indefinitely, as they aren't missing, they're blocked and can't come back. but never bothered to remove the privacy violating user name themselves? Further SGCM said It may be a privacy concern if a user desires to completely vanish from the project, but that's a problem that can be easily handled by excluding vanished Wikipedians. Did he ever bothered excluding "vanished Wikipedians" himself?

As I see it Jimbo the real life privacy of people who built this encyclopedia it now victim of Deletionism and inclusionism (comments like doesn't justify deleting the entire page.) It is especially strange that where I have placed retired tag on both my user and user talk pages, my privacy is violated, I am not a previously blocked/banned editor, I have to do all the job of contacting OTRS, well at the risk of yet another "Wikipedian" coming in to add my name to the list, no wonder when dudes like Daniel Case argue "we should have no problems listing "vanished" users here".

I respect you a lot Jimbo. Building encyclopedia is great but shouldn't be done neglecting the privacy of people who made it a success. Take care, peace. 182.66.40.136 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made some substantial removals from, and edits to, this project-space list before, which have always been reverted by the page WP:OWNers. Although some of those edits may be seen as petty or unhelpful, I do have enduring concerns about the use, focus, and effect of the list. It seems in many ways to be advertising, promoting and beating the dead horse over old wrongs or old disagreements or trying to trumpet the achievements of departed editors who may in fact not want to be celebrated, or even (in some cases...) not need to be celebrated. I think it would be sensible to have an agreement that private contact with the named editors, confirming that they are happy to be on the list, would be a minimum for any individual name to be kept there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth I find this page to be utterly unencyclopedic and a distraction from what we should be here for (like WP:DICK, WP:DIVA and a variety of others). This place is bad enough withough having pages like this to rub in editors faces by those that have been here long enough to know about them. Kumioko (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In what way can the listing of one of the many millions of Wikipedia pseudonyms be a violation of privacy? A violation of privacy would be listing your home phone and encouraging people to give you a call to come back. A violation of privacy would be using a page to launch an email letter writing campaign. This is just part of our history and you were part of it, whoever you are. And, peace. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: In what way can the listing of one of the many millions of Wikipedia pseudonyms be a violation of privacy? Okay let us start with the talk page thread Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians#H.
Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have discovered a user known simply as H, who apparently left Wikipedia in 2007 as a result of another editor (I have no idea who) threatening his family. I don't know much about the circumstances, should I add him? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have since found out who the user was. If we do add H, we should of course not mention the user who outed him per WP:DENY. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably best to avoid that one altogether.
I'm seeing the current trend towards this list being exhaustive within the already fairly wide scope, but I think maybe we should be a little less liberal with the people we add here and perhaps focus more on those editors who have made a somewhat more.. substantial? impact on the project.. i guess measured by what anecdotes can be written of them in their entry? Just a thought. -- Ϫ 09:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I always thought the page was meant to be for editors to add folks they actually had personally interacted with and then missed, rather than folks to come along later and fill in people they had never interacted with. FWIW, adding H probably not a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

H, left Wikipedia in 2007 after another editor threatened his family. If that were you Carrite in place of H, how would you react if you were subject of a public discussion whether or not it is good idea to add your name to a highly visible list 6 years after you left wikipedia after your family was threatened? Or see the thread Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians#Suppressions?

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

...and three of them in a row (including one of my edits) - I wonder what this was all about? Anyway this seems like the right opportunity to talk about some other unusual things I come across as a result of editing wp:mw.

For example, earlier I was notifying some editors that they have been recently added to mw and after posting on one user talkpage I saw this earlier edit. Now, it has been my experience when contacting Missing Wikipedians that many have deletion notices posted on their talkpage, but this one was unusual. Firstly it was a redirect deletion, second there were quite a few similar notices, third they were all from the samee nominator, fourth they seemed like real weird redirects. But, unfortunately, like most deleted stuff on wiki I guess I will never find out why this missing wikipedian did all this work that has now joined many others in the dustbin. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The earliest suppressed edit revealed some personal information – I can't remember it's nature and that's none of our business anyway – but it was obviously grievous enough that it had to be suppressed. The next two edits also would have needed suppression because they would have revealed the offending information in the first edit. Re: your second point: Deletion is as much a part of improving a wiki as addition. Both of these activities should be undertaken carefully. Graham87 14:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Re: I wonder what this was all about? It is common sense that an edit is over sighted only after revealing sensitive personal information. The self appointed maintainers of the list should be told that. 182.66.35.83 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was only fair to add a notification of this discussion to the Missing Wikipedians talk page. If people make comments there that seem out of line for whatever reason, they should be gently corrected, as they would be on any other page. Graham87 12:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it. How can this list be anywhere near exhaustive? Look up any given short username, you'll probably get a name with some really old edits and never edited again. There are busybodies roaming the 'pedia who enforce their hatred of "trivia" collections even on userpages, yet people bother with this? I'd be more impressed, of course, if it were an actual survey study with actual methodology, meant to answer some actual questions. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia a better place - Part I "Sport Anology"

Let's imagine comparing certain operational sequences within Wikipedia, let's say to those applied in sports: In sports, there are players and there are referees and you have to decide to be either or. Means, there's a strict differentiation between those actively participating in the game and those regulating and judging the game. Now let's imagine what would happen to a sport where things are handled in the Wikipedian way, meaning that referees can feel free to be players, whenever they feel like. What consequences do you think this would have - especially taking into account that referees (in sports and anywhere else) have a strong sentiment of team spirit?--37.230.12.44 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are mistaken in your belief that Wikipedia is a competitive sport. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should look up the meaning of the world "anology" [analogy]...--37.230.12.44 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The sports analogy is a valid concern, and I added "[analogy]" above (Wikipedia has articles on all aspects of critical thinking, as with "inductive reasoning"). I have seen admins become partially wp:INVOLVED in articles which they were monitoring. There is also the troubling interpretation where Involved admins can perform related admin actions if "anyone would have done the same" and that places too much judge-jury-executioner power into the hands of admins who imagine their decisions are universally obvious, rather than subject to "systemic bias" from being too emotionally involved with a page being edited. When there are dozens of people hacking on an article, then it can become difficult for admins to merely "referee" without actually over-editing the page for pre-conceived notions. The task is not simplified by a wp:MOS which has 71 pages of wp:AT rules about how to name an article. In many cases, wp:IAR bypass is needed because WP is still in the 'Dark Ages' of how/where to write controversial text, without wp:UNDUE wp:Grandstanding of fringe topics versus wp:NOTCENSORED coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with most points, but I don't think the matter is limited to admins "being too emotionally involved with a page being edited". The actual situation is more like there's bonds of friendship between admins ruling certain matters where there are admins involved who perform as editors, at the same time. It is the principle of a "corps" and the adhesiveness that comes along with bonds of friendship between admins and admin-editors. There should be admins and editors, strictly differentiated, and there should be no chance for editors to suck up to admins. An editor should not be able to gain the status of being some kind of "protege" of an admin, who lets his "friendly" editor get away with all kinds of misdoings while newbie-editors, who could add valuable information to Wikipedia are banned instantly, just because their view collides with an editor well-known and beloved by certain admins.--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Current view on Bitcoin for donations since 20 March 2012?

Hi Jimbo, Do you have a current view on Bitcoin? Would it still be an "uphill battle" to ask of the Wikimedia Foundation to accept Bitcoin as part of future donation drives? If it would, do you have any personal interest in Bitcoin? If not donating to the Wikimedia Foundation, could you personally accept Bitcoin as a way to let Bitcoin users show their support to you as an individual? Logictheo (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Or Dogecoin! Such crypto. Much donation. Wow! Actually, the idea of decentralized, community based currency does fit nicely with Wikipedia's crowdsourced nature. Whether or not to accept Bitcoin and Litecoin could merit discussion. Resolute 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it would still be an uphill battle. I personally take an interest in bitcoin as a phenomenon. I downloaded some mining software but have not had time to set it up. I don't know why anyone would send me bitcoins personally, although I did see that apparently there are some waiting for me somewhere if I claim them. In theory the Foundation could accept them but it is not that trivial really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Depending on how long ago they were sent, you might actually want to pick them up. If someone sent you coins when they were sitting at $5 each, now that they're hanging $800, it could be twenty or thirty grand pretty easily. (Of course, if you don't want to, I'd gladly take them off your hands and put them towards more fully funding a Wikipedian in Residency against systemic bias :p.) To get at the meat of the question though, this recently came up on one of the lists - Matthew Walker from the fundraising team chimed in to say that they don't normally consider setting up new payment pathways unless they're confident they'll raise at least ~500k USD a year. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review domain expired

wikipediareview.com expired on 1/16 and now gets a parking/spam/domain-for-sale page. I'm no fan of that site but thought I'd mention it here as the inhabitants might be amused. I picked this page mostly because other places I could think of seem even worse. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is huge bad blood between the Wikipediocracy insiders (of which I am not one) and Wikipedia Review, from whence it sprung. I suspect that loathing of WR is one matter that the most wild-eyed WPO insiders and the most hardline WP cabalists could agree upon. Carrite (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Archives of past versions are indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wikipediareview.com/.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, but most of the discussion pages aren't logged. I believe that one of the WPO insiders (one of the few who didn't get banned off WR) has the full archive and that may or may not be reappearing at some point. There's also a private access area backstage which is a more likely place for that archive to materialize. Apparently there's even a WPO wiki — who'da thunk it? Carrite (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Only $69.95. I am tempted to buy it but drama just isn't my game. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
That's the amount to have GoDaddy contact the domain owner and try to negotiate a price, not the amount to buy the domain. There's a grace period after a domain expires during which the owner can re-register it. After the grace period it will either be offered for auction or returned to the registry. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed

I liked you saying that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss Articles for Creation

For reference: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians And another example, an entirely different case: [6]

It is my sense that in both of these cases, if the article had been created, it would have survived an AfD quite easily. So why is AfC following what appear to be much higher standards for inclusion than AfD? The inconsistency strikes me as deeply problematic.

Note that in addition to the inconsistency between AfC and AfD there is the deeper inconsistency of coverage of what anyone would admit are quite obscure and unimportant bits of pop culture cruft (which I don't mind, on the premise that as long as it is well-referenced and is what people want to write about, that's fine) while simultaneously rejecting an article about an academic society which is clearly notable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Likely because recent pop-culture cruft tends to be documented with many easily-accessible web-based sources (which Wikipedia tends to bias toward), while the two articles you link would rely more heavily on either older print sources or items generated by the organization itself. If it can't be quickly verified, it's easier to reject as not notable. Intothatdarkness 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I proposed an AfC review/AfD merge recently [7] - the people there didn't go for it, but if someone wants to reopen the idea you have my vote. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any studies about AfC and whether or not it delivers on its promise of being a friendlier process than classic New Page Patrol? (To me as an almost outside observer, it seems that AfC is gentler in terms of not hitting new articles with lots of cleanup templates and speedy deletion requests, but quite strict in what is deemed acceptable for mainspace, but as I said, I would welcome any data). —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Kusma: I am not aware of any (recent) studies into this subject, but i can give a limited account of my own experience in new page patrol / afc reviewing. Back when i still did new page patrol a page tagged for removal was virtually always deleted (Often quite soon after its creation) and the majority of the editors didn't make any edits after that occurred. The amount of questions regarding a tag or removal was also very low: Just a handful for every couple hundred tags i would say.
AFC Reviewing on the other hand tends to yield a boatload of questions by comparison. During the heights of the January backlog drive last year i received several questions a day on my talk page requesting another review \ advice \ explanations for a review i did, and another couple question of the same type by mail. Since the review template also points users to the IRC help channel I am quite certain even more users ended up there to ask assistance.
AFC is not perfect by any stretch of the word, but i do like to assume that it is preferable over new page patron in a majority of the cases - and at least in cases where editor feedback is required. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Kusma At the Wikimedia Foundation, we're on the verge of completing some in-depth research in to article creation trends across all the major Wikipedias. We'll be publishing it on Meta and doing a talk (which I expect will be webcast) about it soon. We looked at what impact AFC was having on article deletion rates for new editors and compared it more experienced editors, as well as to userspace drafts in English and other languages. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Walling, WMF have been "on the verge" of fixing this for over 5 years. When are you gonna pull your finger out of your ass and actually do something?
A nursery for new articles written by new editors is a good idea in principle, but too often, AfC just doesn't want to cut them loose and let them grow up.
Articles for Creation has some intractable WP:OWNership issues. Outside editors who have attempted to intervene have encountered stiff opposition. Arbcom is poised to desysop an administrator who ignored AfC processes and would not kotow about it on WP:ANI afterward. It's a real shame. HiDrNick! 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
From my experience, I find myself getting in a negative, non-inclusionist mindset when I review AFC articles. Taking Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians by itself, it's pretty good, but a majority of AFC submissions are not suitable for inclusion, and a large portion of those probably never will be. After reviewing more than a couple AFCs in a row, I start to get discouraged and I find myself wanting to just decline the article and move on. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, AfC reviewing can be mentally exhausting. I review from the back of the backlog (so possibly the easier articles have already been handled), but a typical period of reviewing for me might include ten to fifteen declines - of which at least three-quarters are articles obviously created to serve as advertisements or PR puff pieces, usually by editors obviously linkable to the article subjects - and maybe, if I'm lucky, one or two approvals. And I'm by far not the toughest reviewer out there, and I really enjoy when I am able to send an article live. AfC as I experience it is an ocean of crap punctuated by the occasional raft of good stuff; it can be very easy to slip into the mindset that everyone submitting an AfC is there to sneak in some puffery/advocacy and that it's your job to hold the line against such COI incursions. If someone's being paid for working on those articles, it's sure not me, and I've come to resent being asked to to such PR staff's work for them. Jimbo, I know you dislike paid advocacy; I would encourage you to try patrolling the AfC backlog or staffing the IRC #wikipedia-en-help channel for a few days to see just how much of the flow AfC deals with is exactly that and how exhausting it can be. If the advocacy spam wasn't gushing in at such an astounding rate, I suspect we'd be able to do a much, much better job with the articles that their creators actually, genuinely cared about and thought were encyclopedic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And, after having ruminated on my own words for a while, let me add a few more things. First, that we're drinking from a firehose of crap does not excuse poor-quality reviews. Reviewer exhaustion might explain some of it, but it doesn't excuse it. It's absolutely true that sometimes articles that could fly on their own are declined at AfC because a reviewer is too conservative or doesn't know what they're doing, and that's not something that should be happening. However, that leads me into...

...the second point, which is that AfC, other than some basic, non-binding guidelines drafted by Wikiproject:AfC, is pretty much anarchy. Each reviewer does their own thing, according to their own standards. No one reviews reviews, except in unusual cases. No one judges whether reviewers are qualified to be doing reviews (yet. An RfC was just closed on this issue and brings us closer to having reviewing be a user right). No one really knows where the line is for "this article is good enough to move into mainspace", so everyone sort of rolls their own. New editors, for whatever reason, are drawn to AfC as "somewhere I can help", and sometimes make a mess of things. Old editors, for whatever reason, decide that AfC needs to be cleaned up right now, and also sometimes make a mess of things.

I've been brainstorming, very vaguely, some possible ways to ameliorate these problems lately. As far as the firehose, a trial balloon on the CSD talk indicated that there would be support for a CSD criterion that would apply to AfC submissions which could not ever meet our inclusion standards (submissions that would meet A7 or A11 in mainspace, for example). Support was lacking for making AfC an "X tries and done" system and for disallowing AfC submissions from editors who are clearly the article subject or their representative. As far as the anarchy...that's tougher. I suspect we need an RfC of some sort firming up the guidelines according to which AfC reviews should be done; the trouble is that there are so many possible threads to that that I'm having trouble visualising how such an RfC should work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fluffnutter AfC was created long before WPAFC ever came on scene to service the queue. Each volunteer has tge basic ruberic of things they should be checked, but beyond that it's typically left up to the volunteer's discretion when looking for specific things that need to be in a candidate mainspace article. AfC is the only place for editors who have a CoI to submit their proposed article, so a CSD to obliterate CoI submissions makes it imposslbe for a CoI editor to ever get a article in even if the article were appropriate. As to the "X tries and done" proposal, that was turned down because the consensus has been that as long as the editor is making forward progress to getting their submission to acceptability, we're happy to give them as many tries as they need. It's only when the submission gets re-submitted ~4 times without the issue being corrected to the level of the reviewer's satisfaction that we start looking at other tools in the box (MfD, page protection, deleting the active submission template, etc.) to deal with the submission. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A major problem with AFC reviewing is that a lot of the editors doing the reviewing aren't qualified to review. They frequently deny requests that would otherwise stand up under scrutiny and hold articles to a much higher standard than if the editor just creates them from scratch. I also agree that there are serious ownership issues with some of the admins who "run" the AFC process. If you don't agree with them you aren't welcome. AFC is a good place to see some very abusive admin conduct towards new users. Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    KumiokoCleanStart {{citation needed}} If you're going to throw those kinds of assertions out, you better have diffs to back it up. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    The burdeon isn't on me to prove it anymore. I no longer care. I left the comment in case Jimbo or someone else cares enough to try and fix it. Believe what I am saying or not, it doesn't really matter. Its a fact that has been repeatedly stated in multiple venues (including this one) and all anyone needs to see it is to go and look. Yes there are some good reviewers and some good work is done there but there are also a lot of process ownership issues and new users are frequently insulted or ridiculed in the comments on the AFC's. That is also a major reason why backlogs are so long there, people don't want to help out with it because of a few jerks. That is also a contributing factor to why there are over 1000 articles pending review and about 17000 eligible for G13 speedy deletion. Because too few are allowed to participate and those who do are often the wrong ones and share a decline and delete mentality. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    KumiokoCleanStart If there is such a grave problem then that problem should be fixed by all means. However, the comments above are akin to calling a plumber to repair a leak, while only providing the name of the city you reside in. Sure, you may not truly care anymore but you still minded the issue enough to spend time to write several posts about it. If the problem is as widespread as you mentioned, it should be relatively simple to provide a diff or two for people to have a start. If not for the sake of you caring anymore, then for the sake of giving people a handle to actually do something with your comment / observation.
As for the backlog on AFC i don't believe the rationale provided is entirely valid. Deletion criteria G13 is quite new, yet from its interception applied to several tens of thousands of declined AFC submissions made in earlier years. If it were not for the diligent efforts of several editors (Hat tip to DGG and Anne Delong among others) that backlog might still be be more extensive, or might have been cleaned out without verifying the declines themselves. The 1000 article backlog of current submissions is about three to four days worth of submissions, so while it is definitely bad i cannot see how that would be directly related to a couple of people being jerks or having a high bar on allowing people to participate. If i am missing something here please do correct me on that one. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Then feel free to ignore my comments, everyone else does, which is precisely why I have no intention of spending time mining through AFC submissions. I've seen the comments, others have seen the comments, anyone who's worked there for more than a day has seen them. Their not particularly hard to find if one simply spends a little time there. But I know without hesitation that anything I say will be summarily ignored as it has in the past, so there is little reason for me to spend my valuable time when no one will believe me anyway. That's why I invite you all to perform due diligence and look for yourselves. Do not take my word for it. But as your reading the comments think about how hard it is to learn the rules here and how those comments affect the submitter. Many don't come back because the first contact they have to the site is some burned out reviewer calling their article "nothing but crap" because they just spent the last 4 hours declining and deleting article submissions. Kumioko (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few random things, but I am not going to waste much time on this issue:
  1. is there a "requirement" for inline citations?. This isn't uncited, it just needs more and an inline cite. This is a stub, but is characteristic of thousands of articles already here.
  2. Stubs never get approved in AFC, yet any editor can simply create the article without going through AFC. If the article wouldn't meet Speedy deletion criteria or would survive an ARC, then it should not be declined which is standard practice currently.
  3. Angelo Frattini (Sculptor) - This version was declined and its currently being improved further but this is not a bad start for a work in progress. Should we require all AFC's to be B-class or better? Also the message says it might be 2-3 weeks for a review...sure seems like a backlog to me and doesn't really matchup with the 3 or 4 day assessment by Excirial. It took a month for it to be reviewed the first time.
  4. The list goes on and on. Just look through some of the articles at Category:Declined AfC submissions and you'll find a lot more. Especially look through needing footnotes and non notable. Notability is so subjective that a lot get declined and meet criteria. Anyway, I have invested enough time in this considering I don't beleive anything wil come out of it anyway. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to search those, i appreciate the effort.
  1. The Incite decline reason is likely one of the largest problems in past declined article's. That decline reason used to be a default decline reason in the AFCH script that the vast majority of the people use to review content. It was removed some months ago for obvious reasons, but it left quite a legacy from the time it was still in active use. Newer article's should no longer have to face this decline reason though.
  2. True. I like stubbies because they are easy to check (and source, if so required) but they are declined way to often. Agree on the acceptance criteria as well; those criteria are sometimes set to unrealistically high levels for a new article. Sometimes it DOES seem as if the accepted article should be at least C class, instead of being a starter class article.
  3. I should have explained that "4-5 day comment" to start with. If i recall correctly there are about 200-300 new AFC submissions each day, so the 1000 page backlog is about 4-5 days worth of new submissions. That said there are quite a few caveats: During December the backlog grew to some 2500 pages, likely due to the holiday period. As a result the average waiting time for a submission was quite a bit higher than the usual wait (Which isn't all that short either). What also factors in is that some editors such as myself tend to review from the front of the queue (Newest first). The rationale for that this is that it makes no sense to have someone wait two weeks for a review if the page is clearly a decline on first glance. Also, reviewing recent submissions first increases the chance that the original submitter might still see the review and stick around. There is a side effect to this though: Article's that already look decent on first glance might end up waiting somewhat longer on average for a review.
  4. *Sighs* Can't argue on that matter. Notability has always been somewhat subjective, and the decline reason is often overused rather then underused. Your second comment ties in with this issue - if the page wouldn't be CSD'd or AFD'd it should be fine in most cases.
I suppose that if we can hammer the acceptance criteria back to normal standards things may improve. This might need change on a few fronts though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't the Draft namespace in part intended to remove the bureaucratic hurdles of AfC? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Partially, but this is also being done IMO to help eliminate the thousands of pages in userspace that just sit around for years taking up space. Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let us go a further step back and ask just what it is that gives total newbies the idea that their very first act on Wikipedia should be to write a new article? When I joined the project back in 2007 I stuck around for many months and thousands of small edits before I worked up the nerve/cheek/arrogance to start writing a new article from scratch.
As a semi-regular AfC reviewer I can confirm that the "in-tray" is an ocean of raw sewage that we are forced to dive into to seek out the far too rare pearls. IMHO a fundamental flaw in AfC is that there is no "this is crap, go away!" decline option. We are far too polite to the vast majority of spammers and time-wasters that submit their rubbish - all the decline templates include an invitation to fix the abovementioned problem and submit it again. Spending an hour or two at the front end of the submissions list (the fresh stuff nobody else has taken a look at yet) is enough to burn up all the AGF of a saint.
I have just reviewed and approved Society of American Historians. At the time of the previous review none of the independent references that exist in the current version existed. You need to judge a decline by the state the article was in then, not how it looks now.
The notability problem that many such "worthy" subjects struggle with is that their adherents hardly ever publish anything outside of their own walled gardens, thus genuinely independent reliable sources are hard to find. Basically academics seriously suck at publicity - pop singers, wrestlers, etc. (or at least their managers) are masters of the art. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there needs to be an Academic Org Notability Guideline? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a SNG for academics/professors - WP:PROF, so maybe we can look at using some of its criteria to build one for academic orgs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I signed up because an article I was looking for was missing and decided to write it. In previous discussions about article creation rights the amount of people joing and getting stuck here has long been a consideration against restrictions to eG autoconfirmed. Agathoclea (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with your observation that a declination ought to be discussed in the context of the article as it appeared at the time. However, at the time User:Chris1834 first edited it with a comment Half of the sources are internal, you need independent sources to establish notability. it did have three independent sources. While I can view only one of them, I'm troubled by the notion of looking at the ratio of sources. The comment about "half" troubles me, as I suspect we have over a million articles with fewer independent sources, and I bet we have many with under half independent. I don't recall ever seeing such a concern used as an argument for declination. (I can imagine it being an editorial concern re wp:weight etc.). At the time of declination, it had 14 reference, eight of which I believe are independent. I wouldn't be surprised if this exceeds the median number of independent references.
I'm also surprised at how long this discussion has gone on without even notifying User:Chris1834 of its existence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually at the time of decline it had eight references, five of which were primary, one of which noted the society in passing and two that couldn't be checked online but based on the titles didn't seem to be about the society. To me it didn't seem to have enough sources. The decline did not mean the society was not notable, it meant they didn't have what I was lead to believe is a requirement for a new article. AFC states "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article didn't have that. I would be happy to follow whatever guideline is put forth, as I have shown that I did in this case. Based on current policies, I would decline this article at that point every time.
  • Yes, it was a fair decision to decline the draft article, based on the fact that possibly only one source was independent, reliable and about the Society.
Generally I think AfC does an excellent job, though there are many people that delight in bashing their efforts. It requires a good level of knowledge about Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, about page-naming, copyright, MOS (and good judgement) then from this subset of Wikipedia editors you have to find people with the time and the patience to be consistently involved. New articles continue to arrive in waves, day-in-day-out. I worked at AfC a lot last year and rapidly got burnt out - the older drafts can be very complex and, occasionally, the authors can be abusive and/or time consuming.
The problem comes down to a lack of experienced editors, in my view. And part of the process of encouraging new reviewers to take part would be forgive the occasional mistakes. We're all human and have to start somewhere! Sionk (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The start of a solution to this interminable mess was the Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles - a way to allow us to standardise treatment of new articles from new users, to give them all equal assistance, and to re-focus of positive encouragement for new editors rather than stark automated deletion messages. Two-thirds of the community supported it, and agreed to try it, but Wikmedia Foundation refused - WP:ACTRIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.25.248 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a one-time-only opportunity to create a new system from scratch in the new Draft namespace, one that takes the best bits from AFC, NPP and even ACTRIAL. However the longer we take to get it designed and implemented the more the "old ways" will become established as "standard practice" in the new namespace so let's do this properly and not drop the ball. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • And one of the first steps is ensuring that there are clear criteria which reviewers (accredited, not "whoever signs up") follow to the letter. No "Way too much content for the amount of references" for an article where each (list) section has a source (which covers everything in the list), or "List needs a lead explaining why it's important in addition to the parent article it depends on" (true for FLC, but there are still scores of lists with single-sentence ledes; this submission still hasn't been approved, despite there being precedent for standalone lists when the list is lengthy enough). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • "Accredited reviewers"? "Standards followed to the letter"? Wikipedia should work hard against bureaucracy like that, and shouldn't apply criteria at AfC that are contrary to the "anyone can edit" spirit that has made Wikipedia's article space as awesome as it is now. —Kusma (t·c) 10:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
      • "Anyone can edit" ≠ "Anyone can competently review drafts and properly help newbies" - try not to confuse the two concepts. It is precisely the absence of accreditation and standards that has landed AfC in the condition it is in. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
        • If AfC needs accreditation, maybe it should rather be scrapped as being unwiki and unwieldy. —Kusma (t·c) 12:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Having our first line of defense-cum-introduction squad staffed by people who enforce their own rules as they like and refuse to discuss why they have rejected an article is just a recipe for disaster. Hence why a vetting process is very much necessary. Not necessarily as strict as RFA, but much better than allowing anyone to review. What if a vandal or sockpuppet chose to review (I can imagine the latter... "needs more tits")? Or would you rather potential new editors be driven away so that anyone can edit is understood in the widest possible way? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Why can't we just revert, warn and block people who make bad edits at AfC just like we revert, warn and then block people who make bad edits in mainspace? We allow vandals to edit our featured articles, but we revert and block them afterwards. I don't see a reason why it has to be different just because edits happen in a different namespace (other than the MediaWiki: namespace). —Kusma (t·c) 12:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
              • Reviewers or writers? Yes, we can block vandals posing as reviewers, but the damage is done: the once-hopeful editor who submitted an article for review is probably not coming back. You're forgetting, our goal at AFC is not to provide information to readers, but to provide a venue for people to try and write articles without having to worry about arbitrary deletion or drive-by tagging (like in main space). We are trying to reduce bad experiences. If they have a bad experience there, they're gone. As for undoing or reverting an actual editor who made a bad close, that's usually when WP:OWN pops up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
                • Crisco 1492 says "the damage is done." Yes, the damage is done this time, but if we block the person who did the damage, it will make one less person to do similar damage 100 more times in the future. However, I see other problems with Kusma's suggestion of "Why can't we just revert, warn and block people who make bad edits at AfC just like we revert, warn and then block people who make bad edits in mainspace?" For a start, an average AfC submissions is never seen by anywhere remotely near as many people as the average article, so that most often the bad decision will never be noticed. In fact, one of the biggest causes of problems at AfC is that the number of submissions is far too high for the number of people assessing them, which is bound to mean that many submissions don't get looked at by more than one person. Then there's the question of what counts as a bad enough "bad edit" to justify a block. If I start blocking editors just because their judgement as to how much sourcing a new article needs is different from mine, it's a good bet that I'll find myself being hauled before ANI pretty soon. Blocking for outright vandalism, spam, BLP violations, etc, is one thing, but blocking just because of poor judgement is much less straightforward. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Of course it isn't quite as simple as I try to make it sound. However, if reviewers often make bad decisions at AfC, they should be told to make better decisions or stay away from AfC. Speedy deletions at least get looked at by nominator and deleting admin (and when doing CSD work one should always tell people about bad tagging); if AfC submissions are declined by just one editor and then never looked at again, the process needs to be improved, and more people need to get involved in double-checking each other's work and giving each other feedback on their reviewing. Unfortunately I have no good idea how to get more people into AfC work (I do have bad ideas like starting to use "no AfC reviews" as RfA oppose rationale). —Kusma (t·c) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Kusma, there is nothing wrong with your suggestion, in theory. In practice, though, there are a bunch of intertwined problems. First of all, the AfC queue is 1000 submissions deep, and that's not even counting all the *declined* submissions which will promptly be resubmitted as soon as the marketing-rep with the WP:COI is back in the office tomorrow morning. The queue-size is the tip of the iceberg. Second, AfC is exhausting, and overwhelming (see first item :-)   which means it is understaffed. You are suggesting *firing* reviewers. Guess what that means? More work for folks who survive the layoffs, and even more overwhelming backlogs. Fluffernutter suggested the review-the-reviewers concept, which is absolutely positively the best idea in town, but requires MORE HELP and we already don't have enough help, as it is. (I have a way to automate the review-of-reviewers ... with no manual RfA-style 'interview' phase required ... but getting that implemented and getting consensus to deploy is a huge horrid ball of wax.) The real problem with your suggestion, that bad reviewers should be told to stop, if even finding the bad ones in the first place. Who has time to watch those self-same guardians, with hundreds of new articles coming in every day, and an iceberg of COI sitting in the queue, with the iron law that it cannot be deleted as long as the PR department at the company resubmits it with a new tweak at least every six months? AfC is having trouble, but the trouble is not easy to solve: it is a fundamental issue. There are tons of articles in mainspace that get slowly filled with WP:PEACOCK and ref-spam and such, over the years. Who is watching them? Wikipedia needs more editors,[8] which means, we have to fix AfD and AfC, so we stop driving away beginners with wikithuisasm. Yea verily, thus ends the ranting, amen.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Crisco 1492 if you're going to bash my assertions and judgement calls (Like the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners and List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections), mind doing it to my face? Being that other editors reviewed and agreed, how about you let this bone go? Are you going to tell me that the current state of the "selections" article is what we want to have in mainspace. Did you not get advice that we don't need a bulk copy of the content that is on the Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival site? Did you not understand that the DYK nomination that you were shepherding and trying to get past the reviewers does not have any bearing on the review of AfC articles? In short the submissions were declined appropriately, declined by an editor who knows what they're doing with respect to policy and therefore is "accredited", and your retreading the same argument over and over again only serves to prove that you have a personal vendeta for my having taken an action that displeases you. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Hasteur, you have just proved my point. Do you see how combative you are coming across? I deliberately did not name you (talk about the action/content, not the editor), and did not intend to single you out. I have no personal vendetta with you, but those two edit summaries were the freshest in my mind (and you did ask for diffs). If we were to, say, meet at an FAC or GAN, I would not consider you any better or worse for our past interactions.
As for the selections article: is it perfect? No. Is it better than half of the lists in main space? Likely. Does it fit the relevant policies (particularly WP:SALAT)? Yes. We're not expecting a first time user to produce something like List of films of the Dutch East Indies or Citra Award for Best Director on their first go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Sphilbrick for notifying Wikiproject Articles for creation about this discussion. Yes, this discussion did start out with a specific Afc submission as an example. As an experienced Afc reviewer, I would like to say that I also would have declined the article which originally sparked this discussion, with a comment encouraging the submitter to improve the referencing and resubmit. At the time of the decline there were no independent sources. The Society's web site is cited extensively. The book sources were all to people who were not only members of the society, but had had their work sponsored by it. The book about American Heritage was written by the son of its managing editor. As another editor commented (sorry, I don't remember who), just because there are currently a lot of poorly cited articles in the encyclopedia is not a good reason to create more. It's true that the article may not have been nominated for Afd, but only if no one happened to take the time to examine the neutrality of the sources. Wikiproject Articles for creation, or any group of editors in the future who attempt to apply standards to the articles, will always be open to regular criticism by those who interpret the standards differently, and that's a good thing because discussion is how consensus develops. I have interacted with many new editors who have submitted initially unacceptable articles and who, after making improvements at the advice of Afc reviewers have gone on to be great editors. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that AFC is trying to follow higher standards of inclusion than AFD. I tried to have an article about Michael Pollack created (draft at User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack) and I felt it would survive AFD, but some other editors denied it on grounds that it has a little too promotional sounding of content. I'd rather just post it on Wikipedia and let the AFD process take place if needed. If editors think it focuses on wrong aspects of him, they can cut it down at their leisure. Also, I found some film articles in AFC and I want to move them out of the AFC process and into the mainspace, to free up room for articles that are debatable. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As I have just said in reply to you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk - which page is worth reading in connection with this topic - if you are confident that a particular subset of submissions all meet Wikipedia policy, you should go right ahead and approve all of those submissions. It does not seem to me that Articles for Creation imposes any bureaucracy or restrictions to prevent people from doing exactly that. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I've went ahead and started approving articles after working on them. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Applying higher standards than AfD? I don't quite get that. AfD is a subjective process too, where questionable decisions are often made. And involves a number of participants over a long period. Unless Wikipedia is written entirely by robots there will continue to be a variety of interpretation, preferences and decision making. Including at AfC. I suppose a useful tool for AfC would be a method to overrule or change another reviewers decision, politely and without confusing the author of the article... Sionk (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole point of Afc is to have a place where new editors, COI editors and unregistered editors could make articles. Very often the reason new editors start editing is that there is a topic which they feel is missing from the encyclopedia. That's the way it was for me. (Here's my first article, an Afc graduate.) We'd lose large numbers of productive editors if we didn't let them create new articles right away. Afc is supposed to guide potential contributors in the way of NPOV and referencing, while weeding out attack pages and non-notable topics, getting copyvio material removed and rewritten, etc. Aside from the backlog (which has been bad lately because of the bounceback from the G13 notifications) it has been doing a reasonable job of this. However, some new editors just drop off a submission and never come back, or give up after one decline, and the articles are abandoned. For many this doesn't matter, as they will fade away under G13. However, perhaps 5 - 10% of these could be made into decent articles, and once the original editors have stopped working on them the only benefit to having them in Afc is that they aren't deleted right away. Since they need adoption by new editors anyway, why not move them into the new Draft space where they are more likely to be worked on? They are clearly categorized and easy to find. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Oooh! Clever! Is there some link to these transclusions from the AfC project page? Could a holding category be created? I realise DGG and youself were looking at old drafts, I should probably pay more attention to conversations on the Project talk page! Sionk (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All these discussions need to bear in mind the sheer imbalance between the volume of the in-tray (about 200 articles per day) and the number of people reviewing them (the bulk of the work is done by about 20 people). It would be ideal to have a system whereby promising editors and articles could receive personalised and dedicated support, but there simply isn't the volunteer hours at the moment to do this. We barely manage to give each submission a boilerplate review within 3 weeks with the numbers we have. What AfC really needs is another two dozen or so people. --LukeSurl t c 00:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To me that imbalance seems like the same disease I commented about at WP:ACC - it's a problem of make-work. People come up with more and more elaborate processes that "have" to be done, and when there aren't volunteers to do them, that excuses doing them arbitrarily. Let's just focus on the basics: provide some reliable sources, be at least marginally comprehensible (in English), have the purpose of providing information about a topic. Wnt (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It should also really help to transition to the Draft: namespace and more normal ways of commentary. For example, consider an article like this - the poor guy obviously has no idea of how he's supposed to write an article. I just want to dash off a quick comment, but it seems like you're supposed to put it in a special review box or something - bu not now ... why the heck is the article in talk namespace anyway? To one uninitiated it seems inaccessible. Wnt (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


A few general remarks about this topic:
If User:Jimbo Wales really wanted to raise the issue of poor quality AfC reviews he should have tried to use actual poor quality reviews to link as examples in his first post. Instead he chose a perfectly "by the book" decline for lack of Independent and Reliable Sources - which was subsequently fixed and passed on the next review. His other example of "bad AfC reviews" is a blog by someone bellyaching that their fist ever attempt at writing something on en.WP didn't pass immediately. After the first (and only) decline the draft was edited to make an explicit claim of notability and the draft was passed into mainspace two days later. If these are really the best examples of "the horror of AfC" Jimbo could come up with then I'm afraid he might die of apoplexy if he really saw some of the utter sewage that flows into the AfC machinery. The "Anyone can edit" mantra, though an obviously noble sentiment, is cloud-cuckoo-land wishful thinking, the harsh reality is that the vast majority of draft submitters are neurologically indistinguishable from the content of a compost heap.
If only 1% of the people who constantly bitch and moan about AfC would just take a few minutes a day to actually help fix the problems then just maybe some of the real problems that do exist would actually be solved. The perennial "I hate AfC" rent-a-crowd of course have never even tried to do a single review.
IMHO as a fairly experienced AfC reviewer some of the real problems at AfC are:
  1. . Brain-dead morons are allowed to submit utter crap. We need to look at implementing automated filters to reject most of the rubbish immediately without human intervention. If Gmail can identify spam at a thousand paces with better than 90% accuracy then our coders should be able to devise automagical detectors for blank submissions and submissions that consist entirely of nonsense such as "Joe is a poopypants".
  2. . Not enough active competent reviewers. See WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation
  3. . Draft writers don't actually read the advice they are given - just look at how the vast majority of questions posted to the AfC Help page are asking for information that had already been given to the draft submitter.
  4. . Many subject area WikiProjects show no interest at all in helping to review articles within their field of expertise. I must however name a few exceptions; the Medicine, Military history, Feminism, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry WikiProjects have always responded positively to requests for help from AfC. The new Drafts space might help to solve this as drafts there can be given WikiProject tags right from the start before entering mainspace, it isn't possible for drafts written in WT-space. (BTW The WikiProject "Class" rating system will need to be amended to add a "Draft" rating so that their article improvement systems will correctly handle such drafts.
  5. . AfC reviewers rarely get any respect or recognition for the work they do - thus contributing to reviewer burnout and poor recruitment of new reviewers.
<rant>If the AfC process were to disappear (or reviewers never declined any submissions) mainspace would be drowning in crap very quickly and Wikipedia's reputation as the world's most popular go-to source of information would be severely damaged. Perhaps such a "demonstration" could be arranged to show the AfC-haters how well the AfC process actually does work in spite of all the real problems - like when the police go on strike the cop-haters get taught a lesson in what it really is like to live in a lawless city.</rant> Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Another point I need to make - The phrase "AfC has WP:OWN problems" is a fairly popular refrain but AFAIK absolutely nobody has ever posted a single diff that positively proves the allegation - even Arbcom are bleating the same line without any solid evidence - in the case discussed below. It's time the people who make/support this allegation either put up or shut up. (Even our esteemed Leader's examples of "problems at AfC" have turned out to be mere mirages and illusions when properly examined.) Goodnight all, see you again at about 07:00UTC tomorrow. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for AFC criteria

As I mentioned above, I think having some explicit criteria against which AFC submissions are checked and passed/failed. Nothing fixed in stone, but a checklist which writers can check their work against and reviewers can cite when failing nominations. A very rough wording (as I'm heading out the door in a few minutes to catch a flight) could be like this:

  1. Submission is written in grammatical English (the title is not 100% important, IMHO, as the person passing the AFC can change the title during promotion)
  2. Submission explicitly shows the significance of the subject and has sufficient independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability (a suggestion for writers could be three or four)
  3. Submission uses references to support all potentially contentious information and direct quotations (this is all that's required per Wikipedia:Citing sources; citing absolutely everything is not required by policies or guidelines, just recommended; also note that formatting is not included here, as WP:BURL is just an essay and running Citation Bot or a similar tool takes very little time)
  4. Submission is written neutrally and does not contain promotional language
  5. Submission does not contain violations of copyright

Basically, enough that an article would not fail the average AFD, while also filtering out copyvios and spam. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Those criteria look very onerous, far more so than the existing AfC guidelines (or, at least, my understanding of them). Like you say, the drafts that are likely to fail at AfD need to be held back. As long as there is reasonable evidence of notability and the article is not a complete car crash, it will be likely to survive AfD. There's no need to reliably source everything, or remove all problematic grammar/language. In most people's books, "multiple" independent reliable sources means "two or more". Many things can be cleaned up and improved when the article is in main space. Sionk (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • These are roughly the criteria I judge articles by, though "grammatical English" is a higher bar than I'd aim for (is it understandable? yes? then who cares at this point in the article's lifespan if there's a run-on sentence or two), and the number of sources that are adequate to demonstrate notability will vary based on the topic. At a minimum, to pass an AfC I expect to see an assertion of notability and enough reliable sourcing to back up the notability claim and any BLP content or contentious facts, no copyvios, and neutral language. However, notability is a very fiddly thing (cf: the crapshoot that is filing an AfD), and it may be that any "guideline" that says "article must demonstrate notability" is just passing the fight one step down the line, so we can argue about what constitutes notability instead of whether we need to consider notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, those criteria are basically the current reviewing criteria anyway.
Someone, I think it may have been Anne Delong had in fact created a rather elegant process flowchart for AfC reviewing, the chart contains "checkpoints" similar to Crisco 1492's suggestions. The chart was displayed and discussed at the AfC Project talk page where it was well recieved. Unfortunately it was not subsequently incorporated into an "AfC Reviewers guide", thus it is currently languishing somewhere in a Talk page archive. I would really love to see it resuscitated and adapted to the process flow we need to develop for the new Draft namespace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't me that made the workflow chart - I just found it when it become lost in an archive at one point. However, this topic has been covered quite thoroughly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, and it changes are to be made in the criteria it would make more sense to discuss them at the talk page there. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It is on this archived discussion page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 4 —Anne Delong (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fluffernutter: "grammatical" as in "not a broken Google translation", not "grammatical" as in "follows the whole MOS". As I said, very rough wording.
@Dodger67: Perhaps they are (I should hope so), but considering the discussion above it appears people are going above and beyond the current guidelines (and that's not a good thing). I could certainly get behind a flowchart like that, so long as we actually follow the flowchart.
@Anne Delong: Sure. I'll drop over there now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And opened here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: While Jimbos's original post is perfectly appropriate, some participants in this discussion may not be aware of the progress towards improving AfC over the past few months:
    Creation of the new Draft namespace (originally essentially an AfC initiative)
    Creation of a set of minimum 'qualifications' for reviewers.
Further discussion will take place on how such a 'permission' will be implemented. Due to issues of quality and timeliness of reviewing that are common to both AfC and NPP, perhaps it may be time after all (two years further down the line) to revisit just exactly what the community agreed by consensus at WP:ACTRIAL (emphasis on 'trial') which was rejected at the time by the Foundation as being contrary to Founding Principles. I have reviewed these principles, and while the Wikipedidia is undoubtedly the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I have been unable to find any mention that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia where any editor can immediately create an article in mainspace. I'm not sure that Jimbo actually followed the WP:ACTRIAL - at least i'm not aware of him having commented on it at that time or since. There is no question that a very large number of articles submitted through both AfC and NPP are unmitigated crap and nonsense (with a great many more pages created in good faith that would never stand the test of AfD), no substantial discussion has taken place however as to how the numbers of competent reviewers for both tasks can be increased. In deference to Crisco 1492's list of criteria (which I broadly support) and various suggestions by others, I feel that the scope of such detail would be better discussued at this juncture in a more appropriate venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the way I think things ought to be is as follows: AfC and the incubator both feed into Draft space. Their tags are taken solely as an appeal for help. Articles can be moved on an editor's own initiative from Draft: to mainspace or from mainspace to Draft: if he really believes it is uncontentious that they either have or don't have what it takes to meet GNG. This could be abused as moves can be abused, and it can be resolved at AfC review/AfD like contentious moves are resolved, but AfD/AfC review doesn't have to be a mandatory stop up or down. Articles should only be actually deleted if they fail speedy deletion criteria, which can be found for really bad articles in any space; this is more of a behavior issue while the Draft/mainspace question is more of a content issue. Nonetheless, a stub sentence with two reliable sources belongs in easily searchable mainspace, because something is a lot better than nothing. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
the problem with demoting new articles that need work, is discriminating between (A) those that need more work, but will pass afd,; (B) those that need more work but with the work, might be acceptable; (C) those that regardless of work , are never likely to be usable WP content, generally because of WP:NOT or WP:N; and (D), those that qualify for speedy under the General criteria.
we should be able to deal with class D better, if the people screening AfCs actually do nominate them for deletion (tho we need to remember that many half of the articles deletable as copyvio can be rescued by stubbification , if it's thought there's an underlying topic worth thr trouble, and t=that the boundary between what is and isn't G11 promotional is rather fluid). We should be able to deal with class A better , by placing them into mainspace, which requires re-educating a certain number of the reviewers. The other two are problems. Examining thousands of one-year-old declined AfCs has shown me that only about 10% of the people asked to make changes & resubmit actually do so. Getting the backlog down to a day or so will help, because there's a chance they'll be around, but even so, the great majority get discouraged.. It will take careful individual work with each of them individually,and no technical fix will do that. An even smaller number of those asked to merge ever do so--I think the only practical possibility is for the reviewer to merge, or accept under a variant title and mark for merging. The ones who do not discouraged are often the COI editors, who often resubmit without changes indefinitely. I can think of nothing better here than to use MfD much more widely, but it would help to have distinct decline reasons, for "might be notable if you can find some more references," and "looks like it will never be notable."
I am not surprised that reviewers get confused, because it is a minority of articles that any of the prebuilt answers are really suitable--most of the time I give the contributor the real explanation and advice on their talk page. Some of this could be adjusted, but so far, essentially every request for improvement has been rejected, even that of not telling people to look at the article for reasons if it will already have been deleted, or letting reviewers edit what will be posted. . I've given up making suggestion to the developers, and just deal with individual articles however works best.
In any case, tinkering with the system will not solve the basic problems: we need to have a way to work with individual contributors, and if that fails, to work with the articles. This can not be reduced to an algorithm, and will be neither quick nor easy--but it will be effective. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: for the Wikimedia Foundation's product/design/engineering staff, I can say this: my team has been budgeted to work on article creation improvements and testing this fiscal year, including work on the Draft namespace which was launched over the holidays. Others have said that we have a unique opportunity to rethink some of our process and tooling around article creation with this, and I think that's correct. Right now there is a lot of leeway to try new things -- a great example is the idea of instead of deleting new articles that need work, we simply demote the promising ones to draft status. This has happened a little bit already. There is a lot we can do with software as well, to enhance how drafts help new authors learn the ropes and experienced editors ensure quality. Some of our ideas are being listed on the Talk page for WP:DRAFTS (please check it out and comment) and on our technical documents. It seems pretty clear that many of AFC's problems can be solved through experimentation with proper drafts namespace, socially and technically. Hopefully in 2014 we will find that Drafts are a welcome replacement for AFC and similar systems that aren't serving us very well right now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
See above for why I think your efforts will not solve the basic problem--but they can improve things at least marginally--at least they can if this time around you actually listen to and follow the suggestions from those with the experience of working on the submissions. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
'Drafts' will never be a replacement for AfC - replacing one system with another or even just another name will not address the core issues. Rather than starting all over again after Brandon's draft of an Article Creation Workflow start page two years ago in the aftermath of WP:ACTRIAL and attempting to reinvent the wheel, perhaps we should still be looking at those core issues: Quality of reviewing and quantity of reviewers. Software solutions are not a panacea when it comes to addressing human cognitive issues - it's been proven with the New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
As I've suggested several times, I feel the community should be looking towards the possibility of cloning the albeit excellent NPP software and adapting it for use at AfC (with the feed being the 'AfC 'draft' pages coming from the Article Wizard and/or other places), and then finding solutions for educating the reviewers of both systems.
WMF staff appear to be polarised on the issue of Foundation involvement in local Wikipedia issues. While one member of the staff had repeatedly insisted that AfC is not within the Foundation's remit, there are others who feel it falls within the scope of providing a proper landing page for new creators and user retention.I'm still wary of allowing a top-down Foundation solution to be imposed on the community rather than listening to the voice of experience of the volunteer team who actually do the work at AfC. If budgets are being allocated, then there should also be some formal Community-Foundation coordination, which I don't see happening. What I do see are confusing discussions spread around several venues, including Jimbo's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
NPP's reviewing tools are nice in some ways... but these days it seems that they're little used. This is partially our (the WMF's) fault for not doing all the maintenance as quickly as we should. But as far as I can see there are some pretty deep problems with tools like the PageCuration toolbar, such as that it can't be internationalized and used on other wikis without an overhaul. To be honest it's not super likely we directly adapt that piece of software (at least at the Foundation, volunteer developers might if motivated). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Steven (WMF): - Ok Steven, its time for to be a real asshole here because that seems to be what's needed to get this through your head. Not doing it as quickly as you should? The WMF development team has a bad habit and a long history of created half assed tools and then abandoning them and moving on when they start to get to a point of usefullness. You created NPP, which is a good tool, got it about to what I would call half way done, then moved on when people started using it. Visual Editor was and still is a joke and that can be said of many other things. The primary problem is the WMF's attitude that the community is expendable and we have no idea what we want. We offer suggestions and they are ignored. I grant you that there are many instances where the community has failed repeatedly at making changes, but the WMF doesn't even try. Even when you say you want our input over half the time you ignore it thinking you know better what we want when you guys aren't the ones doing the editing. So please, save the sarcasm and the attitude. If you want our help its here if not do your job and provide us with some useful tools so we can do ours. One of many reasons I don't edit here anymore outside discussions anymore is because of the Visual Editor application still destroying articles and I'm tired of fixing them because the WMF doesn't have any grasp of the concept of cleaning up the mess they made. Here's a suggestion, if you folks don't want to work with the community then go down the hall and talk to your counterparts at Wikia. They seem to have a better spirit of collaboration with their community. Maybe they can give you some advice. Kumioko (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You weren't being an asshole at all, and I think your point about moving on too quickly before things are really working and polished is overall probably right. However, I have never worked on VisualEditor or NPP myself, and the "WMF development team" is actually 100+ people who fill a wide variety of roles and jobs, working on many different areas to keep our software going. Please don't lump all staff and all projects in to one bucket, even if we're just talking about new features development. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fair to say and your right I don't know who does what in the office but collectively it does seem to be a general trend that the developers as a group tend to have Squirrel syndrome. You work hard on a good idea, get it to a 75 or 80% completion point, see something else that's more interesting, yell squirrel, then dump it and take off on a tangential new project. Certainly not everyone does this, but as a group this seems to be a trend. In my opinion NPP is a great tool that deserves more attention (its still missing functionality and has errors in it), Twinkle is another (though as I understand it, was developed and is maintained by a developer on their own time), AWB is another example of an excellent tool that already exists that could use more attention (although the current 3 developers do a great job already maintaining it on their free time, they don't have a lot of time to do "improvement"), of course continued development of Visual Editor and Flow (although I am not a fan of either), etc. Not even to mention all the other projects like Wikidata, commons, Wiktionary, etc. A plugin for Firefox or IE would be nice too (I made one for myself for Firefox with some handy links and functions). And those are just some of the current thinking items and nothing about the toxic editing environment and outdated policy that needs to be cleaned up. So I admit there are a pile of things that could and need to be done. But the WMF really needs to stop pushing things off when they get excited about new projects. My followup suggestion would be to have a way to solicite ideas from the field (the editors as it were), see what people want and need, then focus some attention on that. Additionally, if you were to ask for help with various projects and tell the community what you need and how you would like them to help, I suspect you would get it. Setting up some working groups at Wikimania for some of the critical problems might be a good idea since you will have a large and interested audience. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I certainly thought that drafts were very much intended to replace Af, and that their basic purpose was to bring the AfC material into a more logical position, with the side benefit of giving us an opportunity to rethink the process free of the constraints of trying to modify a basically flawed procedures. I think you defended in on that basis, and it was certainly what I and most of the others there were voting for, so perhaps you could explain. Do you perhaps mean that they are intended to replace or include other things also, such as the incubator? That's OK, too, but if there is any suggestion that we are going to maintain the existing AfC process within drafts except as a very temporary measure, I think that's a lost opportunity. If you seriously intend to do that, I think the result will be a successful MfD on the AfC pages in whatever location, Indeed, that was the alternative I was considering,and supported drafts workspace only as a preliminary step to major changes, not as being itself a solution . And, since you and I have worked on this NPP and AfC reform for a very long time now, I thought you had a similar view to my own.
Of course the NPP software--which I think is software developed by the foundation-- is a good set of relatively simple well-integrated procedures, and cloning it would be a reasonable step also before developing it further. It was developed by people who knew how WP worked in practice, and who listened to suggestions. If that's what developers do, it doesn't matter where they are located. Nor do I think that the people at enWP in contrast to WMF have a monopoly of good ideas--sometimes an outsider or relative outsider can have the necessary insight.
this has been discussed here because Jimbo was pretty horrified as some of the things AfC was in practice doing, and calling such things to his attention has been another very useful way of solving problems. AfC has been a rather isolated activity, and it needs wider exposure. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Walling, seriously, do you realise how much bullshit you're saying? "my team has been budgeted to work on article creation improvements ... we have a unique opportunity to rethink some of our process and tooling"

Your corporate-speak bullshit wouldn't bother me too much, except you draw ridiculous conclusions;

"Drafts are a welcome replacement for AFC and similar systems that aren't serving us very well right now"

... I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly, constructive attitude. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm... WP:SARCASM applies methinks.... Hello Steven, yes, 88's attitude was not WP:NICE. But they have a point. WMF is funded by "our" donation-bucks ... meaning "the readership" of wikimedia sites, but also, the volunteer-effort (which is a form of sweat-equity-donation-bucks in my book). That value goes to keep the servers running. It goes towards keeping the lawyers protecting the virtual buttocks of the anthropomorphic wikipedia herself (note how I stuck to pillar four and did not say something rude like "cover our collective asses" there!). Plus, it pays for you and "your" team to design and build stuff. Meaning: the attitude-expectations go both directions.
  It's not your team. It's the team the *readership* paid for. It's not been 'budgeted' by some nebulous corporate overlord with fiat powers. It's hard-earned donation-bucks and hard-earned volunteer-effort that are being spent with expectations of a return to the encyclopedia on that investment. Every single day is an opportunity to rethink our process. That's called WP:IAR. Every single day is an opportunity to rething the wiki-tools. That's why you have (WMF) at the end of your username. There's nothing "unique" here, at all. Does this make sense?
  Finally, you say that AfC isn't serving "us" very well right now. (More on Dah Scarequotes in a minute.) The long thread here serves as some evidence of that. The ongoing arbcom case over Kafziel adds more, although really it's more of a problem with our wikiJustice procedures, methinks, than with our AfC processes and/or WP:IAR pillar. The complaints when you goog for (wikipedia (sucks OR cultist OR (always revert)) are the biggest evidence of that problem, of course. And if you want numbers, try http://reportcard.wmflabs.org (or the more detailed info at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm which has *all* the data with no redactions). We have 4 million articles now. That's a good portion of the notable things. People still want to write articles though: architecture of Puerto Rico is still a stub, for instance, created September 2013, even though there are literally *hundreds* of impeccably reliable sources on the topic. There aren't people here to fix it. Why? Well, see my ranting elsewhere, for that. But everybody who's been to AfC knows, most folks still want an article created: about their band, or their boss, or some other non-wikiNotable-as-yet topic.
  So that brings us to the heart of the matter. Is in fact, drafts a welcome replacement? And if so, for whom? That mostly depends on the meaning of "us" in your sentence above. Do you mean, "us" as in, you and 'your' team, or even "us" as in WMF folks? Then that's the wrong attitude. Do you mean us, as in, wikipedians from the anon with 1 edit and 1 minute, all the way through our founder the Great And Powerful Jimbo?  :-)   Well, that's much better. But if you *do* think like that, what's with all the my team, budgeted, unique opportunity, sprachen sie marketroid? (what some call corporate-B.S.) Ditch that razzle-dazzle, por favor, in other words.
  And if you want my real opinion, a proper moral attitude is to always consider the readership, the 500m uniques we get every month, as The Point of all this stuff. That's a pretty big "us" which will soon include most of the literate folks on the planet, and counting multimedia at Commons, most of the illiterate ones too. Is in fact, WP:Drafts welcome to them? Well, that all depends, right, on what we do with it. And by we, I mean, everybody who cares about the five pillars, and is here to improve wikipedia. In which I fully include you, Steven. You're welcome. ;-)   Just please, tone down the WP:PEACOCK stuff when you're here on-wiki, oh-bee-kay-bee?
  If absolutely mandatory for the long-term health of the foundation, I guess you can talk slick at the press conferences, when you're getting a medal from Jimbo, and wanna impress the teevee viewing audience. But this is a collaborative function-oriented environment here (howdya like them silver-dollar words? <grin> but notice the difference in underlying intent... putting the focus where it belongs on function over form and collaboration over my-team), and definitely ain't some kinda press conference. What you say reflects on all of us wikipedians, so try and have the correct 'tude. In the hope, that this explanation of how wrong you were (not *badly* wrong but still could use improvement), may be seen as constructive, I hereby click save. Feel free to WP:TEMPLAR my talkpage if you think I'm outta line, or just wanna gab about Drafts.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
74, thanks - I was too lazy to respond like that; you said it pretty well.
Also, Steven, renaming and re-factoring the problem (from 'AFC' to 'Drafts') will not solve anything. It does absolutely nothing to address the concern that articles submitted to AFC/drafts are handled completely differently to articles made live by new users. Similarly, someone like Kafziel deleting lots of submissions doesn't solve anything.
There's not enough people to offer appropriate help to new users creating articles. There's too many people who use automated tools to spam out standard messages, instead of offering true support. There's massive inconsistencies in the way new user/articles are treated.
We can't do much directly to create a massive number of helpers. But we can do something about the problems - by stopping new users from creating live articles, we can at least begin to deal with them more appropriately - and massively reduce the workload of NPP, which hopefully will free up resources to assist the newbs more meaningfully. That was the conclusion of the ACTRIAL discussions.
WMF told the community to fuck off. Yes, they used more fancy-words/corporate-BS/marketroid, but that was the essence of their response - 'we know better than the community'. No, you don't. As 74 pointed out, the community pay you (via donations), so we're justified in asking you to make a simple modification that we - the people who actually edit - think is best for the project.
In addition, Mr Walling should be admonished to responding to my admittedly-rude comment by being rude back to me. 88.104.27.18 (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (previously 88.104.27.18)

Academic organizations and notability

As a tangential offshoot of part of this discussion, this has been started Comments sought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Why AFC?

I think we're missing the big picture.

Many years ago, Mr. Wales decreed that unregistered users would no longer be allowed to create new pages.

AFC is a way to circumvent that decree - OK, with checks... but it's still a hack, to let 'em make it in TALK namespace, and make it live on their behalf (on the whim of the elite who bother to register).

I guess <1% of new articles are submitted to AFC, and I estimate that 80% of them are COI - yet we give them so much care and attention. Whereas the poor saps who bother making an account to write their first article get royally shafted with spam warning/CSD notices.

It's grossly unfair that so much time is invested trying to help the mostly-spammy-AFC-submissions, but so very very little in helping the other new editors.

Everyone who rocks up to Wikipedia and wants to write an article that isn't utterly inappropriate should receive help, support, positive feedback, and encouragement.

That's the entire point of ACTRIAL, and - amazingly - the community agreed. But WMF vetoed it.

Thus, Mr. Wales - back at ya. Why won't you let us treat all new editors equally?

If even a fraction of the enormous effort that goes into dealing with new-page-patrol could be funnelled into actually helping new users instead of warning them, then the wiki would be a nicer place.

But it's so much easier to tick a box in Twinkle (or whatever) to 'WARN: UNREFERENCED" or "CSD: NOT NOTABLE" than it is to actually try to help. 88.104.19.169 (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I read bugzilla, the WMF didn't veto ACTRIAL, and no-one seems to have asked Jimbo or anyone else at WMF in public. Did a volunteer developer (brionv?) close the ACTRIAL bugzilla entry? (I think the paid developers have to plan and allocate resources in the Foundation's annual plan.) If the community came up with a way to fund it, or wrote the code ourselves, or even redesigned ACTRIAL so as not to need technical creativity, then perhaps we could have ACTRIAL after all. Did any other Wikimedia projects try auto-confirmed article creation yet? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
WMF vetoed the trial. Erik Moeller (Deputy Director of the WMF) refused to permit the required changeComment 43 - instead saying we needed to develop other ways of resolving the problem (none of which have happened, except for the utter fiasco of the VE - in which the community eventually managed to disable the botched implementation). They flat-out refused to implement the change, despite an utterly overwhelming consensus on-wiki.
"Funding" is not relevent; as one of the developers explains in that bugzilla, it could be done with a 1-line change (Comment 26).
Jimbo was well aware of the discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks IP. Very useful links. It sounds like WMF staff left the door open to a trial on a smaller wiki. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I interpret it as WMF saying that the consensus can fuck off, and they'll do whatever they like. But I appreciate that YMMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite. — Scott • talk 12:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I had a private email exchange with Jimbo when the whole ACTRIAL debacle was happening. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember a lot of the details. I found the email and re-read it today, and from what I can tell, Jimbo actually agreed that ACTRIAL should be implemented and that it would be a good idea. However, he disagreed in principle that the WP community should be able to force developers to make software changes, even if there is a strong consensus of hundreds of experienced users in favor of that software change. As you can read from the bugzilla thread, the WMF's answer to our request for ACTRIAL was to make the landing pages for new article creation look nicer and explain the rules more clearly, and to make a new patrolling interface to make NPP more efficient. Obviously, it's clear to most informed Wikipedians that those improvements (and they are improvements) don't address the problem that ACTRIAL was intended to address, and those problems still exist to this day. I'm sure that if I generated the same new article statistics for a more current time period, they would be the same as they were a few years ago. However, I spent a lot of time fighting this battle, and I don't have the motivation to do it again. If someone else does, more power to you. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 02:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We could probably easily write a bot that would implement ACTrial without any dev or WMF action needed. Go through all new pages - Check creator number of edits - If less than 10, move page to AfC / Draft (add AfC review template if needed) - leave friendly note at editor's talk page. We can't force the devs to do anything (well, making VE opt-in is the exception to that rule), but we often don't need them anyway if we really want something done. Fram (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a much less effective/efficient way of addressing the problem, and it is different enough from ACTRIAL that I'd guess that it would be difficult to get a consensus for it. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 17:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Fram ...if the community wants, I am totally willing to A/B test sending all new editors through the Draft namespace first, instead of encouraging people to make mainspace articles. It does seem like at first there are other questions people want solved (like how to make it more prominent that they are drafts, not articles. There's more on WT:Drafts). But in the long run, part of the reason we enabled the new namespace isn't just to "fix" the hack of using Wikipedia talk subpages at AFC. We really think it's reasonable to hypothesize that it might be a better experience for new people to start a draft that gets published later. It's just a hypothesis we need to test objectively, rather than assume will work perfectly from the get-go. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"We really think it's reasonable to hypothesize that it might be a better experience for new people to start a draft"
Who is "we"?
We - the community - think new users shouldn't make live articles immediately, but instead should get help - WP:ACTRIAL - but WMF (your 'we'?) refused to do what the community wanted. 94.8.76.17 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity. In this case, "we" meant "the Foundation, and very specifically the team of people working on Drafts namespace." I'm not interested in rehashing the ACTRIAL debate, I was simply offering to help if Fram and others are interested in suggesting to new editors to start with drafts. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's dicuss the relevant ArbCom case

I'm reluctant to bring this up given that the case is still ongoing, but your thoughts? And what of the scope? Wikiproject AFC seems to be getting a slap on the wrist for this one, what with the only remedy against them getting snowballed. Also, what is your thoughts on the WP:OWNership that goes on in AFC? KonveyorBelt 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I do wish people, up to and including Arbcom, would stop talking about "Wikiproject AfC" and "AfC" as if they're monolithic bodies sharing a single leader, a single opinion, and a single approach. Right here on this page, you can see a number of people who participate in AfC weighing in with a wide - hugely wide! - variety of opinions regarding the process, the relevance of policies, and what AfC's future should/could look like. "AfC" isn't a person or a sentient entity; if people who participate in AfC have misbehaved, let's talk about them rather than using a broad brush to tar everyone who's ever tried to work in or improve the place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The case is just another typical admin-throwing-their-weight around, and taking the easy option of deleting articles rather than trying to help people contribute. Arbcom won't do anything about it. Pretty normal everyday wikipedia stuff; not much more to say about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with AFC and admins in general is that when the system is abused, nothing is done. Its a minority of admins to be sure...but its still a major problem. That has been a major point of frustration for me and others within the project for a long time. That's why I don't edit articles anymore and why I am so critical of the existing system. Until admins are held accountable for abusing the tools or baiting others into a situation where they can use their tools against them, this is not going to get better. Its not admin bashing, its simply a matter of the admins not doing anything to maintain their own reputation and allowing a vocal minority of their peers to be naughty without interference or repercussions. An admin can do nearly anything they want because it requires Arbcom intervention (and that is long, complicated and usually pointless). AFC's biggest problem is that some admins want to delete everything or they want to build up their stats and AFC is a good place to build up their numbers quickly. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well said; that's pretty much why I gave up too. I don't blame the admins; it's just unfortunate that what they are mostly exposed to is the nasty side of Wikipedia, and they naturally forget that it's actually about trying to create great articles - because they spend all their time fighting idiotic vandals, trolls, and so on. They forget the bigger picture, and are too keen to click buttons. A new user can be blocked instantly for a minor digression, but an admin gets away with almost any type of behaviour - if they are ever actually admonished, they can just say sorry, and carry on as if nothing ever happened. It's all because adminship has become such a big deal - instead of being seen as janitors. The heart of Wikipedia is the people who create content, yet all the major decisions are made by the people who mostly delete it - and that includes the decisions about who becomes an admin, and which admins have done wrong. It's a very fundamental problem. (But it's slightly off-topic in the discussion about AFC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It bears noting that the majority of AfC reviewers aren't admins - certainly the majority of the ones I see participating in AfC-related discussions across the project aren't - and the bulk of AfC reviews/deletion taggings probably aren't done by admins either. A fair number of admins do participate there, and you're of course welcome to have your feelings about that, but AfC reviewing actually tends to attract a high proportion of new(ish) editors who just want to help out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
They're certainly not. I didn't mean to imply they were. I was only talking about admins in the context of the arbcom case, not in relation to work in AFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference is when non admins do the reviews they either submit them for deletion or ignore them and move on. They don't have the ability to delete them and many aren't really that experienced so they make mistakes in the review process. Particularly with regard to notability. So then when some admins want to build up credit as an admin they just run over to AFC and delete a bunch of submissions without checking to verify if they actually meet the criteria. They just assume the reviewers know. Or even worse they use their own flawed criteria (don't like stubs, doesn't have enough inline citations, doesn't bark like a dog, smell like a fish, etc.) and delete them. If they are wrong, then nothing happens other than the article occassionally being restored. They know they won't be held accountable even in cases of extreme problems. So there is nothing to lose. Worse case scenario someone just tells them they made a mistake...but they still keep the tools...because they are "trusted"....forever. Then the one who submitted the AFC sees how we do things here and leaves, likely telling all their friends about what a cesspool Wikipedia is. I will be the first to admit that a lot of crap, advertisements and spam are deleted and rightly so, but a lot of articles with potential are also deleted as well. Unfortunately the only ones who can see them to fix them are the admins...only a couple hundred of which are active and only a handful of those pay any attention to AFC. Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. If those admins had common sense, they'd tag them instead of deleting them - thus being judge but not executioner. But common sense is so rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to think it will be better with the Draft namespace but unfortunately I think it will just be the same since as far as I know all the rules are staying the same. Not that it really matters all that much too me. I'm retired from editing anyway, the only reason I am even bothering to comment is because I am bored. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Same. I'd email you my ID, but it's disabled; no worries; same tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.157 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with AFC (IMHO) is, we should decide if new users are allowed to create live articles or not. If they are, then AFC is pointless. If they aren't, then all of them should receive equal help developing an article. Currently, that's not the case, because people who register and create a live article are dealt with in a totally different way to those who go via AFC. There's also the problem of bureaucracy-creep within AFC - the discussions of what articles should be passed amazes me, because to me it is perfectly simple; if a submission is unlikely to be speedy-deleted, then it should be accepted and made live. If it is likely to be CSD'd, then the question is whether or not it is possible to make it a worthwhile article; if it is, they should be helped, and if it isn't, they should be told why not. But that's what should happen with *any* new article.
As stated earlier, the solution is ACTRIAL - which means any new article from new users gets treated the same way, and we do everything we can to offer help and support for anything worthwhile. That needs a paradigm change in Wikipedia - for 'possibly worthwhile articles', moving away from the spam-template warnings (CSD notices etc), and towards constructive feedback. I live in hope that that will happen eventually, but I fear it's going to take a virtual collapse of the current bureau-centric entrenched community before it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.19.169 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo?

Mr. Wales, I know it is typical for arguments on your talk to fizzle out, but this is key to the future of Wikipedia.

So let's hear from you;

How should new users, creating new articles, be treated?

Years ago you decided that unregistered users couldn't.

That has had repercussions; AFC is one of them.

How do you think we should deal with new users making pages?

It's not realistic to expect them to create a 'valid' page (in the Wikipedian sense) without help. It's just too hard, given the bureau-creep. Unless someone knows about the complicated Wiki policies, they've got no chance.

Right now, if someone who has never edited creates a page, there's about an 80% chance it'll just be deleted - they'll get template warnings and notes about CSD.

If they go via AFC, that's slightly different; it depends who reviews it, but they might get help.

But it's wrong that AFC process is different from the norm.

Anyway - just... say something. Anything, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.27.18 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Let me put it simply: AfC = AfD/CSD by one person, who is probably much less qualified than an admin. So the chances of things going wrong are much higher, both ways. The other issue that AfC encourages a bossy rather than collaborative mentality. At AfD one often sees experienced Wikipedians looking for sources and/or improving the article during the debate. The AfC process encourages a "back to work you little shit" approach from the all-mighty reviewer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Said like somebody who has never actually worked there. I am getting really tired of all the slander against people who do good work at AfC coming from people who haven't got a clue how AfC really works. Not a single one of the many such allegations I have seen has ever included a single shred of actual evidence (even Jimbo The Great's two examples in the post that started this topic have turned out to have been reviewed perfectly within the rules and standards). Yes AfC isn't perfect, everyone makes mistakes, that's why AfC has multiple reviewers and the submitter is welcome to resubmit at any time - unless of course the draft is blatantly in violation of one of the applicable CSD criteria, such as copyvio, attack page, vandalism, etc. Yes there are occasionally inexperienced and even bad faith/COI reviewers with agendas there is a process underway to try to filter out such reviewers. The overwhelming majority of reviews and reviewers are perfectly above-board and follow the rules and guidelines that have been formulated and confirmed by consensus and are constantly subject to improvement). BTW, just in case the distinction has escaped some readers here, an AfC reviewer can propose/nominate deletion (just like any other editor) but to actually do the deletion requires a separate process by an admin - using exactly the same criteria, rules and procedures as any other CSD, PROD or XFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO this is a place where the newly created Draft: space can shine, and make wonders towards editor retention. Good-faith but lacking efforts by new editors to create content could be stored as drafts for a long time, insted of being PRODed or AfD'd or speedily deleted, even if they are not very good; thus making a much better experience for the newcomer. If the editor thus stays around and learn the ropes, she could even return to the draft some months later and improve the draft with her newly ackquired skills, putting it in shape for the main space. This wouldn't happen if she gets bitten by an outright deletion of her effort and abandons the project, no matter how policy-compliant the removal was. Diego (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Another huge advantage of Draft-space is that multiple editors can work on a draft together - the "single author" structure inherent to the AfC system basically prevents that from happening in the existing system. Because Draft-space pages will also have Talk pages, instead of being talk pages, multiple authors have a place to co-ordinate their editing, the same way as it is done in mainspace. It is also possible to add WikiProject templates to Draft Talk pages thus drawing the projects into the drafting process too. BTW Diego, you are mistaken in your assumption that "good faith but lacking" drafts at AfC are currently deleted, that is simply not true. Exactly the same deletion criteria as used elsewhere on WP are used at AfC, only copyvios, attack pages, nonsense, blatant spam, etc, are subject to immediate deletion while the G13 deletion criterion is based on the WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and related policies, it is not gratuitous deletionism gone wild. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree to the idea of Draft space as a adding a collaborative spin to article creaton. But about deleting drafts, that's what I was referring to - I don't think they should be subject to the same criteria as Wikipedia articles, because they are not articles; I believe they should be treated as talk pages instead. Some policies for removal make sense (such as WP:NOTWEBHOST - people shouldn't assume that their personal stuff will remain here forever, and of course "dangerous" BLP or COPYVIO must go); but others like INDISCRIMINATE, not so much (drafts are not part of the encyclopedia, and verifiable facts should be kept there, just in case someone can find them and use them in some article).
The ideas behing WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTDEADLINE have been largely abandoned in practice, and I believe the project has stalled because of that. We need an "unstable" space where the old "dirty" ways for content creation can still be put in practice without hurting the stable, public content; Draft space could be that, but the "delete everything imperfect" mentality should be held back in it (I've created a little essay compiling my thoughts, if you're interested).
See thread about #G13 speedy deletion criteria below - there is valid content that is being removed with little or no oversight, only because it's old, and their creators are being spammed by automated messages from bot. That is not a welcoming environment; and it's removing valuable assets from view, hurting the "anything can be improved upon by anybody" mentality that first distinguished Wikipedia from Nupedia. The consensus to hide drafts from view was created when a proper place to put them didn't exist - but I don't think it makes much sense for the new space, which has radically different properties than the old user and talk page drafts. Archiving viable but abandoned drafts should be preferred over hiding them, in most situations. Diego (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I don't see any slowdown. Plenty of spammers submit their "drafts" straight to the mainspace, where it's somebody else's problem to NPOV them, in case the topic turns out notable. Or delete them if they're not. But that's the wiki way. You probably missed the periodic furore here about PR, paid editing, etc. If anything Wikipedia is a more desirable target now that it's well established. I've seen some admins harden their stance on such articles (cough, User:DGG in particular) as a result. Sure there's slowdown in articles about basic topics, but I think you'll agree that those topics will get depleted in time, with the news/sports/politics events, BLPs, and new company/product/book/film type of stuff dominating new article creations in the future. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Certainly I advocate being considerably stricter especially for people or companies of marginal notability, but that's for consensus to decide. I never use speedy for something I think someone might quarrel with, and I never use it for G11 single-handed without giving another person a chance to check it. When I want to argue that we've accepted something in the past, but should stop doing so, I suggest it at AfD. And I would never close on the basis that we ought to extend the rules on anything in any direction, so I'm hardly doing anything here as an admin.
Deleting drafts as we have been doing it in AfC or user space have never been subject to the same criteria as WP articles: We delete for vandalism and copyvio, certainly, and I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise. But although G11 does apply in userspace, we delete only for the most outrageous examples of pure advertising, not advertising which is conceivably fixable. Nor do we delete for lack of notability: A7 does not apply except in article space. The question of deleting material not being worked on is different problem, and I'll comment on it below--but there is in any case a firm principle that any such material will be restored on request. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As for AfC, the most important thing about it is that nobody is forced to use it. I've been trying to personally look at every rejected article outside of sports and entertainment for the last 18 months. My standard in screening these is to postpone deletion at G13 for every article that shows a reasonable possibility of adding useful content either to as a separate article, or meged into an existing article--I find that's about 10 to 20%. The other 80% are on the face of them hopeless--unless of course someone subsequently becomes notable years later, which can always happen but cannot be predicted. Some of the people screening these deletions have used a more rigorous standard, of whether the individual editor will come back to work on them, or sometimes whether they themselves will want to fix them. Fortunately, it takes only one person to postpone deletion, and one simple way of doing that is to make a single constructive edit. So many of that 80% are so bad that we would need to remove them somehow, because even tho they don't show up in external search engines, they will in a search within WP, and they will be linkable to from outside, If we had not adopted G13, the alternative would have been to very extensively use MfD, which is much more cumbersome. It's unfortunately also the case that of the accepted ones, about 10 to 20% should never have been accepted (usually because of promotionalism, undetected copyvio, or often both). So at the quality level of reviewing over the last two years, about one-third of the decisions have been wrong, about equally in both directions. As for the quality of advice, I think the chance of getting appropriate advice there has been somewhat less than even. tThe principle that anybody can edit is very important for contributions, but has problems with the quality control functions normally thought of as editing. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The day we fight back (update)

This earlier discussion could use an centrally-discussed RFC, to provide closure.

The separate page dedicated to this discussion has not worked out so far: the initial proponents have stopped working on it, and others have come and split the idea into a dozen suboptions: something guaranteed to prevent any consensus. There should be 2 options in the RFC, not 10. (Do we highlight these issues or not?) And someone should leave a note about it on the main page talk.

It's fine if there is an active decision not to do anything, but it would be a shame for the discussion to simply peter out, given the level of interest above. The explanation for the RFC should note how omnipresent surveillance has a chilling effect on readers and contributors. The same concerns that lead us to strongly support anonymous access and editing, and to protect the IP addresses of editors, apply here: people will avoid contributing to or even reading about topics that they fear might one day make them a target.

The argument that concerns about surveillance are a political issue triggering soapboxing is a red herring: free and anonymous access to our projects is one of our long-standing principles, and those concerned about this come from every part of the political spectrum. It is a societal question: do we want a global society that is encompassed by mass surveillance? It is not popular with any major political base, and I know of no politicians that have ever run on a 'more surveillance' platform.

I don't have time to run an RFC this week, but am happy to help. – SJ + 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for Sj's idea to move forward with a general RfC (asap). We owe it to the community to bring this issue before them, as Sj says, seeing the level of interest shown thus far. A small group of people have tried to hash things out and create a proposal, but given the contentious issue at hand, was easily fragmented. It seems we have concluded, however, that a surveillance-themed day would not break any Wiki rules.
Idea:
Initiate a very general RfC about whether we want to participate in any way, ie, Do we highlight these issues or not?
If "yes", a second RfC would follow with a very limited selection, for instance: banner & main page presence - or - banner and portal - or - banner only. petrarchan47tc 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
When and where was it concluded "that a surveillance-themed day would not break any Wiki rules"? This has been a matter of great contention. —David Levy 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
What I observed was that due to prior history and the existence of main-page-theme days, what we are proposing is not novel and not illegal - though I agree it is certainly contentious. That is why the community should be consulted asap - this weekend at the latest. petrarchan47tc 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As noted in various discussions, we've never had a theme day for the purpose of supporting a protest or any other political advocacy. You're entitled to opine that this isn't a material distinction, but others believe that it is. Nothing remotely resembling agreement "that a surveillance-themed day would not break any Wiki rules" exists. On the contrary, multiple editors have asserted that it would violate the first two of the five pillars.
You acknowledge that the matter is contentious, but you advocate that a decision be reached via an expedited RfC. (the default duration is 30 days, with discussions regarding contentious matters often taking longer.) As I noted below, there isn't even enough time to properly gauge consensus, let alone act on it. —David Levy 00:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, there are many options. You make good points, but they aren't definitive reasons that this idea, even if some aspects are novel to Wiki, is not legal and should not be considered. If 'many editors' have made assertions, I assume they were allowed the space to do that? This is what I am arguing for. I want to hear from others, and they want to be heard, from what I hear.
On the 7 day RfC, if the numbers are anything like what Spirit of Eagle describes, a week may be sufficient to have a clear idea. But again, when editors who are in favor are arguing, they will see the glass half full. There are options. We could have a 16 day RfC, and all the while be working on content. But I don't expect to convince you :) petrarchan47tc 03:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, there are many options.
Again, there's insufficient time to even gauge consensus.
You make good points, but they aren't definitive reasons that this idea, even if some aspects are novel to Wiki, is not legal and should not be considered.
I haven't claimed that a "definitive" determination was made. You asserted that "it seems we have concluded, however, that a surveillance-themed day would not break any Wiki rules." I merely noted that no such conclusion has been reached.
If 'many editors' have made assertions, I assume they were allowed the space to do that?
You're aware that the matter has been discussed in multiple fora, including the surveillance awareness day talk page (on which you were active).
This is what I am arguing for. I want to hear from others, and they want to be heard, from what I hear.
It's been close to 13 days since Jimbo posted his note. Multiple editors urged the idea's proponents to initiate an RfC as soon as possible (and one could have run almost the default 30-day duration), but that didn't occur. Some preferred to express their support here. Others insisted that it was essential to devise concrete plans at Wikipedia talk:The Day We Fight Back (later renamed Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day) before consulting the community at large. The efforts there have stalled/fizzled, and now that all of that time has ticked away, the attitude appears to be "let's just bring this thing to a vote" (not an actual quotation, obviously).
On the 7 day RfC, if the numbers are anything like what Spirit of Eagle describes, a week may be sufficient to have a clear idea.
A time crunch encourages drive-by voting and groupthink. I'm sure that plenty of "support"/"oppose" comments would be left, but there simply isn't enough time for a consensus-building discussion. Irrespective of the outcome, an expedited RfC is likely to be treated as a majority vote.
There are options. We could have a 16 day RfC, and all the while be working on content.
We were working on content. You were there.
Again, setting aside the potential difficulty of creating special content, 30 days is the low end of the normal RfC duration for contentious subjects. We could have had 28 days, but that ship has sailed. —David Levy 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm baffled as to why people have been posting "support"/"oppose" comments on Jimbo's talk page, but given the fact that the above is a proposal to bring the question to an appropriate forum, I suppose that it serves to offset the original misplaced exchange. Anyway, I oppose the idea for the following reasons:
    Firstly, the implementation proposed above is blatantly slanted (and would effectively tell respondents which position to take). Secondly, while a more neutral implementation is possible, discussions on the "separate page" mentioned above have clearly shown that the endeavor simply isn't feasible. For an issue this contentious, there isn't even enough time to properly gauge consensus, let alone act on it (particularly without taking shortcuts). Already, I've seen talk of "expediting" a relevant article's FA candidacy, possibly by dumping much of its content into separate articles (specifically to enable the remaining material to be worked over at FAC more rapidly).
    The efforts at Wikipedia talk:Surveillance awareness day collapsed for a reason: even if this is a good idea in principle (which many editors doubt), there simply isn't enough time to pull it off. —David Levy 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
People have been weighing in at Jimbo's because this is where the idea first emerged, and there does seem to be greater support than opposition, at least here anyway. The main page group had a different attitude. I am very interested to see what editors besides the 10-15 who've weighed in thus far have to say. I am absolutely unconvinced that an acknowledgement of Nov 11 from Wikipedia is not possible and not wiki-legal. Slippery slope or not, our past proves that Wiki is more flexible when it comes to things the community finds important (SOPA). I am hearing that the community here is not so different from those around the globe - the majority doesn't dig what has been revealed about government intrusion into the device I'm using right now. As for arguing back and forth, we have exhausted ourselves. It truly is time to throw this to the many editors who will want to weigh in. If we decided on a simple banner, we would surely have enough time. I'm simply \not convinced this is impossible. petrarchan47tc 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
People have been weighing in at Jimbo's because this is where the idea first emerged,
I'm aware that the idea originated here. I just don't understand why users decided to debate it here.
and there does seem to be greater support than opposition, at least here anyway.
Indeed, a majority of editors posting on Jimbo's talk page support an idea inspired by a message from Jimbo.
The main page group had a different attitude.
Yes, there was a great deal of opposition among editors who maintain the main page's content and are familiar with the various formats and the underlying processes. What does that tell you?
Slippery slope or not, our past proves that Wiki is more flexible when it comes to things the community finds important (SOPA).
There was credible evidence (analysis by attorneys) that SOPA and PIPA directly threatened Wikipedia's very existence. What comparable evidence exists in this instance?
And even in 2012, we didn't modify encyclopedic content or tag it with advocacy banners. We suppressed the entire encyclopedia, thereby insulating it from the protest.
I am hearing that the community here is not so different from those around the globe - the majority doesn't dig what has been revealed about government intrusion into the device I'm using right now.
Majority disapproval (or approval) isn't a valid justification for using the encyclopedia as a soapbox. WP:NPOV is nonnegotiable, no matter how strongly Wikipedia's editors agree that mass surveillance is bad, Kim Jong-un is brutal tyrant, or any other viewpoint. In fact, that's a reason to work even harder to ensure that our personal opinions don't color the site's encyclopedic material.
It truly is time to throw this to the many editors who will want to weigh in. If we decided on a simple banner, we would surely have enough time.
An RfC's default duration is 30 days, with discussions regarding contentious matters often taking longer. Even the entire period between today and February 11 is insufficient. —David Levy 00:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
See below. petrarchan47tc 03:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember back when there was a similar discussion for SOPA, many users posted objections to doing anything to mark the event. However, when an actual tally was held, well over 90% of respondents wanted to do something on the SOPA protest day. While I’m not advocating a tally per say (WP:DEM), it would be unwise to assume that there is no consensus without actually doing anything to test consensus. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, sound idea by Sj (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A simple Rfc with two options is what we need now, and a one week duration fits the time window. Let's get it done asap. Jusdafax 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    Now we're down to a week (less than a quarter of the usual duration for RfCs on uncontroversial matters)? Wow.
    FYI, an RfC was started, but one of the idea's primary advocates removed it (apparently due to some sort of problem regarding the wording). —David Levy 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative to RFCs and formal declarations

I think that this is not the time for an RFC about how Wikipedia can promote a political position; rather it is the time for us to explore the means by which all editors are legitimately entitled to work together to better document and outreach to a community with a certain political position. We all hold to NPOV; but we see things on the Main Page and elsewhere that have the effect of advocacy, even though they are permitted. Whatever our position, no matter the issue, so long as we have fair rules fairly applied, we can indulge our desire to ensure that people know about the issue, trusting that when they know the truth they will naturally become recruits to our own enlightened view. Faith in reason is essential to Wikipedia's existence.

At the original WP:Surveillance awareness day I proposed that those interested in action should do the following:

  • Create T:TDYKs and other good content. At the time I commented that the two bills mentioned on the The Day We Fight Back website weren't articles yet; Hector and Petrarchan wrote up one, and Hector has the other nearly ready to post. But for example there are many notable activist organizations still redlinked that I listed as authors of a critical letter at (currently) User:HectorMoffet/FISA Improvements Act, and many ProjectPM entries that may be notable in a list I left at WT:WikiProject IntelligenceWT:WikiProject Intelligence Agency. Just looking up one of the site's major references about chilling effects of surveillance[9] turned up yet another possibility (The FDR Group) - it really is not hard to find things we ought to have an article on.
  • A fun thing to do with these DYKs is to feature them on the 11th; during this time period (< 6 weeks) this is permitted under "special day" procedures for DYK. I have run into some people who declare opposition to the idea, but I should emphasize that WP:NOTADVOCATE mentions commerce, politics, and sport in the same breath. There's no difference between our DYKs and Olympics-related DYKs. We shouldn't need an RFC to claim our rights under policy. (Some people also mention the Gibraltar row, but I should emphasize that there is no paid editing going on, only individual choice; besides, even the Gibraltar DYKs were allowed to go on.)
  • Update and expand Portal:Intelligence. If participants in the WikiProject are interested in mass surveillance, there's no reason not to make a portal with a lot of interesting content about it. I fooled around with it for a couple of hours, but much more can be done. We can make it an appealing way to draw in future Wikipedia contributors, and perhaps those running the site for the protest will find it to be an interesting link to send viewers to.
  • Just generally... write content. Breaking news or obscure details, it all adds up. The more people know, the better either side on a political debate will be, and the more likely they are to have the debates that matter. After all, I first heard about ECHELON in 1985, but those of us who spoke about it were dismissed as "conspiracy nuts".

In addition to these things, there is one thing that requires sitewide action, but it may be best to do it at the WMF level. In particular, Barrett Brown is facing a 15-year charge for posting a link to a MediaWiki wiki ( http://www.echelon2.org/ ) that linked to a publicly known archive of leaked emails and data from Stratfor. It is true that somewhere in the archive there were some credit card numbers, but he did not actually post those to Project PM. Now I appreciate that his prosecution is politically motivated, and I would like to dream that at some point an honest judge should put an end to this, but it is possible we could see a precedent that is extremely damaging to Wikipedia, if people feel like they can be totally destroyed simply for citing a source! Now WMF runs the largest, best known wiki, wrote the Wiki software, is associated with the very idea of wiki collaboration - I feel that it is not just their right but their duty to file an amicus curiae brief at the appropriate time, telling the court how important it is that editors feel safe to cite their sources without such outrageous threats. Once such a decision is made, a sitewide notice or even a blackout (or, to be extra obnoxious, perhaps just a blackout of the cite templates or external link css?) may be an entirely natural way to follow up on it. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A general comment, as someone who is working on articles related to the NSA story every day here, my feeling is that all of the above should be happening regardless. But this does not exclude the potential for a neutral nod to the special awareness day. It's possible that besides a Nov 11 banner/whatever and a lively RfC, we would gain from this endeavor a slew of outstanding new & improved articles on one of the hottest topics of our time. Some have already manifested, and others are being worked on as we speak. petrarchan47tc 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
A "nod to the special awareness day" is inherently non-neutral. —David Levy 00:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So was SOPA. And a banner isn't a blackout. This matters to Wikipedia's home, the Internet, and its readers and editors. From what I have seen, the majority are editors in favor of calling attention to surveillance on Nov 11. But we should find out in an RfC. petrarchan47tc
David, I have seen you alone take on every single editor who has supported this idea. You, alone. What does that tell you? We have the talk page where every argument you are attempting to make again (above) is recorded. Your opinion is one of potentially thousands. For those who would support this day, in whatever way the consensus allowed, there are many options for making that happen. You have many reasons it shouldn't. I am clear on that. But there is no basis in guidelines or precedent to convince me that this is impossible. Shorter RfCs can be considered. What is upsetting to me is that the consensus-building process (a general RfC) is being subdued.
It is possible. It is legal. We have 16 days until the 11th. If this went to a 7 day RfC tomorrow night, and there was a clear consensus for a (non-neutral) nod to The Day We Fight Back, we would have 9 days. If our goal was simply a banner, and maybe a portal, this is not above our ability. (The main page idea is probably a stretch, however.)
It would bother me very much if we (all who weighed in) dropped the ball... if we truly couldn't figure out one possible scenario that would allow for at least an initial community-wide discussion. It would bother me even more if this was stalled not by the majority opinion, but rather by the loudest. petrarchan47tc 03:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Every RFC needs to start with an advocate. Someone has to go ahead and say what you want. The last time that happened, things fell apart because the plan wasn't appealing - the mock-up of the desired Main Page was a compelling demonstration of just how desirable the NPOV we normally cultivate really is. A simple banner might not be so bad, but we should know exactly what it's going to say. Key in this is going to be: is February 11 really important? I know we're against surveillance but is this particular event important? With SOPA, Wikipedia wasn't just saying it was on a side, it was calling for a specific political action. But is this banner a call to defeat the FISA Improvements Act, or to pass the USA Freedom Act? I should note that I'm not so convinced the latter is really all that great a thing, considering that it does allow for intercepted communications to be searched with a warrant. I mean, there was a time when I was a kid when people hated Communism and were ready to launch nuclear devastation to keep the country from being the kind of place where everything you say on the phone is being monitored and recorded. Then they said it didn't happen, or it didn't happen much. Then they said it was illegal. Then they said that at least you'd never have to worry about it, it was only about terrorists. And now I'm supposed to be happy that any phone call or e-mail I made in the past five years might be used in court against me, because -- if the libertarians get their way -- they'll graciously require some lawyer go in front of a court to argue there's some reasonable cause for them to search for it? (In a country where parallel construction is already being practiced, yet) Pardon me if I'm not all that gung-ho. If we can't find it in ourselves as a society to make a really radical affirmation of the freedom of speech, if we can't seriously talk about abolishing obscenity and copyright and libel and all the other ill-considered exceptions and ensuring that people are genuinely free to use truly secure means to keep their privacy, because, unlike every internet operator from the first BBS on, people and companies would feel free to keep servers that don't log and track everything going through them, then all this talk... what does it mean? Wnt (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
So was SOPA. And a banner isn't a blackout.
Agreed. In my view, appending a protest banner to the main page and/or articles would be worse than a second blackout. As I noted, at least the latter would insulate encyclopedic content from advocacy. (I supported the 2012 blackout, incidentally.)
This matters to Wikipedia's home, the Internet, and its readers and editors.
And if Wikipedia were a forum for activism regarding things that "matter" to us, I'd be the first person to support taking part in "The Day We Fight Back".
But I'm not here to debate that point. As I noted, even if this is a good idea in principle, there simply isn't sufficient time for a proper RfC.
David, I have seen you alone take on every single editor who has supported this idea.
Huh? Are you suggesting that I've argued with every supporter? That isn't close to true. And are you criticising me for engaging in actual discussion?
You, alone. What does that tell you?
It tells me that you're inventing falsehoods.
But there is no basis in guidelines or precedent to convince me that this is impossible. Shorter RfCs can be considered.
Possible ≠ advisable. There's plenty of precedent for running longer RfCs on contentious topic, not shorter ones. We don't do so for fun. We do it because rushing through such a matter is a bad idea that leads to bad outcomes.
What is upsetting to me is that the consensus-building process (a general RfC) is being subdued.
What's upsetting to me is that an RfC could have been initiated 12 days ago, and now that all of that time has ticked away (with the efforts purported to justify the delay stalling), we're supposed to rush to a decision via a "shorter RfC", wherein substantive discussion will be subdued in favor of expedience.
Also upsetting is your suggestion that I'm a "loud" obstructionist seeking to derail consensus-building. You participated in the project page's MfD discussion, which I closed as "speedy keep" (your preference), despite my personal opposition to the proposal. —David Levy 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you do not want to do anything to mark the day. However, many of us feel that whether we do anything on the 11th should be decided by consensus, and that shooting down the idea because of the stringent enforcement of a single rule regarding RFC timing is not the way to make this decision. To quote WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY “Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures”.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say." While this may be a comical analogy, it is a living one that has not yet run its course; because sooner or later we will find out what trees have been chopped down while we weren't looking. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're under the impression that I'm bureaucratically clinging to a rule and attempting to block an RfC on a technicality, you're mistaken. I'm as strong a supporter of WP:IAR as anyone (and if you doubt that, feel free to consult its talk page's archives, wherein you'll find that I've defended the policy for years).
My objection isn't that a rule would be broken. It's that the underlying principle — one intended to ensure that consensus is gauged properly — would be disregarded. That wouldn't improve the encyclopedia.
As noted above, an RfC could have begun 13 days ago. Various editors urged that one be initiated, and none of the proposal's advocates obliged. The efforts at Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back / Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day have crumbled, so now an RfC is being pitched as a plan B of sorts. I'm sorry, but that's unacceptable. The tight time frame was known from the beginning and frequently stressed. Again, 30 days is the low end of the normal RfC duration for contentious subjects, so even a 28-day RfC would have been a special exception (but a reasonable one, given the circumstances). The idea that it's okay to squander 13 days and force the community to rush through an RfC in 15 (half the default duration for relatively uncontroversial matters) is quite troubling. —David Levy 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a more interesting RFC I'd like to hear is: 1) Should Wikipedia join the American Library Association? 2) If so, should Wikipedia display the ALA logo and the words "Member ALA", with a link to http://www.ala.org/index.php , from the lower left or right corner of the page? Note that 1/3 of American libraries are ALA members, and the organization has represented them well on issues of free speech and privacy that are central to the functioning of any knowledge repository. See this section of their site for some relevant issues, many of which have not been discussed here. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it make more sense for the Wikimedia Foundation to join the American Library Association? Surely, these issues are relevant to all WMF projects. —David Levy 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think a decision like this should be initiated and discussed at the community level. While the WMF joining seems like a great idea to me, I would want to ensure that we didn't have a situation in which those opposed to the ALA's enlightened principles (alas, yes, they do exist) could say that this was an undemocratic decision "imposed from above". (Inevitably joining the ALA is a decision with political implications, but like many publicly supported libraries, Wikipedia may reasonably decide that defending libraries, wikis, and other knowledge resources is not something we can be completely neutral about) I do suspect though that even though all the Wikipedias are based in the U.S., some of those in languages other than English may be more hesitant to feature an organization that operates in another language and in a country where few of their contributors live. For these reasons, I'd say "Wikipedia" for this one, i.e., each project making its own decision. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing inherently wrong with an RfC to gauge the community's opinions (or an equivalent discussion at any other WMF project), but I think that a formal determination would have to occur at the Foundation level. Individual WMF projects lack autonomous governance, so if it's even feasible for "each project [to make] its own decision", this would require a WMF-sanctioned arrangement. Also, because no Wikimedia Foundation project is US-specific on an editorial level, I regard the WMF's physical presence in that country as the only legitimate basis for an ALA affiliation.
For these reasons (and because the WMF's mission, unlike Wikipedia's, includes engaging in advocacy), I believe that a hypothetical scenario in which the WMF joins the ALA makes far more sense than one in which individual WMF projects join. —David Levy 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Requests for unblock

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Requests_for_unblock only shows vague information and none of the actual conversation about unblock requests between the user and admin is available to the general user, unlike it is handled on other Wikipedias, where all communication about unblock requests is freely visible to anyone on one general page (and not hidden on talk pages or a ticket system noone ever will visit or get a glimpse on)

Consequently, it seems like the controlling function of the community is overridden and ignored.--37.230.12.44 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The unblock requests are made on the user's own talk page where they can be viewed by the community. The unblock template adds the user's talk page to Category:Requests_for_unblock. Anybody wishing to view the processing of requests need only click the links to the individual users requesting unblock. Jehochman Talk 23:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not apparent or evident to the general user. It actually rather seems like "The unblock requests are made on the user's own talk page where they are tried to be hidden from the community.". On other Wikipedias, there's a special page for unblock requests, where all talk is listed... Why is there unnecessary bypass or alternative routing and not just plain information available to anyone on one page, without unnecessary redirections?--37.230.3.50 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it was unclear, but I saw no harm in making it more so, which I have done with this edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Your edit may be useful, but no matter if unclear or not, having to click every single link to a user's talk page is still loads of effort when it all could be visible on one single site. And this would be much more controllable for the community, too, in my opinion.--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Blocked users are only capable of editing their user talk page, so for them to be able to participate in the discussion it needs to be held there. WilyD 11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
According to the original poster, though, our method is "unlike it is handled on other Wikipedias" which if true is interesting. It ought to be possible to have the material and edits in each use of {{unblock}} written to another page by transcluding the template there, which I suppose could be done automatically. This would allow a person to quickly scan through them. How hard this would be and whether this would be worthwhile I don't know. The original poster or anyone else could explore this at the village pump if they want. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Admins not caring to prove or legitimate their "rulings"

Another critical factor concerning the downfall of Wikipedia in the eyes of the general public:

Why are admins allowed to ban users indefinitely without giving any proof of their allegations?--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, we need to provide proof - WP:ADMINACCT ES&L 01:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
In another discussion, you were blatantly advocating that there should be no need for admins to prove anything, but ban people like they feel to, and now you post a link to a WP and try to imply the exact opposite???--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
And how hypocritical is it of ES&L to point to a WP that most admins don't even care about but blatantly ignore? This is too much to take for a sensible human being.--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually admins are supposed to provide proof, but proof is frequently lacking when blocks are implemented. Don't believe me, just go look through the indef blocks and see what you find. It might surprise you. A lot have been there so long they are no longer of use. Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Supposed may be the wrong word, rather it is said "they better should", but "if they do not", then it will not be questioned by any authority. You may prove your allegations, but if not, who cares? Jimbo Wales? Anyone else? Probably not.--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
A large majority of indef blocks are related to vandalism, or abuse, and the reasoning is almost always self-evident from the edit history. Also, don't be so arrogant as to think your personal opinions are reflective of "the eyes of the general public". Resolute 06:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep your right. But there have been any documented cases where admins used their knowledge of the system to bait the others (much like your doing to me in the discussion above) to give the an excuse to use the admin tools to block them. Indef is rarely needed even in vandalism and abuse cases. The bigger problem is that no one reviews the admin cases so unless another admin fights for it, the editor always loses. Most of the time they just slip by unnoticed. Even when an admin is caught in the act of foolishness nothing is done about it and that is precisely how the admins want it. You don't see any of them clammering to change the system or working to figure out why people are leaving. Thats all being done by the editors because the majority of admins either don't use the tools at all or are busy trying to figure how to best keep their status on the site. Kumioko (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins are overworked by 150,000 monthly editors: People have been trying to get more users authorized as admins to talk with new users about the rules for editing of pages. Unfortunately, if a new article named "John Doe Widgets, Inc." is edited by a username User:John_Doe_Widgits_Inc, then the account is often quickly blocked, and more people are needed to talk in a wp:Civil manner to explain why the username is inappropriate and the article cannot be kept, but ask the user to consider having a different username and never try to edit such a page. I would suspect most users who name themselves for a corporation (perhaps considered "shameless self-promotion") will be troublesome in trying to edit other pages without resentment for having their company page deleted and might try to hack a rival company's page instead. It is a very tedious problem, involving thousands of people. Hence, it is amazing that Wikipedia's wp:VITAL articles are not in worse shape, while dodging all the promotional, tendentious editing for other topics. -Wikid77 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Im sorry Wikid, I don't have any sympathy for the poor overworked admins. Much of the "work" is their own doing because they want to protect every page. There are also plenty of people including the 2 of us that want to help but have been told no because the admin tools have been placed on a lofty shelf that few are worthy to reach. Most of the admins couldn't edit a template or a Mediawiki page which is a big reason why the Template editor right was created (that and because there is no trust left in this community). So forgive me if I cannot muster an ounce of sympathy for a self inflicted wound. Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko, I hear you, and it was an admin who opposed my RfA as unfit because I "posted to Jimbo-talk" (as if it were some mental problem rather than discussing advice from the leader of 14+ years experience). Not all admins oppose RfAs, but a candidate needs sponsorship and momentum (and forgiveness for mistakes) to be approved. -Wikid77 14:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko - there's dozens of people who would LOVE if you had the tools. However, your attitude and poor judgement have prevented it from happening. It's your fault you're not an admin - not the community's fault. ES&L 13:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks but I doubt that, I could probably count on one hand those who would "love" for me to have the tools and I'd still have a couple fingers left. And my attitude didn't manifest itself until I started to take on some of the insulting, absurd and hypocritical problems. Like Admins being trusted for life no matter how they act, like telling editors who have devoted years to the project they can't be trusted because one admin blocked them for trying to ensure another editor followed the rules. Like when I tried to restart WikiProject United States and everyday had to deal with other wikiprojects who owned their articles or editors who just wanted to ensure that Authors don't have infoboxes. Whats worse is that no one including you cares about article ownership anymore and the Arbcom even danced around the issue by saying that existing policies apply and took no action. You tell me I did it to myself and your right, I had the gall to stand up to this stupidity and alienated myself from the community because I started to take an interest in unscrewing the social mess that has tied itself around the Wikipedia culture. Its getting pretty obvious that there is little interest in fixing it though because the ones that are the biggest problems are so deeply rooted that the only way to stop it will be to end Wikipedia and relaunch as something else learning from our mistakes. It might be better at this point to split out Wikipedia into Wikia as individual projects. Whatever we do, I don't think Wikipedia has much left in it because there are too many people who want to keep the mess than to fix it and even those who say they want to fix it don't have the morale courage or desire to stand up to the problems. Its better to keep jerks who already abuse the system like Resolute, Sandstein, Fram and a slew of others than to trust users who are trying to make the system better. The RFA system in Wikipedia is a joke in every possible way. The FA process, Arbcom, ANI, etc. They are all broken. That's why editors and admins have been flooding from this site. So at this point I don't want to be an admin because for me to be an admin would be to bow to a broken system. I'm done editing here except for discussions like this. At some point not even then. Ironically, if I would have gotten the tools I would be part of the problem because I would still be happy editing 10, 000 plus edits a month. I feel lucky to have been exposed to the soft underbelly of the corruption within Wikipedia...Knowledge betrayed!Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
For instance, on German Wikipedia, there's loads of cases where users are indef blocked for doing nothing but commenting on an article's page in a way that is judged to be "not directly connected with the article". No personal attacks, insults or anything. Just posting general thoughts that collide with the "trusted" editors views...--37.230.3.50 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't have much to do with the processes of the German Wikipedia, so that's an odd comparison ES&L 13:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
People frequently compare other-wiki admins to separate English-only aspects, as with the Swedish Wikipedia in 2006 changing to 1-year admin terms (annual voting) because some typical desysopping had left long-term resentments on all sides. -Wikid77 14:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it would help if regular admins (not just ArbCom) had 'clerks'? Ordinary editors and admins could find each other on a noticeboard. The clerk would take over some patrol or receive cases from the admin to evaluate, going through all the editor blather and coming up with some sort of "policy source code" i.e. 3RR: [1][2][3][4]. The admin could sometimes trust, sometimes audit this data and follow through on it almost mechanically. A future RfA could then evaluate the clerk based on actual admin decisions, not smoke signals. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
In practice, something like this exists for some actions: e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. In practice, I'd imagine most admin actions are either where there are enough eyes that any oversight is automatic (e.g., XfDs), or too trivial to warrant assistance (e.g. C:CSD - where of course, new page patrollers are effectively assistants anyhow), but I might be totally wrong. I can't say I actually know where most admin actions happen. WilyD 13:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A comparison wiki?

It seems quite a few Wikipedians enjoy writing pages like Comparison of Waterfall Chart Microsoft Office add-ins and some readers may even find them useful. Is there some WMF (or Wikia) wiki where such WP:OR is welcomed? Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There is Category:Comparisons, but I assume that its contents are consistent with Wikipedia policy regarding original research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC) and 03:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Most probably aren't. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone not using his real name, I'm slowly working on a similar "problem" with finding a proper place for DIY automotive data, like the part-codes of a dozen different ECU modules, and WP:HOWTO information on installation. Currently I'm expecting that wikiversity is the place for non-encyclopedic information that an automotive engineer at university would need, as well as for the non-encyclopedic documentation that an automotive mechanic at trade school would need. For stuff that is more mundane, like instructions on how to change your oil, or that is more esoteric, like how to build an exo-cage, the target would be wikibooks rather than wikiversity. Background out of the way, I suggest you (TLDR) send the office-add-in folks to wikibooks.
  p.s. And if I could get some commentary, on whether wikiversity and/or wikibooks are appropriate targets for "2013 LibreOfficev4 Addons For wikiSmarties" type of material, and my own "1985-88 Ford F-150 series Engine Service wikiManual" sort of stuff, that would be appreciated. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. p.p.s. And yes, I've never used wikibooks/wikiversity before, and have heard vague rumours that regulars there DON'T LIKE being seen as the place where non-encyclopedic content is sent... but of course, it seems very fitting in the case of software-guidebooks and automotive-reference-materials, at least to my naive eyeballs. Alternatively, I suppose "engine repair" could be shoehorned into the wikiVoyage "travel tips" category...nah.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Meeting Rajeeb Dey

Jimbo, think back to your airline flight in 2013 to Davos. Do you and Kate remember bumping into Rajeeb Dey, giving him some advice on how to get the most out of the World Economic Forum? Were you seated right next to Dey for the whole flight, or was it more like you chatted in the aisle while waiting for the loo? Anyway, did young Mr. Dey happen to mention to you how he had created his own Wikipedia biography in the summer of 2010? Did he say anything about how another editor described the article as "simply being used as a self promotional tool and contains selective facts which misrepresent the subject author's true business achievements"? Thinking back, we also found that your Davos pal Richard Stromback was probably creating his own content on Wikipedia. And we also learned that your WEF Middle East co-chair Mohammed Alshaya was paying to have his company's Wikipedia article M.H. Alshaya Co. tended to by Daniela Gorini, a PR manager at ASDA'A Burson-Marsteller. When you think about all of the notable people you've rubbed shoulders with at Davos, what percentage would you guess have been doctoring content on Wikipedia with a conflict of interest? Have you ever scolded them as hard as you scolded Bell Pottinger or Wiki-PR? - 50.153.115.133 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. 2001 again? Why bother with this campaign of nonsense? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. And the answer is that I am always very consistent on this issue. I always tell people not to do this. And yes, I scold in a consistent fashion, as well. I have never spoken to Rajeeb Dey about his Wikipedia entry.
Mr. 2001 would like to make the case that I am a hypocrtite. He will continue to utterly fail as the facts of reality are against him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is more along the lines of people who have a financial or personal connection with you or the WMF tend to get quietly pulled aside, while those who don't make that connection ahead of time are treated to public shaming by the WMF itself.

It would be different if there was a global policy against paid/corporate editing, but there isn't (see de.wp for example), and there isn't even a policy on en.wp to date. Without such policies, this has essentially become a personal battle between you (Jimmy) and some fraction of the WMF's representatives versus the paid/corporate editors and those elements of the community who don't see the bright line as viable given the other policies it would conflict with and the technical and manpower shortcomings that would make it unenforceable. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 16:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That "point" is completely false. I am contacted, as is the WMF (and volunteers on OTRS) by people all the time and we give them consistent recommendations. It makes zero difference if you happen to have met me or not - I answer my email just as well as I speak to people in person. The Wiki-PR case was a case with a massive army of sockpuppets editing in ways designed to conceal what they were doing, and the community banned them for it as soon as it was discovered. That's hardly the same thing as someone editing their own entry when they shouldn't have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
According to the article linked above, the "massive army of sockpuppets" may have been mis-attributed. Making "recommendations" is an entirely different thing from taking legal action (particularly where it's very hard to show that the TOS was even violated given the lack of a policy on paid/corporate editing). So the point isn't false, because even if it isn't your intention to take a bias towards friends and allies, the contrast between that and the C&D and media blitz (Sue's mostly, not yours) is quite stark. There needs to either be a policy, or the WMF should avoid behaving as if there were one. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
And yet, while the spammers continue to cry falsely that there is no policy, the community banned them, and quite rightly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds kind of like a good ol'-fashioned Alabama lynching, too! "We don't need no stinkin' formal policies, we're gonna have ourselves a little bannin' right here and now. Grab yer ropes, fellers!" Don't worry, Jimbo. We've got a WMF bombshell in store that the mainstream media is going to eat up like cheesy grits, and it'll have you scrambling faster than a mobile phone operator adding the Tories to a list of charities who need more money! - 50.144.3.131 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure they were "spammers", but then I haven't looked into it because I really don't care to. However, "community bans" are one-off decisions (not policies), so if they were spammers, they weren't crying "falsely". Do you really believe there is a policy despite the evidence to the contrary? Looked at objectively, it's becoming pretty clear that your stated perspective is the patently false one.
If you're willing to take a step back, perhaps you might entertain the possibility that the Wikipedia community might be able to come up with a sensible solution to this if you would stop giving the "Jimbo says!!!" contingent less gasoline to throw on the fire. I think it's safe to say that everyone wants to make sure that paid/corporate/"COI" editors aren't able to push articles away from NPOV, but the path to reach that goal might not fit the sound-bite that you seem to be insisting upon. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
But you're misunderstanding how policy works here, SB_Johnny. If all entities who do X are community banned, then X is against policy. We know this because they were community banned for doing it. Anybody else who tries to pull a Wiki-PR is presumptively community banned. We get that you think that what Wiki-PR did was a fine thing. That has nothing to do with the fact that we don't allow that here. If "what we don't allow here" does not equal "against policy" in your mind, I guess I can't help you. But as a general rule, note that "But Your Honor, there was no sign saying 'Do Not Rob This Store', how was I to know it would be unwelcome?" is not usually a very successful defense. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe I've said anything about my opinion about Wiki-PR, Mr. Herostratus, but please do feel free to give yourself a "muddying of the waters barnstar" when you find a moment to do so. Meanwhile, policy is not written on AN/I, for which we should all be thankful (I suspect I speak for Jimmy on that as well). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Herostratus, I see no formal policy page or even a formal decision page on Wiki-PR or any other community ban. Community bans are tailored to the specific details of the situation in question. They do not determine policy, and they cannot be used as a blanket policy. What do we show a user behaving in the same way as Wiki-PR? A stale ANI discussion? KonveyorBelt 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus. Pretty shocking disregard for formal policy. I hope and presume that any administrators "going rogue" in the way you suggest wind up before ArbCom to be detooled. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Herostratus, Jimbo and others have repeatedly said that policy typically follows practice. Wiki-Experts (or at least I think it was them) was community blocked for non-disclosed paid editing, without anyone seeing any of the accounts or edits. The Wiki-Experts founder correctly interpreted the prior version of WP:COI, which only recommended disclosure. It seems to me that he was following the prior guideline, but was unaware of a currently un-documented policy that if you have a direct financial connection, you are required to disclose it (and may be blocked for not doing so). If such a policy already exists in practice as proven by the community block, then I see no reason not to go through the formality of documenting it. Note my words are chosen carefully - I am only saying there is apparent consensus that non-disclosure of a direct financial connection is a blockable offense.
Sincerely, a (sometimes) paid editor. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Or more generally, if you need to comb through the archives of AN/I to figure out whether you are allowed to correct your (or your company's, organization's, government's, employer's, etc.'s) Wikipedia entry, you're better off hiring a professional to do it for you. It's rather problematic to demand that anyone who is not in the loop would know what the "apparent consensus" is if it's not clearly indicated after you hit that edit button on the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Pursuant to WP:NOTHERE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I really wish people would stop paying any attention to the idea that Wiki-PR was somehow misconstrued as evil. The journalist who wrote the BI piece that interviewed French wrote it because after she made a tangential mention of Wiki-PR in a previous story covering general blackhat practices French contacted her. She's declining to write any follow-up stories to the interview piece because it got such a low number of page views that it wasn't worth her time. I've saved a few example pieces of Wiki-PR's work in my userspace for anyone who missed seeing them the first time around. One of the best examples of how scummy they are that I've bothered remembering to restore (and noindex) was this terrific article about casino.org. Look at the claims that are made in the article. Look at what they are sourced to. Invester Underground is a website explicitly publicly operated by the owners of Wiki-PR. Jordan French has explicitly told me that vatalyst.com was a site they created to buffer their client's notability, and although they let the domain expire, historical whois records would back that up. Digital Journal accepts blog posts from anyone (and guess who posted that one.) Almost none of the claims in the article are true. The article is full of deliberately falsified shit undeniably written directly by Wiki-PR. By the way SB_Johnny: the piece of Wiki-PR's work I linked here explicitly violates section 4 of the ToU, specifically, "With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate." Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_155&oldid=1144525273"