User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(Manual archive list)


Jimbo, a question was raised today about adding info to UDG Healthcare regarding its Ashfield Healthcare division, which is now the largest profit contributor to UDG. If a user posted a reward offering at WP:Reward Board for such sourced information to be added to the article, would this be seen as appropriate, one that would fulfill Wikipedia's mission? Also, would the appropriateness of such an edit/reward system be affected by any circumstances such as either editor (the reward-offerer or the reward-earner) being employed by Ashfield Healthcare, or a PR firm contracted by such, or even a competitor? Would there be privacy concerns if either the giver or the receiver were required to disclose such information? Or would disclosure be necessary to ensure the maximum transparency? Tarc (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, is the reward to be offered a barnstar or a Dogecoin (cash value $0.0002) or something of that nature? Those are the types of rewards offered on the Reward Board. Assuming this is so, what would be the a problem? It's hard to imagine a "PR firm contracted" for compensation consisting of a barnstar, so why bring the Reward Board into the discussion??? Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, missed the edit war. OK, there was a really confusing and kind of weird post about paying five dollars for an edit... was reverted and Tarc's just reposting a version of that.. Tarc it's not really a good idea to be reposting stuff like this. If you have an actual question could you formulate it in some succinct and cogent form please. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
He's posting it on behalf of a banned user see summary here [[1]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I know. Jimbo gives a fair amount of leeway to that, just here on his talk page so don't worry about it. Actually Tarc's version is less inflammatory so that's good in that sense. Herostratus (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I was pressed for time and may have been a little hasty in summary, sorry. I don't feel that questions here should be suppressed unless the talk page owner himself decrees it, that is what the warring has been about lately. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to be able to have serious discussion on this page. About February I found that the banned user "Mr 2001" was making that impossible, so, in accordance with WP:REVERTBAN I declared that I would revert Mr 2001 on-sight wherever I saw him. I also declared that on this page, if Jimmy asked I would refrain. Jimmy has never asked me to refrain and I have reverted Mr 2001 about 30 times since..

Tarc disagrees, and boasts on my talk page about his ability to edit war on this matter.

Very well; I have reconsidered my practice of reverting Mr. 2001 on-sight on this page and I will start a new practice.

  • I will revert Mr 2001 and anybody WP:PROXYING for him on-sight on this page
  • If Jimmy wants me to stop doing this, he can let me know in any way he feels best, and I will stop.
  • If any admin wants me to stop, they can drop me a line on my talk page, and I will consider their reasoning. I will not necessarily agree, and per policy, I will not necessarily respond.
  • If anybody reverts my reverting of Mr 2001 or his proxies, I will warn the reverter after the 3rd reversion and after the 4th reversion will ask at ANI for the reverter to be blocked. This is automatic.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you remove a post of mine, it will be reverted. You will be taken to ANI, and failing a solution there, Arbcom. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Smallbones is out of line, presuming to be judge, jury, and executioner of alleged sockpuppets without evidence or investigation. I think the original post here was a troll and should have been hatted. I think the parties in the edit war should all, each and every one, knock it off. One would think that 3RR applies here and that both sides are already on the brink. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You are right Carrite, everyone should be held to the same standard. I suggest we wait 24 hours and then block every single person who is still violating 3RR on this page, regardless of who they are. This is getting silly. Chillum 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:PROXYING is pretty clear that 3RR doesn't apply; but also that Tarc is free to repost a question from a banned user because Tarc wants to know the answer to the question (but not because Mr 2001 wants to know the answer). WilyD 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no 3RR exemption for posting on other people's talk pages. Just because a policy allows for something does not make it 3RR exempt. 3RR is a bright line to prevent disruptive edit warring. Chillum 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh? WP:PROXYING (which is a policy) is quite clear that there's a 3RR exemption for removing the contributions (as far as I can tell, in all namespaces) by banned users or those acting on their behalf. However, if they make good/worthwhile edits, other users can make those edits for their own reasons. It's a little bit silly, but realistically, yes, reverting the restoration of Mr. 2001's question is not subject to 3RR, but removing someone else asking the same (or a very similar one) is subject to 3RR (and the prohibition on edit warring in general - I'd suggest that removing the talk page comments of a user in good standing is problematic the first time it happens, and waiting for 3RR to call it edit warring is overly cautious). WilyD 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is really overlapping more now with the discussion at ANI regarding Russavia's socks (link). What the overly-draconian rules-sticklers are going to do here is create a never-ending system of well-poisoning. Alleged Bad User A posts to Jimbo's talk page, or Alleged Bad User B adds an image to an article. We have several editors in both discussions suggesting that all such edits not only be reverted on sight, but also that no one else can re-post them due to literal "proxying" interpretations. So if a good question is asked on Jimbo's talk page, it'd be forever tarred and verboten. If a quality image of an airplane is added to that airplane's article, whoops!, that image can never appear again lest the adder be accused of proxying. This is fostering a culture of fear and paranoia, and I question the competence and sanity of a person who thinks he/she is doing the project a good service by doing this. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Btw, 3RR never really came in to play in the current discussion like it did last week. I reverted twice, Hell did twice, Johnuniq once, and Smallbones 4x, and even the latter is moot now so there's nothing to really dig into regarding 3RR atm. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, 3RR was brought up, with some implications that people are up for edit warring, so it's worth addressing. I don't think anyone has violated (Smallbones has 4 reverts, but I believe they're all actual edits of an actual banned user, so would be 3RR exempt), but the conversation certainly reads like someone might violate it, going forward. The question of the problems associated with banned-users-behaving-themselves-hunting is a separate one, I think, (and one more worth asking than the pedantics of when to disclose you're getting paid). WilyD 16:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At ANI Monty suggested a compromise, just hat the offending material. Just in case anybody is unsure of the rule

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So even though Monty's hatting proposal looks like a reasonable compromise, I wouldn't feel bound by it since the policy says without qualification that I may revert. I wouldn't consider it binding on anybody else either. Nevertheless, depending if it was effective or not, I would likely leave the hatted material alone, and respect the hatter's wishes. I do encourage all other editors to participate in stopping the banned editor's trolling, whether they are hatting or reverting according to the rules. In particular, I think admins should be trying to stop this trolling and enforce the rules on banned editors.

I would also be open to any sort of moderation, arbitration, or any other sort of dispute resolution on this, with only one condition: Tarc agrees to follow the rules, e.g. banrevert. There's not much else for me to do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With all this discussion, we're still no closer to learning whether editors in good standing who earn cash Reward Board incentives (and disclose them) are subject to having their good-faith edits deleted if it is learned that the offer came from a banned user, or from a PR firm or self-interested corporation, for that matter. This comment isn't intended to make discussion "impossible", as Smallbones claims. The comment is intended to foster honest and appropriate discussion. But most seem more interested in playing the revert-unrevert-revert drama game. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC4F:3F4E:798A:2BBA (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is just dancing around the fundamental flaw with the Reward Board: anyone editing with the intention of earning the bounty already has a WP:COI justifying reversion. betafive 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone is free to have whatever other motivations they want so long as they don't conflict with Wikipedia's goals. Merely being a paid editor isn't an excuse to revert good edits; one would need to judge whether the edits were good or bad before knowing whether reversion was acceptable. WilyD 13:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect; see WP:NOPAY. betafive 19:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You'd be well advised to read things before linking them; that page says you're discouraged from writing if you're getting paid in such a fashion that it's likely to compromise your ability to remain neutral. So, as a I said, you're free to have whatever other motivations you like, including getting paid, as long as it doesn't conflict with the goal of writing a free, neutral encyclopaedia. WilyD 11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you're technically right, but that's a very fine and very dangerous hair to be splitting. betafive 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones - This will not end well — you are making accusations without evidence. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, per the link you cite above, there is no 3RR exemption for repeated reversion of a proxy. It reads: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Tarc is neither a banned user nor a sockpuppet of a banned user... Both of you would be strongly advised to knock it off. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The OP, here, and underlying series of edits appear to be breaching experiments. Regardless, the TOS is clear, you have violated the TOS if you do not disclose your employer and affiliation. Otherwise, you have denied readers any chance to find out that your material is written by the subject (at its direction) or by the competitor (at its direction), and mislead them - which is part of the encyclopedic information that we should impart. ('World: I know, I'm the subject (I'm the competitor), this is me making this statement'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I should add that if there are questions about COI from legitimate accounts, you should post them at WP:COIN as it would be less disruptive or pointy, and then, after that discussion, if you legitimately still have questions for Jimbo, you can refer him to that discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Banned editors should be reverted when they attempt to create drama or damage articles. However, the act of reverting an arguably productive edit can itself create drama. For that reason, a smart editor will look the other way when a banned editor makes what could be a productive edit. It's more beneficial, sometimes, to ignore than to revert. Be smart. If you make an edit and get reverted, for whatever reason, a smart editor will discuss the issue rather than revert warring. The perceived need to revert a banned editor does not give one license to engage in revert warring. Be smart. Stop and discuss it. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker regarding a disclosure of a COI to readers, the only way to do that is with Template:COI. In my opinion (which is often changing/evolving) if the edits are genuinely neutral, the disclosure to readers is not material. However, if the content is bias/promotion/advert and it was written by someone with a financial connection that is not disclosed to readers, that is misleading to readers, even if another editor made the edit by proxy. I've seen a few cases where a paid editor followed the bright line and even following that process promotional material was added, controversies marginalized, and significant bias introduced on their behalf. By the same token, if a blogger is paid to do a product review and they ask someone else with no financial connection to review the neutrality of their review and hit the "publish" button on their behalf, I don't think anyone would take that seriously as a way of solving the problem. COI editors almost always insist their edits are neutral, though they almost never are. If the edits are neutral, they are ethical, if they are not, then they are advocacy, spin, manipulation or astroturfing, depending on the process in which they are obtained. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not the "only" way, although there are undoubtedly more efficient ways and less efficient ways. Readers are researchers, and researchers can do as much research as they like, but cannot do it without some transparency. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As for "genuinely neutral", you probably mean "approximately neutral", but regardless, when the reader can access the authorial interest, let them decide but don't deny them the information on which to decide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker "approximately" neutral is indeed better. "Neutral" being an impossible ideal that is unachievable in a completely pure form and most editors not being completely neutral about most things. A disclosure on the Talk page is less ethically/legally ambiguous because readers that wish to investigate the article's authorship can reasonably determine the financial connection. However, the German court ruling I think was also reasonable, whereas they found that the disclosure was not clear and conspicuous enough for readers. I think it is unlikely there will ever be consensus for a more clear and conspicuous disclosure for readers that would technically meet legal requirements:
Therefore, paid editors should be especially cautious in ensuring their contributions are neutral-enough that the disclosure is immaterial, to avoid ethical and legal ambiguity or they should abstain. Thoughts? BTW, as most people probably already know, I am one such paid editor for a good amount of my contribs. (*uhem, speaking of disclosure ;-) ) CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Disclosure is not immaterial - no matter how neutral the author thinks their edits are. It is added (and required) information about the written work. Indeed, a type of disclosure would likely be preferable on the face of any article (perhaps a "note") but that's not what is now required by Wikipedia (some nation's law might). Nonetheless, TOS disclosure is still required regardless of where one contributes on the project, including in edits to the "Reward Board" where the underlying breaching experiments centered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As for ethics, that's pretty simple. The issue is not who you author are, but what - what is your relationship to the subject. That is uniquely in the contributor's knowledge, and not in the usual knowledge of the reader, so take some action to disclose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just one opinion[edit]

Dear Jimmy,

I would like to write you briefly (well, I tried being brief!) about why I am leaving Wikipedia.

I used to be a moderately active Wikipedia user (1,600 edits in 6 years), but I have not really edited Wikipedia in the past few months. Over the years I have repeatedly felt bullied by "more equal than thou" editors, and have had quite a few reasonable additions removed by tireless reverters, who do in fact own articles. It is an unspoken secret that article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems.

Despite Wikipedia's attempts to foment reasonable discussion, during a dispute it is invariably the tireless reverters and "owners" who win out. There was even one occasion where a single editor got his agenda through against myself and two others all trying to reason with him for over a week on a talk page. And we didn't even want to get rid of his opinion from the article, but rather to add that there are two opinions on the matter.

Many times I have wanted to write you about this, but thought you've got better things to do than waste your time with me. I essentially left Wikipedia about six months ago, but now I've got an editor removing some stuff I'd added a while back, that had never bothered anyone, and who's coming up with contradictory arguments for doing so.

Don't worry - I'm not here asking for you to defend me. That's not my point. My point is that much of Wikipedia editing operates like a clique, not like a community. So-called "experienced users" politely but firmly tell you that you're not welcome on their territory, they use jobsworthy arguments, and they are relentless in their agenda, which more often than not involves deleting stuff. This guy summarizes the problem succintly.

You may simply say to me "sorry to have lost you" (or you may not, I don't know), but that won't help the droves of enthusiastic new people coming into the project from being bullied out within their first year. And the enthusiastic new people are sometimes people with real knowledge, such as scholars and scientists, who get forced out by some kid in high school who sits in front of his computer all day, reverting article pages, adding barntars and/or userboxes to his user page, and quoting perfectly learned yet intentionally misinterpreted versions of Wikipedia policy at them.

I don't mind continuing to contribute, but it just feels ever more pointless when work you've researched meticulously because you're passionate about it and which you know is relevant to a given topic...gets erased, often without even a deletion comment. It's like a kick in the gut, man.

Thanks for your attention, and keep well! BigSteve (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a WP:Ownership noticeboard as a mild inducement for longer term editors to specific articles to chill (but only if the complainant shows all other policies are followed in their own edit). It would work for this long-time editor when ocassionally my hackles get up at some appropriate WP:RS statement that doesn't quite fit my vision of what the article needs... Face-smile.svg Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The real unspoken secret here is that the overwhelmimg majority of articles aren't crowdsourced but are instead written by a very few editors. Ownership is therefore a red herring, since without it there would be even more poorly developed articles than there are now. Ownership is both inevitable and beneficial in other words. Eric Corbett 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but good "owners" should be open-minded about improvements to "their" articles, and help others "fix" their desired improvements rather than flat-out revert them.
@Bigzteve: I don't know the longer history, but just looked at your recent edits to the single article that triggered your visit to Jimbo's talk page. You might ask the reverting editor, if "the numerical examples are nonstandard notation" can you change them to the standard notation please, rather than revert, and if there are links to "numerical planetary data" elsewhere on Wikipedia, please provide those links, to show me where such data can be found. Engage more on the talk page. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course they should. Did I suggest otherwise? Eric Corbett 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the original premise was "article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems" and you called that a "red herring". Perhaps the better way to say it is abusive article ownership is one of Wikipedia's main problems—but, while I know such behavior is a problem (whether it's a "main" problem is debatable), I don't see that in this editor's recent history. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So the original premise is arguably wrong, and from a wrong premise it's unlikely that the correct conclusions will be drawn except by accident. Eric Corbett 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett, this statement: "The real unspoken secret here is that the overwhelmimg majority of articles aren't crowdsourced but are instead written by a very few editors." Could you give your evidence for that, please? What percentage is the "overwhelming majority of articles" and how many are the "very few editors"? Lightbreather (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather: "Wikipedia seems like a good example of a crowd of people who have created a great resource. But at a conference last year I [Dan Woods of Forbes] asked Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about how articles were created. He said that the vast majority are the product of a motivated individual ... if you took away all of the articles that were individual creations, Wikipedia would have very little left."[2] Eric Corbett 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The full quote, from 2009: "Wikipedia seems like a good example of a crowd of people who have created a great resource. But at a conference last year I asked Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about how articles were created. He said that the vast majority are the product of a motivated individual. After articles are created, they are curated–corrected, improved and extended–by many different people. Some articles are indeed group creations that evolved out of a sentence or two. But if you took away all of the articles that were individual creations, Wikipedia would have very little left." AnonNep (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
When BigSteve says "My point is that much of Wikipedia editing operates like a clique, not like a community", I think he's absolutely right. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
And I don't. Eric Corbett 18:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree either. Perhaps there are some small cliques somewhere on Wikipedia—it's a big place, after all—but I'm not aware of any, or who might be members of one. You would think I'd have noticed by now, as I've recently climbed into the top 2,000 by # of edits. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Good lord, of course there are cliques here. Some are very positive, others are less so. Some of the positive ones involve interests in particular subjects. We even have a formalized system for them, we call them WikiProjects. Others, that are not positive are the non-formal packs of Editors who share beliefs about how WP should operate and what content should or should not be in it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, User:Scalhotrod, for you it is in spite of your not signing, wikipedia actually get users who enforce BLP in defiance of you, imagine that. Perhaps you would like to justify here as to why your favoured project, wikiporn, is being harrassed by our BLP policy and why BLP should not be enforced on porn articles when a consensus of porn editors deems that it should not be enforced, proposing topic bans for those who defy them by actually trying to enforce outr core policies. I say any cliques who try to disrupt our core policies should be disbanded. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder Squeak. As for the rest, you seem to be off topic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Umm, this is a user talk page not an article, so there is no topic to be on. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, its those fundamental misconceptions that make you so misunderstood and get Editors ticked off at you. But hey, it's what makes you, you... :) Have a nice day Squeaker. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Then let me suggest an experiment. Establish a new user name and start editing a controversial article. You may experience things differently. Deltahedron (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. Now I remember. I have had such an experience editing as an IP, before I registered. That is a problem. I think it happens in many topics that are tagged as "pseudoscience". That is definitely an issue, allowing minority viewpoints to get heard. But no, much of Wikipedia editing does not operate like a clique, that stuff happens on a subset of articles. It is a problem that may need the Foundation to step in with a solution, if only they didn't have such an aversion to editing content. If there was an easy answer, it would have been solved by now. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I admit I had a laugh when I read the reply to my comment in the collapsed section. I did not make that connection until I read the reply. Honest! Sometimes I'm slow about such things.

I did take the time to read Talk:Moors murders. What I found was excellent bold-revert-discuss behavior on the article itself, but overly lengthy and dramatic discussion to just go from mass murdermultiple murderserial murder. It seems to me you got to the right place, but oh the ordeal to get there. And I'm not sure who to blame more for the problem. Can't y'all just work it out? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see blame as a useful dimension. But surely new editor's contributions can be as valuable as those from established editors. Even established editors were new once. People tend to thrive on encouragement (unless they have some kind of debilitating personality disorder, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
new editor's contributions can be as valuable as those from established editors Of course, does someone disagree? If a new editors contribution is rejected, it doesn't necessarily follow that it as rejected because the editor is new, it might be because there were issues with the contribution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As BigSteve says, the problem is more that an explanation for a revert may be lacking or even, of course, downright rude and derogatory. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I certainly had an unpleasant series of responses from an editor who took the view that as an established author of some very long articles, he was exempt from any requirement to explain his actions. That editor is now banned for harassment (not of me). The experience was extremely disheartening. Deltahedron (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Deltahedron, I'm sorry to hear that someone took that view, but it sounds like the community did the right thing. Why did you bring it up, are you still disheartened? Should the community have responded more swiftly? I don't know the circumstances, but I am unsure whether you are bringing it up as an example of the community doing the right things, or as an unsolved problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the community did not do "the right thing", whatever that might have been – the editor in question was banned over quite another matter – so yes, I'm still disheartened. But I would rather use the experience constructively than replay it. My point is that refusal to engage in a constructive way is a toxic experience and one which is, in my opinion, likely to discourage other editors more than any other single factor. I may say that I still get that, although in a less extreme form, from a variety of other contributors, including one administrator and more than one member of WMF staff. Deltahedron (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you considered that the problem might lie with yourself as well? I have yet to edit an article in common with you where I didn't find at least some of your edits objectionable. JMP EAX (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. What strategy did you choose for dealing with "objectonable" edits? Did you try discussing them on the article talk page, explaining in detail what you were trying to achieve, citing appropriate policies, using reliable sources and striving to achieve consensus? Or did you refuse to discuss how to write the article and instead rely on remarks such as "Now I know why so many articles in Wikipedia suck", "Please stop writing new article about stuff you don't understand much", "helps to read a source before you cite it", "It's clear that you don't understand much about the topic", "You just refuse to hear", "your writing style in this article is extremely bad", "I do wonder however if you ever had to teach classes yourself anywhere and what if you did what kind of evaluations you've got", "I see you are also very fond of long logorheas and rules lawyering on the dramaz boards", "Allow me to very skeptical of your "improvements".". Which of the two strategies do you think likely to produce a better encyclopaedia? Deltahedron (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The one where WP:RANDYs are topic banned quickly. JMP EAX (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, be very offended at what anther editor wrote about another article you've contributed to: "Wikipedia is so bad at describing these academic concepts to laypersons, even the layperson who is interested and educated in a related field. So many Wikipedia articles on academic topics read like pages torn out a 600 page textbook, written by a LaTeX-babbling automaton, to borrow a term." JMP EAX (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a day late to this discussion, but I have to say I agree with BigSteve about ownership issues. I've run into it repeatedly in my (currently) preferred subject area, which shall go unnamed since I am currently topic-banned from it. I have mostly been tag-teamed, but there are a few single-editor owners, too. The big thing I've experienced in those areas is a refusal to follow a key part of the consensus building process: Decision-making involving efforts to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns (while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). No compromising. No discussing. Just reverting (usually with PA edit summaries). Lightbreather (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is individual creator of majority of WP content?[edit]

Jimbo Wales, after reading the beginning of this discussion, I am dying to know: Is there really one "motivated individual" responsible for the creation of a "vast majority" of Wikipedia articles? Will you please qualify/quantify that statement? WHO is this individual? Is it the Eric Corbett that everyone seems so hell-bent on coddling? If Wikipedia is truly an open project, certainly this - the fact (?) that there is a single individual responsible for the majority of WP content - is something that ought to be out in the open. It's something that ought to be discussed, because then the project is truly not what it advertises itself to be.

I'll be out of town for about a week, but I will follow this via my phone. Also, I hope to spend maybe an hour today looking at who created the majority of articles I've worked on in the past year - my first year as an active WP editor. Lightbreather (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what was meant is that most individual articles are largely the result of one person's efforts, with other people helping. Not that one person (even Eric) is responsible for the vast majority of WP articles.
So for example if you go to User:Demiurge1000 and then scroll down to and expand "Significant article contributions", each of the featured articles listed there were (mostly) written, improved or expanded by one person, but also (mostly) copyedited by me. And of the Good Articles there, most of the military ones were almost entirely written by Jim Sweeney and almost entirely copyedited by me.
But this doesn't quite tally with the claims made, since, especially in the case of the featured articles, huge amounts of effort were put in by many other people both during, before and after the featured article stage. Dozens of edits per person, across numerous persons, I think. It's more a case of half a dozen people making a great article great, not one or two.
Looking at who created a specific article is even less useful. If they created it as a stub in 2002, and it became a featured article in 2012, and they never touched it in between, what significance does that have? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a big difference between who writes an article – by which I mean who actually contributes the bulk of the text – and who has the highest edit count, as this report from Business Insider expands on. Eric Corbett 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Just so... Jim would normally start by deleting most or all of the existing text, which I must admit made me slightly uneasy! Some accomplished article writers add content in vast wholesale chunks, not by many edits.
My examples (above) could also be used to support the idea that well-developed articles mostly have a single author. All of the featured articles I list, would not have gained that status without a single editor determined to achieve it, and pursuing it over, as far as I recall, between one and several years.
But, this means "a single editor with drive and determination and competence is normally needed to bring an article to featured status". It certainly does not mean (this is borne out in my examples) that editor can do it alone. Nor that the crowdsourcing method is worthless. At least, if you consider 6 to 12 people as "crowdsourcing". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there really one "motivated individual" responsible for the creation of a "vast majority" of Wikipedia articles? Will you please qualify/quantify that statement? WHO is this individual?. This makes me think of some classic dialogue from the '70's U.S. TV show All in the Family. I think its the Rob Reiner character that says something like "....a woman is raped in America every 15 minutes." To which the Edith Bunker character replies..."O the poor thing!". ```Buster Seven Talk 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Demiurge1000, for explaining. It may have indeed been an Edith Bunker moment, as Buster7 suggests. I have quickly read the articles in Business Insider and Forbes by Blodget and Woods, and I'll read them more closely on my trip if I get a chance. (BTW, Eric Corbett, those two together are much more meaningful, to me anyway, than the one by Woods alone that you gave first.)
Anyway, maybe it has to do with the subject matter, but there are ownership problems on WP (or as Wbm1058 put it, "abusive article ownership"). Maybe it's just in certain topic areas, but it's there. Lightbreather (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential misuse of POTY photo[edit]

Does our attitude on the Monkey business back fired? Are we helpless when our contributors are cheated? Does the world sympathize with us? Jee 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not our image in the first place. Its one particular editor who granted us a non-exclusive license under the creative commons. For all we know, the uploader could have also sold the image under other licenses that do not require attribution. Even if its a copyright violation, its a violation of the uploader's copyright, nothing we could do about it even if we wanted to. Monty845 15:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That is inaccurate. The present files [3][4] are labelled public domain as the work of a non-human animal; there is no mention of CC-licensing. (The monkeys probably think that signing such elaborate agreements to keep their content free is beneath their dignity) Wnt (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Presumably, they fully understand what the public domain is? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Honourable mention[edit]

Honourable mention of Andy Mabbett at Wikimania: that is honourable! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wanna know why all the content writers are leaving?[edit]

Don't avert your eyes, dig into the history of Richard Norton and the sadism festival at Arbitration Enforcement being conducted against him. Callanecc declares that Richard's creation of THIS article in mainspace in violation of a topic ban on direct creation of articles is worth a "three to six month" ban! Of course, he's going to graciously allow Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) to explain himself before imposing God's Will. This is sickening and illustrative of Wikipedia's problems retaining content writers of any merit. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The original Norton case involved copyvio issues. Are there new copyright concerns? And why wasn't this brought to Clarification Requests; it seems people are using that process more lately. —Neotarf (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)