User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Solving the Commons problem

Since WMF is notoriously unresponsive to email about anything, I'll make use of this back channel with a statement and a suggestion. Commons is out of control. Wikimedia Foundation needs to shut the mother down and to host all images through the various language Wikipedias, even if that means duplication of files. Procedures for file-sharing can be developed. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They have been indeed solved a while back. See content-addressable storage for example. (Ok, you may want to look for actual information on that somewhere else. That Wikipedia article is nearly incomprehensible.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like someone had a little meltdown here. Wikipedia Review is laughing at us because of their ability to violate WP:CANVASS with impunity. I am so very tired of a group of people demanding deletions across multiple projects in the name of overwrought "ethics", even when people from the same pool of deletionists is busy trashing Fae in a manner so unspeakable I don't even want to cite it here.

Fortunately the Spanish project has resisted the moral crusade, with the truly beautiful edit summary "Quitas información referenciada". Imagine it - a throwback to a time when keeping sourced information was more important than somebody's opinions about what is "wrong" to show people!

This distinction is no accident. Wikipedia pages have been put together by people who love the information - who love references and sources and data and self-made illustrations for their own sake. But en.wikipedia has gotten so valuable, and has so much bureaucratic potential for central control, that we're seeing Leninistic purges as people try to rope it in like a wild horse and break it to their personal will. This is a general vulnerability of communism in all its forms, and for Wikipedia to survive it must overcome it. The beginning, but not the end of what is needed for this, is a resolute stance against censorship. Wnt (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, first I don't think Carrite can really be described as WR regular. I think he has posted there before but more or less in the same way that say, current and former Arbs post there, mostly to disagree with people there and criticize them. They tend to pick on him when he posts there too. Second, yes, WR is laughing at the proverbial "you" (in this case Commons) because "you" (i.e. Commons) are so obviously getting trolled by ED folks and are too thick to realize it. Funny how WR is actually trying to improve Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia) while those projects... well, *some* people, on these projects, are just gung ho set on shooting themselves in the foot. Topsy-turvy world, ain't it? This is one of those instances where I think the view point of many on WR and many on Wikipedia (judging by Jimbo's previous interventions on Commons vis a vis pron, etc., included) are aligned a lot closer than with the view of folks like you.VolunteerMarek 02:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And honestly all those accusations of "Leninistic" (sic) purges... seriously?VolunteerMarek 02:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

By analogy to the persecution by Lenin of anarchists and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party in 1918. The initial revolutionary fervor of creating a massive public encyclopedia is followed by efforts by a more rigid element to exert control over it. I suspect that the domination and ultimately the corruption of collaborative projects - when they become useful enough to be worth owning, that is - may well be the major limiting factor of the free culture movement in general. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok dude.VolunteerMarek 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not have any control over the Wikipedia – like checking sources and verifying whether they actually say what the article says. As usual, Wnt, your demagoguery is divorced from the facts. This was my edit, reverted by a Spanish admin whom I don't know from Adam, but who was eager to tell me in her first edit on my talk page that she didn't want an image filter. What a brilliant reason to revert an edit! So I "removed sourced info", did I? Let's see: I removed the animation, which was most definitely unsourced. (In fact we now know it was uploaded by a troll.) I made clear in the lead sentences that we are primarily talking about an urban legend, and not a bona fide part of human sexuality. (That too is in line with the cited sources.) I added some subheaders (shock!). The only "sourced content" I deleted was this, that the donkey punch is "generally executed during or just before the orgasm of the male" ("... por lo general en el momento del orgasmo o inmediatamente antes de este"), cited to "Patrice Oneal Explains Donkey-Punching On Fox News". Gawker. http://gawker.com/news/rape-is-comedy-gold/patrice-oneal-explains-donkey+punching-on-fox-news-260907.php. Retrieved 2008-12-08.  As you say that "Wikipedia pages have been put together by people who love the information - who love references and sources and data", let's look at the source for that info, in that spirit, shall we, my dear friend? First of all, this clip from a Fox talk show hosted on Gawker isn't a reliable source for sexological information, is it. Have you listened to it? If not, please do. You'll find they were talking about rape jokes. Not about real-world sexual behaviour. And no one in that clip actually says or implies that "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male", do they? I've already asked you on the article talk page whether you defend that kind of "sourcing". Your only reply was vague handwaving – no surprise there, because I generally only ever see you spouting slogans about the demise of the wiki, rather than improving or sourcing content, or, God forbid, deleting unsourced and erroneous content. The latter seems to be a big crime with you, for unfathomable reasons. You seem to regard removing unsourced and erroneous content as some kind of mutilation of your own body, while the thought of women being hit over the head for nothing seems to leave you cold. Beats me. That shite about the donkey punch being "almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male" was in the English article for three years, based on Fox/Gawker, and was read by over half a million people. So you really think it is good that the same nonsense is now back in the Spanish article? You think it is swell that the Spanish article once more starts out by describing this as a genuine sexual practice "generally executed during or just before the orgasm of the male"? You think it is good that it does so against the weight of the sources describing this as a sex act that only exists, as Dan Savage put it, "in the imaginations of adolescent boys"? Ah yes, must be that love of sources and information and references. --JN466 10:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you call me I'm here. As I tell you lot of times, the picture was there 2 years without any problem. If picture has problem in others wikipedias or even in Commons, is not reason to deleted in es:WP. In this edition you change a word (euphemism) per another (urban legend) without change the existing reference. If is an urban legend or reality, is not a problem. If you want to improve the article with references, do it. But first you delete the picture saying "-img (peligroso y realmente una leyenda urbana, según las fuentes fiables -- Dangerous and trully an urban legend as reliable sources". Well, that has nothing to do with an article has or not a picture, and is not reason to delete. Then you came to mi TP and said "Probably will be deleted in Commons". Again, does not a reason for deleted. Every day bots deleted lots of pictures in all wikipedia when are deleted in Commons. Respect to my statement of be against filter, is not only true, but Spanish WP reject the filter as de:WP and fr:WP, but does is not related with this picture in particular. In the present conditions, I see no solid reason to delet an illustrative image of an article. If the article is so bad, ask an deletion request and propose community to give its opinion about it. But the article was there without any problems before all this matter begins, funnily because of you. And I´ve seen your comment up and some in Commons like "because Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough to ask for an image on the talk page", wich in my opinion lack polite and are to close of WP:EQ. Obviously, different WP different rules, even when yours seems to be very permissive. More, believe that I restore the image only because I´m against filter, only shows lack of good faith from my job. If you don´t agree with my decision, also there is a right form and even a better one. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello. First, have you read the cited references? I have, because I have worked on the English article, and the Spanish article is a translation of an old version of the English article. I can therefore tell you that the Spanish article, which begins by presenting this as a genuine sexual technique (!), is not in line with the reliable English sources already cited, which are in broad agreement that this is a male fantasy, or an urban legend, rather than something people do in their bedrooms (at least, more than once). So next time, before you complain that I changed the text without changing the references, and revert me, kindly read the cited sources and check whether the text that was there before, and which you now blindly reverted back into the article, actually matches the cited sources (it does not). That would be very kind. ;) Next, here is what I wrote to you. Where exactly am I supposed to have said "Probably will be deleted in Commons", please? Isn't it in fact true that I did not mention Commons at all? You did. So I guess you have me mixed up with someone else who told you.

As far as the article is concerned, you did not read the sources and know nothing about the subject, but you revert the changes and tell me on my talk page, unprompted, about your opposition to the image filter, which has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Great! I deleted the image because it is factually inaccurate, and was uploaded by a troll. And I'm really not interested in jumping through administrative hoops on Spanish Wikipedia to tidy up your substandard article. I have explained to you several times what the problems are, and you won't listen. And by the way, Dirty Sanchez's Guide to Buck Nasty Sex, cited in your article, is not a reliable source. It is a book of (rather poor) humour. The same goes for The Complete A**hole's Guide to Handling Chicks. Neither is this (also cited in your article) a reliable source: it is mostly recycled material from Wikipedia [1], so you have circular sourcing. So half your sources are poppycock, and the good sources that are there are misrepresented. Now, do you care enough to do something about it? Because your Spanish is a lot better than mine. Regards. --JN466 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JN, I still don't understand what so troubles you about that orgasm quote. So far as I understand the myth, the point is to create some kind of last-moment sensation. That seems consistent with the clips you referenced. That source may not be serious, but it's not a serious matter - it's alright to reference a comedian for a joke. It may not be a very good source, but are you really saying the underlying fact about the myth is wrong?

As for "the thought of women being beaten over the head leaves you cold", that's not true at all. Actually, there's some content about the treatment of one of the actresses involved which, if true, is quite shocking - I'd thought such a thing would be about as real as a Star Trek fistfight. But, the thing is, I don't believe that Wikipedia having an article about a thing, or having a complete article, makes it any worse. I think that sometimes there's been a slightly plausible argument that news coverage of school shootings could cause more school shootings, etc. - but that has been poorly documented indeed, and if it were true then I would blame it on the foolish decision of society to place control over communication in the radio spectrum in the hands of a corporate oligopoly, stifling competition and thrusting "the" news on people who would by nature read something else. Here, people only look up "Donkey punch" if they already have some germ of the idea in mind. I fully believe that for every person who reads such an article and persuades himself to do something that stupid as a result, there are many others who read it and are persuaded out of it, or who learn from the experience to take some future urban legend with a bigger grain of salt. I believe this would be true even for the most credulous and misogynistic version of the article you could imagine, but is far more true of a reasoned and well-researched version. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with the assertion that "the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male" or, as it is in Spanish, "is generally executed ...". The problem is that the cited sources say it isn't executed at all because it is nothing but a stupid male fantasy dreamt up by some idiot roughly 15 years ago. My heart bleeds for your compassion for that actress, Wnt. But I note your compassion doesn't stop you from wanting to add that scene from the porn movie she complains about to the article, as a fair-use illustration, thereby making Wikipedia the prime vector for its propagation (as the film itself flopped and has long been withdrawn by the makers). So excuse me if I take your professed compassion for the actress with a bit of salt, Wnt. As John Vandenberg has shown, it is quite likely that if this Wikipedia article had never existed – one of the Dan Savage sources was actually solicited by Wikipedians – this quirky male fantasy would have died a quiet death, like other playground jokes about sex. --JN466 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's wrong to propagate that scene, why did you just link to it from a widely-read forum? Somehow even you recognize that showing people something in order to make them more able to evaluate it critically is a good thing. That's what I've proposed also. Now I'm not at all sure I want to take the time to wade through the film and commentary to expand the article properly in this direction, but doing so would be quite worthwhile. Because if I'd seen that scene before reading her commentary, no way would I ever imagine she was getting hurt by it. (Though her commentary says there are several scenes in that film with "donkey punches", and I'm not actually sure that scene is indeed the one she was referring to) Wnt (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. These words I am typing here are read by maybe 5 people, 20 at most. The donkey punch article got 129,000 views in one day. --JN466 13:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do witha an abstract "freedom of expression" but there would not be any need to link here or there the mentioned image if it was not published at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no back channel to getting Commons shut down, so there is no point in lobbying Jimmy for anything to be done. There is only one channel, and that is meta:Closing projects policy. If you feel so strongly about having Commons shut down, then follow the procedures in the policy as outlined on Meta, and the issue can then be discussed by the entire community. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons isn't going to be changed internally, it's going to have to have its head chopped off by WMF. They can't intervene to control content, but they can blow up the "content provider" that they fund and we'll see how many of those arrogant pricks they call administrators last five days at en-WP. (Wow, I'm starting to sound like Malleus.) As for WR, I'm a glass-half-full critic of WP and view WR as a glass-three-quarters-empty. The jihadists there don't like me because I'm a Wikipedian and that's fine. I think the WR view of the out-of-control situation at Commons and WMF's is probably quite similar. And yes, the answer is the Foundation pulling their plug and setting the porn hobbyists and professionals adrift. I'm also quite cirtain that WP is being played by ED, which is a new discovery of mine today and quite annoying in its own right. Out. Carrite (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything is going to get the WMF in a lot of trouble, whether it be legal, ethics, or perception, or all three, then it's going to be images or animation files. Commons' administration is notoriously disfunctional. I know some of the WMF staff watch this page. My advice to them is early intervention rather than waiting for a crisis. It will save you a lot of trouble and headache in the long run. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Carrite, I can tell you that this is not the way to positively engage the Commons community. Neither are the comments about "arrogant pricks". In fact, you are coming across as no better than the WR trolls, and hence anything you say is being lost amongst your own generated noise. Consider being more constructive in future, then people may be willing to listen to what you have to say, because at the moment it is just blah. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that choice?!?! "Wikipedia is not censored" and god knows that Divine Principle applies to each and every image on Commons without regard to actual educational merit — but don't you dare use bad words about Commons or the administrrrrrrrrrrrative toughies there will delete your page! HILARIOUS!!! Carrite (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel any better I don't agree with that action. Removing words from the user page only to immortalize them inside a pink box on a deletion notice is kind of silly. What annoys me is that I linked to the page to mock the opposition, but by this action the Commons admin has instead ennobled it. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we're talking about Commons and how broken it is, I'll just draw people's attention to this thread on the Commons administrators noticeboard entitled "What does a guy have to do to get a blatant copyvio deleted around here?". Apparently it took almost 24 hours for an obvious copyright violation to be deleted after being tagged for "speedy deletion" by an OTRS agent responding to a complaint by the copyright owner. It has never made sense to me that images are not vetted for copyright violation or other criteria before being publicly available. This seems like an obvious shortcoming, which I have noted before. If the WMF were serious about copyright, they could do a lot for themselves by making this single change to Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that this conversation might prove to be useful in distinguishing whether deletionists just want to "make articles better" by removing a bit of fluff, or whether they actually want to destroy everything Wiki without limitation. Wikipedia grew because it was free, Commons grew because it was free, and free works. Responding to informal requests in 24 hours when the DMCA allows 48 hours works. Making articles about silly sex myths that 500,000 people want to read also works, if you count 500,000 people getting the information they want as working. Putting Commons under a central bureaucracy to dictate taste, "vetting" images before anyone can see them, first for copyright, then for pornography, eventually I suppose for BLP violations and liberal bias - that doesn't work. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"It has never made sense to me that images are not vetted for copyright violation or other criteria before being publicly available" - Sounds exactly like the proponents of SOPA want. Imagine if all user-generated content on the Internet hd to be screened first. Nothing would ever get done. This argument has been regurgitated ad infinitum and is completely ridiculous. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think sites like this do a far more professional job than Commons. So it's not like it can't be done. But then, they pay their contributors, and their stuff isn't free. On the other hand, they do offer a guarantee that their files don't infringe anyone's rights. --JN466 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

M2Ys4U, I'm not sure what your imaginary SOPA bill says but I don't believe there was anything in the actual bill about vetting images. On the other hand, you should have no trouble finding statements from Jimmy Wales about copyright and Wikipedia. Guess what? The WMF says it does not want or allow copyrighted material on Wikipedia or Commons. This has absolutely nothing to do with SOPA, which is a dead issue anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

SOPA doesn't explicitly call for pre-vetting of content, but that is what sites would've had to do so they didn't get unilaterally shut down. I'm well aware of the WMF's stance on copyright infringement; Infringement is unacceptable. This doesn't mean that all content has to be pre-vetted. That would kill most UCG sites, WMF or no WMF. Simply removing content after it is found to be infringing is enough. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You say it would kill Commons to vet content before it is publicly available, but you don't offer even a hint of why that would be. You say that removing content after the fact is enough, but you don't say what it is "enough" for. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Because that takes up way too much time which could be used more productively by Commons users on achieving the aims of WMF projects. It is not always trivial to know what is an infringing file or not. Not to mention potential liability issues for pre-vetting. This is why there are Safe Harbour provisions in laws like the DMCA. As for "enough": it is enough to satisfy the law (e.g. DMCA) and it is efficient for the type of project. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I figure I can vet about ten images an hour to SOPA levels of certainty. Most images are easy, but the occasional "maybe copyvio" that requires half an hour of Google searches, hunting down license pages, investingating author lifespans, and figuring out what was uploaded when brings the average down fast. For comparison, Commons had about 8500 images uploaded yesterday. There are two ways of dealing with this: either hire about 150 people to do nothing but vet uploads, or to simply delete anything where there's any sort of copyright question. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "SOPA levels of certainty" but since SOPA is a failed proposal, not a law, it doesn't sound like a relevant measure. How did you arrive at the figure of 8500 images uploaded yesterday? Does that include images which have already been deleted, or would those increase this number? Phrasing your comment another way, we could say that 8500 images were uploaded yesterday, any or all of which could be copyright violations, since no attempt is made to vet them. The WMF has made no effort to prevent uploading of copyrighted images, and volunteers such as yourself and M2Ys4U indicate that doing so would is unfeasible in the current system. I think you would agree that those are true statements even if you disagree with my fundamental argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

In defence of Commons admins, most copyvios I have tagged have been deleted within a couple hours. HJ Mitchell's frustration at a 20-hour wait on an OTRS-related issue is certainly understandable, but it is possible that this situation may have also been an outlier. As to the OP's assertion, there is little doubt that Commons is not operating optimally. But deleting it is, frankly, a ridiculous and counterproductive suggestion that only hurts all Wikimedia projects. Resolute 20:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, look, yet another discussion that is essentially a canvassing effort to delete the donkey punch image. Not surprising. Silverseren^C 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am writing up an essay with ethical considerations that may be of interest.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If I still do not understand the wiki-encyclopedic reason for including that image, at any rate I indeed find supefluous, unuseful and counterproductive to spread that image. And I do agree with Jayen that the es:WP article is also missrepresenting the few reliable sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• When we have reason to suspect that some image or piece of information is introduced to "make a point" in favor of them who would like to see freedom of expression muffled, what do we do? Do we sit passively back cowering at their mention of "free knowledge" and "no censorship"? Surely a defense by drawing rigid lines would serve them best, but no defense at all is no way either. This is why being critical is important and should not be brushed away lightly. The one image discussed above may or may not be part of such a ploy, but many others may quite definitely be, and this one might be used as a precedent. I love freedom of expression, so it would be good to make sure we don't lose it. Hoverfish Talk 14:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The point I try to make in my ethics essay is that freedom always comes with responsibility - also freedom of expression. When we exercise those freedoms we have to be cnscious of the possible consequences for others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If a so called "freedom of expression" harms and even kills (e.g. each racist or sexit propaganda, etc.) then it lacks every reason to be defended such a "freedom". If the one image does not kill at least it does mislead and one could reasonable argue that misleading minds contributes with brutalization which is indeed noxious and harmful. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A line is crossed somewhere. Maybe someone more experienced than me could define where exactly. If we depict waterboarding in an article about methods of torturing detainees or prisoners, I think this gives a strong awareness of what is going on and may be a useful piece information within this context. But, for example, to depict how one can near-strangle someone as sexual foreplay is highly suggestive (especially in animated gif format), it could even cause some people to try it and I think that its inclusion in an article would be a serious argument against wikipedia. Brutality exists. Vandalism exists. We do have guidelines for discouraging vandals. We could also have some kind of guidelines for discouraging (but not silencing) brutality. Hoverfish Talk 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of expression does not kill, not even for racists and fascists. In the 1930s, the U.S. had a far uglier history of racism than Germany. We allowed Nazis to rally and speak their minds; the Germans banned it. But the Nazis, by being allowed to express themselves here, were effectively forced to do so in order to be taken seriously; and in so doing, they alienated the American public (see German_American_Bund#Zenith). By contrast, Hitler himself rose to power from the position of a political infiltrator monitoring a "dangerous" worker's movement, sort of like COINTELPRO. Clearly that sort of political control didn't work out so well for the Germans, not even the aristocratic far right. Wnt (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And hereby the thread ends.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The relation between racist propaganda inciting to violence and massive murder is indeed a well stablished fact even punished by law and well documented; it does not matter if anyone euphemistically call it "freedom of expression". If indeed there exists a (mind)control over people and against people, it also includes the use of the so called "freedom of expression" as a weapon against the own people, for instance to manipulate and to incite parts of the people against other parts of the people, take for example each speech by any Adenoid Hynkel at any time at any place, inciting violence against those people in whom those little puppets reflected their own fears and obssesions, and you surely can also find even better (or worst?) examples. And if this superfluous image is indeed so redundant, then it is not unusual that redundancy is a raw material of noxiousness. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A well established fact? Then why is it that the U.S. has gone from segregated toilets to a black President in 50 years without ever banning the "N-word", while European countries with their bans on hate propaganda have seen an ensuing resurgence of racist groups and sentiments, even formal bans on burqas and minarets and laws targeted against Roma and so forth? Suppressing dialogue means suppressing thought, and suppressing thought supports the politics of stupidity. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If racism and fascism are not solely re-emerging on Europe but indeed they are also a still existing shame in the U.$. despite of every so called "freedom", and if indeed the racist-higienic propaganda and laws emerged and were implemented firstly at the U.$. and then they were imported into Europe, at any rate: yes, it is a fact that words and speeches are used to incite violence and indeed they lead to other forms of violence, including murder even massive. For the second question: the last mentioned fact does not change that it is not the "freedom" to incite violence what empowers people, but it is the resistance and struggle of the own affected people, precisely against every form of violence including violence by means of words and speeches. It is simply an example of euphemism to call incitement to violence a "dialogue" and I hope that at least you are not including the resistence and struggle against violence as a matter of "stupidity", for it would be an ignominy. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, you have noticed, haven't you, that the N-word has become kind of rare in print, and in politicians' speeches; right? Do you consider that progress? I am not sure, because according to your way of arguing, its rarity today would be a fatal flaw, suppressing dialogue and so on. Are you proposing the word make a comeback? --JN466 13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Such decisions expressing sensitivity toward minorities are like sex - done voluntarily, as a sign of solidarity or compassion, they are indeed wonderful; but when imposed by force they are nothing of the kind.

I do not deny the central role of minorities in standing up for their own rights ("animal rights" groups annoy me by failing to recognize this). But nothing gets people to stand up for their rights more than a couple of dozen pathetic Klansmen waving their flags around in the public square. The ACLU defends such protests, correctly, not merely out of ideological fervor for free speech in the abstract, but also I think out of the awareness of their importance in maintaining public awareness. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary: to stop the incitement to violence, fascism, racism or sexism even when camouflaged under the euphemistic guise of "freedom of expression", it is not contradictory nor opposite with supporting and encouraging legitimate use of printing and speeches as means of people's legitimate struggle. --ClaudioSantos¿? 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To try another analogy: picture a pressure gauge on some coolant tank at a nuclear reactor. Clearly it is best for it to be in the green. But if it reads too high, bending the needle back into the green is not the answer. It might be convenient to do for some shift worker who wants to go home on time, but it would greatly increase the risk of an accident. To avoid such actions, by accident or stupidity, we cover gauges with glass to protect them from interference. That's the same rough idea as freedom of speech. Concealing the expression of racism does not mean that there won't be lynchings and other acts of isolated and systematic terror - it just prevents people from knowing about the sentiments in circulation. Wnt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, not even the silence, can be real and also absolutely innocuous and silent, any cause has to materialize and express its effects. To expose the real existing noxious secrets, there is no need to potentiate and spread each false expression, up to let them poison and kill, solely to realize and warn that they exist and they are indeed noxious and lethal. And certainly there is absolutely no need to repeat each falsehood trance which we have already learned enough. Struggle to silence every expression of violence and racism in everybody and everywhere, instead of looking for pretexts and excuses to coexist with them, that is the crucial point, which may be applicable also for the nuclear-crap. We all need also new challenges to overcome instead of repeat ourselves as clones. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)PD: For example and analogy: once we have realized that there are still sexists then why to keep such superfluous gif?

I was speaking in response to your general statement; in this specific instance, I don't see the gif as sexist. It shows a man hitting a woman, yes, but it doesn't say she deserved it! You can interpret it however you like. The idea of a "donkey punch", in a heterosexual setting, may indeed be sexist; but where that is concerned each reader comes to it anew - there is no "we have realized" possible. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't realized that for you hitting someone is wrong solely when he or she deserved it or when it is interpreted as a wrong hit. And of course, it is a matter of private thinking, it means, a matter of idiotism produced by a society based on private property, to think that everybody has to experience in his/her body everything, in order to realize and learn. Despite of each effort to divide et impera, the collective, even the collective conscience, no matter how mutilated and impaired it be, at any rate it is a matter of indeed existing fact. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. When we diagram an urban legend, we are not saying that it should be done, that it's right, that she deserved it, that the world should go out and do that. All we're saying is, this is what the sources are talking about. That's not the same thing. Wnt (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To be objective, and one should be objective: none publicity, none advertising is a matter of free choice but a matter of incitement, brain washing and manipulation, specially when the target is a public forcibly uneducated and brutalized. Those working with marketing, but also each politician and each physician-doctor knows and exploits this very well. Although the gif was already removed due copyright concerns, at any rate the gif did not represent accurately the issue and I truly think that if objectivity and accuracy are lacking then one can not speak about choices nor decisions at all. This applies for this more or less inocuos matter but also for the most urgent and serious questions. And at any rate one may justly question if there is a real inocuous matter under the existing reality where illness is a common undeniable fact for everybody. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I am sorry the overworked administrative staff at Commons are unable to take care of OTRS-tagged copyvios for 20 hours. Fortunately Commons administrator Mattbuck has had sufficient time to review and tag an old file of mine and make a snarky comment about other upload descriptions (an urgent Agenda Item since I posted on this page, it would seem). So Commons remains in good hands with priorities intact. We can all rest safe. I would urge others at en-WP to join me by making copious use of the { {keep local} } template on future file uploads. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty useful template, I've been looking for something like that for awhile. Although actually I would rather have something like { keep local ONLY} } template, where I can upload my files to en-wiki WITHOUT having them being dragged over to the cesspool that is commons. While I think wikipedia is dysfunctional, broken and all that, there's is (maybe) still some hope for it. On the other hand, every time I look over at commons it's... just depressing in so many way. I don't want to be associated with that place. Is there a license I could put on my images along the lines of "the creator of this work releases the image into public domain EXCEPT for it being uploaded to Commons"?VolunteerMarek 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain for me what all the fuss is about? The donkey punch image was deleted at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DCNG-levrette.jpg because it was likely a derivative work of an unknown photo (Rama has a history of such copyvios). It's a purely legal issue and has nothing to do with scope. We have a strict rule that any image in use by a project is in scope, so this image was never at risk of deletion for that reason. Dcoetzee 00:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a definition of "educational" that has more real-life relevance than "was inserted into a Wikipedia article by a troll and then kept under WP:NOTCENSORED". --JN466 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons does not exist to override the editorial decisions of other projects. If you want it taken down and it's legal and in use, the first place to go is to the projects where it is used to persuade them to remove it. Then it can be removed from Commons. Dcoetzee 18:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

More a case of "edit-troll" decisions rather than "editorial" decisions, I'd say. So what about all the other drawings by Rama, the editor with, as you say, "a history of such copyvios"? John Vandenberg pointed out in the deletion discussion you linked to that this would apply equally to a whole host of other images by Rama. They are all still on Commons, as far as I can tell. Why? --JN466 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, that might sound like a reasonable position, but it is based on the fiction that there are "editorial decisions of other projects". As far as Commons is concerned, there is no difference between a consensus result achieved through a project-wide referendum and a single editor making a decision on their own - the image is still "in use". In addition, that blanket condition does not prevent a user from adding an image to other projects in an effort to forestall or prevent deletion. A recent case in point was the now-deleted File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif which user:Cirt added to several projects after the deletion discussion began. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why I'm opposed to the phrasing "verifiability, not truth" revisited

This article is a very good read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas - too good an example of how some presumably reasonable editors can act when what they know is shown not to be so. This is not the only example thereof, but one where a specific author as an expert ran into the "brick wall" of Wikipedia guardians (several of whom are prominent, and communally self-protective) against being shown to be wrong on matters of fact. On matters of opinion - "chacun a son gout" is reasonable, on stuff like "no connections were shown at trial" then we do, indeed, need more than "a majority of our sources say the White House is purple." Collect (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You think? Some prior discussion about it is found here and sections below that. Does Wikipedia Have an Accuracy Problem? Yes, but only because history is in a constant state of revision. seems a better way putting it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So... Wikipedia is geared toward expressing what the majority thinks? But... what if the majority is wrong? For example, if the majority still believed the sun revolved around the earth, even if it was proven that it was false, would we display it as truth? Akihironihongo (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an insightful read. I think what we do, our actions to correct the imbalance, is significantly more telling than any well enunciated explanation. I am slightly concerned at the misinformation editors are too often given, some of which the article contains. For example the preference for secondary sources becomes a prohibition against primary sources, sometimes clearly appropriate. Or a COI that can be accommodated wrongly teaches a new user that their contributions are incompatible. Mr. Wales, some things are best corrected by fiat. Please, please become proactive correcting institutional deficiencies where consensus has consistently shown more prowess at stifling progress or obfuscating intent. This project is tremendously successful because it was formed around your visions and values. I swear there is an element intent to see these factors erode. I enjoy participation in the project you envisioned! I am less enthusiastic regarding a project where your opinion is minimized. My76Strat (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently in one article, one editor has refused to allow that William F. Buckley was a member of the political spectrum "right wing" for some months. ") I have in the past posited "Collect's Law" a few times which applies to some of these cases: The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. There is now a corollary: The person who is most insistent that only specific sources which he favours know the facts, is least likely to have found the best sources. Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"The person who is most insistent on giving equal weight ("NPOV") to all "reputable" POVs is most likely to be pushing to include their fringe, if not completely fallacious, POV."

Sources must themselves be subject to verifiability, at least with regard to representation of basic facts. All too often fallacy is presented as fact if a "verifiable" opinion source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If consensus depends on the quality of various arguments, rather than the quantity of arguments offered for various views, then can the same principle not be applied in evaluating the evaluation of sources, so that a minority of sources with a demonstrably superior quality are given more weight than a majority of sources with a demonstrably inferior quality?

—Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC) and 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but who is qualified to directly evaluate the the quality of arguments in a world of editors with brown bags on their figurative heads? For example, in the dispute about what images to display in the article on Muhammad, the chief argument against the current choice of images is that the majority of sources don't include anthropomorphic images. What is a test for quality arguments that (almost) everyone could agree on? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point Wavelength. The article which opens this thread is indeed a good read. I had never heard of this event in American history before and I find the whole article, and indeed the whole episode, quite fascinatng. The article is all the more interesting since the comments made by the authour are still there at the top of the Talk Page. There aren't many editors who actually have to publish their own book to get their view across! .. or indeed, to get the truth across? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The quality of comments is significantly harder to appraise than the quality of a source. Regarding sources, Independence, a good record of editorial control, reliability, and fact checking all lend to credibility and a significantly more credible source does carry more weight than less scrupulous sources, even if they occur in abundance. My76Strat (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:HISTRS and the other standards relating to history articles goes over much of the ground of how an encyclopaedia ought to treat the epistemology of historical knowledge. Many of Collect's observations on the sociology of an encyclopaedia anyone can edit I agree with. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, particularly in competing accounts of history, sometimes views on agreed facts, sometimes versions of mutually exclusive facts (both can't be factual), what is admissible as a source is (falsely) subject to consensus. Too many editors search Google books for "text bites" to support their prejudices; too few actually search out sources considered seminal in their topic and read them from cover to cover prior to contributing to an article. Fewer still change their views based on research, fewer still admit to such change. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This is true. Hopefully developing good policies, good use of policies at dispute boards, and good projects such as MILHIST will help, over time, to change editorial practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the issue here is really "verifiability not truth". The author concedes that his view is in a minority against a large number of publications which agree with the article. WP:UNDUE can be overbearing at times, and this might be such a case, but we have to follow the sources - rather than, for example, doing "original research", going back and reviewing the court transcripts, and having huge arguments on the talk page about whether showing that someone's political speech inspired a bomb-maker counts as "evidence against him" or not. Wnt (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I read the story, I'm relatively pleased at how our volunteers treated an expert used to scholarly debate--let's not mince words here, we've seen many, many worse. The "vandalism" bit was over the top, but WP:VAND#NOT is among our least well understood policy bits. And, ultimately, the last editor is right: one minority view should not be the basis for altering a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflects reliable secondary sources--since when do we want our tertiary project edited by academicians with direct access to primary sources? His job is to do precisely what he did: right great wrongs by engaging in the academic publishing world, such that he convinces the authors of e.g. other textbooks to replace their "facts" with his work, and then, and only then, should Wikipedia be updated to reflect the new academic consensus. If anything, this demonstrates that we should AGF and be more civil with contributors, not that our content, sourcing, original research, and weight policies are in error. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not "textbooks" in history, more the review articles and historiographical introductions to scholarly monographs and edited collections that represent the state of the research culture; but yeah. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor is this the first article where old and new historians disagree. See Roger Bacon#Changing interpretations of Bacon for another. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this is a serious problem. The majority views are usually biased. The majority of people think they know something because they read about this in newspapers. But reality may be very different, as became clear after reading books by experts. This is especially the case with political controversies in countries with unfree media. However, this is not the major source of bias in articles. It is usually assumed that we do not have editorial boards. But in fact we have them: a lot of subject areas are effectively controlled by groups of like-minded contributors or by individual "vested" contributors who decide all subject matters and effectively own the articles. It may not be so bad when articles on Physics are owned by physicists (except that a person without PhD degree frequently can not understand a thing), but it maybe worse in other areas. What we have here are fiefdoms when Romanian patriots own Romanian articles, Russian patriots own Russian articles, and so on. That may be be not so bad for administrators, because the system of fiefdoms makes thing more peaceful: the conflicts only occur when one of the national teams evicts a dissident from their subject area or two teams clash over a disputed territory, however this is the major source of bias if not outright propaganda in certain articles, I believe. Biophys (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, WP processes seem to have worked well in this case. It may be the problem is an editor who believes WP should reflect his point-of-view.

The statement originally in the article ("The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing") was not accurate, and there doesn't seem to be much doubt about that.

However, a day after Mr Messer-Kruse's intervention, the text was amended twice with a citations ([2][3]), the editor having checked two sources suggested by Mr Messer-Kruse. The second of these changed the text so that it referred to "credible evidence" instead of just "evidence".

This seems to be accurate, per the settled view of historians. Which can be a hard thing to know for sure. But, Messer-Kruse himself provides us with this information in a article:

• the publication of Henry David’s dissertation, “A History of the Haymarket Affair,” as a book in 1936 spurred historians to view the events in Chicago in 1886 as a classic case of police brutality and judicial lynching. After Paul Avrich published The Haymarket Tragedy in 1984, followed by the attention given to the event in its centennial year, this interpretation became nearly universal, with introductory textbooks in American history describing the event as the conviction of anarchists in a trial in which “not a shred of evidence” was introduced to connect the accused to the bombing

As for the evidence about bomb-casings which Messer-Kruse focuses on:

• in the century or so since the trial, historians have largely sided with the defendants and found this physical evidence unconvincing

I'm finding it difficult to see why there's need for very much of a blind panic over this. Why, over two years prior even to it's publication, should Wikipedia have been expected to reflect the view of a book that, according to its blurb "rewrites the standard narrative of the most iconic event in American labor history", rather than just reporting that standard narrative? --FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth vs. Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

As the world's de facto encyclopedia of record, Wikipedia endeavors to publish truth. Truth is preferably established on Wikipedia by citations of facts published by reliable, verifiable secondary sources, which in turn cite facts established by primary sources. Secondary sources are verified by checking their references. When a secondary source establishes a fact through verified citation of a primary source, that secondary source may be cited on Wikipedia, even when a majority of secondary sources cite a contradicting fact, if the contradicting fact is not verified by primary sources. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I am so glad I don't live in a universe where that makes sense.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Help me understand the universe we live in at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Thanks --Wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia endeavors to publish truth, then why aren't primary sources like coroner's reports and court transcripts acceptable items to cite? Messer-Kruse says "Simply referencing the coroner's records or the trial transcripts or other sources that I'd uncovered was not sufficient" in his NPR interview regarding the Haymarket Affair debacle. I cannot find direct instructions from a Wikipedia editor on the Haymarket Affair talk page that say he can't use either. As a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, I'm seeking ways we can recruit scholars of the nuanced, minority, and unpopular, to contribute legally and appropriately to Wikipedia. Kmpolacek (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy WP:PRIMARY does allow primary sources, used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I have seen court rulings directly cited in a biography of a living person. Wikipedia editors should not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself", but this just leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. In this biography, only the few charges on this person has been convicted are cited in the article. Perhaps the editors had to resort to primary sources because they could not find any secondary sources reporting these convictions to cite, which leaves me wondering whether the convictions are truly notable. On the other hand, this person has been acquitted on far more charges, many of these acquittals have been cited in secondary sources including The New York Times and published books (at least one dedicated entirely to discussing this person's business), yet these acquittals are not mentioned in the WP:BLP article. So, I see cherry picking of primary sources to let the readers draw their own conclusion, while secondary sources defending this individual are not allowed because they are "not reliable", "self-published", WP:FRINGE or whatever excuse the gatekeepers come up with. The bar for secondary sources supporting their point-of-view is much lower, in my opinion. —Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to wrap my head around the idea that Wikipedia editors should not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself"... What is the definition of an encyclopedia? A regurgitation of already published material that has not been evaluated at all? Kmpolacek (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An odd word - but fairly accurate. Wikipedia either had to choose between editors asserting that they know the "truth" and using that to determine what is in every article, or saying that there is, for many topics, no "absolute truth" on which every editor would agree, and that to use "what other people write in published works" is a reasonable choice - and that is what Wikipedia chose. Collect (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

History recorded by historian versus history recorded by machine

Tempted to win simply through sheer tenacity, I edited the page again. My triumph was even more fleeting than before. Within seconds the page was changed back. The reason: "reverting possible vandalism." Fearing that I would forever have to wear the scarlet letter of Wikipedia vandal, […]

—The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, Timothy Messer-Kruse

Alright. I've found in the edit history the first and second sets of edits mentioned in M. Messer-Kruse's article. But where's the third? I've been through all of ClueBot's edits to the article since that point, since they are the ones that use that phrase, and not a one of them is related to this content — although my mental defences against the flood of knowledge imparted therefrom about how various people are faggots and penises may have blinded me to what I was actually looking for. Where was M. Messer-Kruse reverted with that edit summary? M. Messer-Kruse appears to have only made one edit after that, which wasn't reverted with that edit summary. So where's this edit? Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Did you check to see if he did it as an IP without logging in? You'd have to check the edit summary. Yopienso (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I wrote, ClueBot is the one that uses that phrase in edit summaries, and it was spotted when he accidentally edited without logging in. I've been over every single ClueBot/ClueBot NG diff back until 2008, and unless M. Messer-Kruse is claiming responsibility for edits like "he likes penis" and "faggot", the reversion that scared him into thinking that he might be considered a vandal simply didn't happen, and the tale of history that we are being told by a historian has been embellished. Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Chronicle ought to allow a right of reply. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's easy for any noobie not to know exeactly what vandalism is and isn't on Wikipedia. So maybe he was just recalling, imperfectly perhaps, his sensations at the time. 2c MistyMorn (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In 2011, it became common to stop calling people "vandals" (except within the WP:ANI typical insult sessions). The idea is that no one should be referring to another user as a "vandal" in edit-summaries, and the Bots need to be changed to use different wording. -Wikid77 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The article does not cast it as a general impression, but as a direct quotation. Although the Chronicle is recognized for some very good work, choosing to run this whiney little piece seems indicative of rather lax or uneven editorial standards for a journal of its type. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • What I was trying to suggest was that he may have got the "vandalism" recollection wrong in good faith. I agree that there seems to have been a lack of editorial control there. A non-polemical rectification might be appropriate in the spirit of post-publication review. MistyMorn (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You don't read it often enough then. This type of article is not that uncommon over there. Wikipedia as their topic of "whining" is uncommon though. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't read it at all, but it was described as "the big cheese in journalism for universities" when a university administrator who, knowing my interest in Wikipedia, forwarded the article. I stand corrected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, Fred Bauder thinks that a historian who writes an article about consulting primary sources and what's in Wikipedia edit logs is a novice who wouldn't consult the primary source containing the edit history. The implication of that proposition, moreover, is that there is no fact checking at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simple error is usually the more reasonable explanation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

play-by-play account

It seems you have a valid point, but that should not be used to detract from the overall thrust of MesserKruse's article. In fairness, one should also look at the talk page history when analyzing his edits (researching the primary source). I think it's established that he edited both the talk page and article under IDs MesserKruse and 129.1.105.18. On that "slow day at the office", Jan. 22, 2009, he edited Talk:Haymarket affair 9 times and Haymarket affair 6 times, and User talk:MesserKruse twice and User:MesserKruse once. That's 18 edits on January 22—14 as MesserKruse and 4 as 129.1.105.18. His first post was to the talk page at 16:13, raising what I will call the no evidence issue. 21 minutes later, with no response other than from SineBot, his second edit raised what I'll call the 2 killed, not 6 issue. He quickly followed this with two technical edits (signing his previous post and editing SineBot's post). At 16:36 the talk page had 2 messages: [4][5]. The Chronicle article does not mention these talk page edits. His first article edit, a minute later at 16:37, addresses the 2 killed, not 6 issue. At 16:39, his fifth talk page edit (sixth overall) raised the Parsons led 80,000 issue[6]. His second article edit, at 16:40, addresses the Parsons led 80,000 issue. His third article edit, and eighth overall edit, at 16:42, addressed the no evidence issue. While a single minute passed between talk page and article edits of the 2 killed, not 6 and Parsons led 80,000 issues, 29 minutes passed between the first talk page no evidence edit and the first no evidence article edit, with no response on the talk page. Could this be counted as a second attempt to obtain acceptance of this proposed change to the article? Of the three issues, the Chronicle article only mentions the no evidence edit. At 16:51 (nine minutes later, or "within minutes" according to the Chronicle), his three article edits were all reverted, with edit summary undo good faith but wholly unsourced revisions. Two minutes later (16:53), the reverting editor posts a message to the talk page: You must provide reliable sources for your assertions to make changes along these lines to the article.[7] The Chronicle article repeats this "full explanation in Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes editing log." After 45 minutes pass, M-K, inadvertently switched to an I.P. user, responds on the talk page at 17:27: I have provided reliable sources. See my discussion of the McCormick's strike above in which I cite the primary sources for this information. By what standard are you claiming that http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ is not a "reliable source." It clearly cites primary sources in its rebutal of this myth. Perhaps its not "reliable" sources you want but ideologically comfortable ones.[8] A minute later, between 17:28 and 17:29, M-K edits the article three more times to again address each of the three issues. At 17:33, recognizing that the edit had posted under an I.P. address, M-K edits it to replace it with his user name—his seventh talk page edit, and 13th overall. Four minutes later (17:37), a new (to M-K) editor appears with a talk page response: Please read Wikipedia's policy concerning reliable sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Also, according to our policy concerning "undue weight": articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views (emphasis in original) You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view. Thank you.[9] As of this time, M-K's edits were still live. At 17:41, M-K responds on the talk page: Fine. I see I will have to fight these battles one at a time. I will start with the most obvious. Here is a "majority" source, indeed the most often-cited source for information on Haymarket there is, Paul Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy: from page 190: "Spies had heard that two men had been killed, apparently the correct number, but when he picked up the Daily News, the paper reported six deaths." So, it should be evident that this authoratitive source also agrees the proper number should be TWO. As for you claim about Wikipedia's policy, your characterization of it is absurd, especially if the "majority" source that is cited can be shown to be factually wrong. Explain to me, then, how a "minority" source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong "majority" one?[10] Three minutes later, at 17:44, the original responding editor returns: You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy.[11] At 17:55 (11 minutes later), the second responding editor reverts M-K's second set of article edits. This would be the final relevant article edit of the day (a vandal would make a quickly reverted edit several hours later). At 17:57, the second responding editor left a final comment: I'll review Avrich tonight. Please have a little patience and leave the article as is until then. Thank you., and at 18:02 M-K responded with his 15th edit of the day: Fair enough. You might also consult the citation provided in the article for the McCormick deaths, that of Green, pp. 162-171. Note that this cited source does not claim that six men were killed, only that August Spies claimed that six men were killed in his Revenge leaflet. Thus, the source cited does not actually support the fact alleged. Several hours later, the second responding editor posted: I checked Avrich and corrected the number of fatalities at McCormick. Thanks for bringing the error to our attention. Finally, for completeness, is the end-of-day talk page:[12]. I hope I got all that right. Corrections welcomed. I've spent a lot of time today pulling together this complete set of primary research, so that others may analyze it and write secondary sourced articles referencing it. I hope someone feels my efforts were worthwhile.

Now, is everyone clear on how many times MesserKruse was reverted on the article page, versus how many times he was "reverted" on the talk page? And, in my opinion vandalism is an excellent example of uncivil behavior. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been various accusations of "biting the newbie" as well as talk of excessive templating. Did you find anything like that? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First I want to make it clear that 199.8.26.10 (below) was responding to my question, not yours. Off the top of my head, I think I may have seen comments on some talk page(s) characterizing some of the two responding editors' responses to the professor that way. I don't understand what you mean by "excessive templating." Excessive use of these? I did not see any use of them in the above. They could have advised M-K that he could tag the disputed statements with Template:Dubious—I'm not faulting them for not doing that—perhaps they were unaware of that template, or it slipped their mind --Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC) amended 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. You're having a separate conversation at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. That puts some context on your questions. --Wbm1058 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I am more confused than before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good answer! By simplifying his account of the day, the professor wrote an effective, understandable story which did not get bogged down in details. Could he have been more precise? Certainly. Did he twist the accuracy of his report of the events to the point of telling a notable untruth? I don't think so. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Need guideline for crime articles

It struck me as very foolish to claim, "[T]he prosecution did not present any evidence against the accused" (when instead, a typical problem in other courts would be the prosecution presented falsified evidence rather than none), and so, we need to have a crime-guideline that warns to avoid documented nonsense being fostered by sources. Because crime articles tend to foster a competitive attitude of "winning" the case, as either "guilty" or "not guilty" (or "innocent"), then the guideline should be used to provide some ground rules as to just when bizarre claims are being made. For example, as noted for criminal trials in Italy, almost half of all "primary-grade convictions" in Italian courts are reversed during the secondary-grade trials of appeal. Meanwhile, the notion that the "prosecution did not present any evidence" should have been a red flag that the sources were false about such a claim, related to a criminal trial in the U.S. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:01, revised 14:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Altgeld's grave

I think this evolved from "the evidence utterly failed to connect the unknown who threw the bomb with the defendants". But I have certainly seen similar bizarre claims made, generally against those who's side history has not been on. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

NPR radio program

Timothy Messer-Kruse, Andrew Lih and Steven Walling discussed the article and Messer-Kruse's editing experience on NPR yesterday (Truth And The World Of Wikipedia Gatekeepers). Transcript and audio here. --JN466 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, imo. Challenging on use of primary sources. But not 'whining' at all. Too many 'Keep off the grass' nags...? Andrew Lih's point about "unfortunately, a lot of the policies and a lot of the community members who act in editing are working in kind of a defensive mode and trying to prevent bad things from going in rather than encouraging good things from being there". Default defense mode in some of this thread too? As if this incident was going to be a serious threat to Wikipedia rather than an opportunity for creative reflection. Perhaps a side-effect of having so much to defend... Including all those policies and guidelines. Maybe the communal mindset needs a tweak. In terms of outlook? —MistyMorn (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Dear Jimbo, Wikipedia Review, a website you most likely know what is about, has been in focus for a period of time now. Several users who are banned or blocked from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons use the website to attack our editors. But the main problem is that also several users who are still active at Wikipedia use the page for that purpose. Would you consider making an official statement about Wikipedia Review, as I believe that this page has no positive effect on our community and the sole purpose is to harass us. Many users who use Wikipedia Review link to their Wikipedia accounts, so their posts to WR are linked to their WP account. Do you feel that a personal attack directed at Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor from such a WR user would be blockable on WP? Sincerly, PaoloNapolitano 09:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell Jimbo there is presently an AN/I thread going on about such an editor; the link is here. I would anticipate that whatever Jimbo has to say will be used by the combatants. Should he choose to respond, we should at least ensure that Jimbo has been given information about the matter, lest he make an offhand comment, not knowing to what use it will immediately be put.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about welll-known blogs and other sites which routinely refer to Wikipedia? I believe a significant number of them exist, some of which take strong positions on certain specific topics on Wikipedia. Ought any editor who uses any outside blog be excised from Wikipedia? Or ought we say "what you do on the outside of these servers is substantially beyond our control"? Is policing the Internet a wise use or a poor use of our time? Some would have us ban 'bad' editors who use some specific outside blogs and not act precisely similarly for 'all who use outside blogs. I fear this looks a tad more like selective 'witch-hunting' than simply banning bad apples. Sorry for any mixed metaphors. Collect (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a little like your suggesting that wikipedia editors should not be alloed to express negative opinions about the project (also you mention the possibility of personal attacks against wikipedia - I don't think the project has that kind of corporate personhood). It is generally a pretty bad ida for projects that ant to be the best they can be to stifle criticism - and for a project that claims to work for information freedom it seems even more silly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironically enough, WR try to oppress the right to information freedom. Some would say that an admin should tolerate criticism, but posting of personal information and WP:HOUNDING them constantly is NOT tolerable. We should protect our users and give them freedom to do a fantastic job for Wikipedia without outsiders trying to disrupt their work. PaoloNapolitano 14:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is an accurate description of what WR does. In anycase there are no insiders and outsiders in wikipedia - w are the encyclopedia any one can edit - not an exclusive club where people's conduct off-wiki have to be approved by a reviewboard to be allowed in. There are people who behave like assholes on WR - but thats no different from here on wikipedia. How people are treated on wikipedia should have to do only with how they behave on wikipedia - that is a basic principle that we should not move from. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed WR is not perfect and is an obvious magnet for editors no longer welcome here, but to say that it is oppressive is a bit much. It shines a useful light on us. I am not a member there, but I will confess to lurking. I doubt I am unique in that regard.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recently joined in order to learn more about what kinds of criticisms exist of wikipedia - I was not very impressed and am currently not active there. I do however "oppress" free information if that means to argue in favor of a standard of inclusion that prioritizes certain topics over others and a somewhat higher standard of notability and ethics than some editors prefer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of policies, like WP:CANVASS and WP:OUTING and WP:NPA, which just don't seem to count for anything once WR gets involved - even if the editors happen to use the same names and acknowledge their connection. If these policies are unworkable, we should get rid of them entirely - that way, Wikipedia Review would have no special power to control the direction of Wikipedia, and people here would have a fair chance to fire back. We need to focus only on the portion of the process that we do control - by refusing to pay heed to "outed" information when it is provided and thereby avoiding things like the Fae RfC/U; by clearly acknowledging when canvassing on WR is a factor in !votes and making efforts to counter its effect; and by coming together in unambiguous shows of support for harassed editors. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here. Now sort it all out. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read a few postings at WR and agree that they're grousing/complaining/being entertained by WP. But I cannot see them as any kind of threat to WP. The AN/I mentioned above could have involved any off-WP medium, even private emails made public. In my view, problems between editors are due to themselves. Editors who remain CALM, CIVIL, and reasonable are universally liked and listened to. Tell that to someone who attacks others. I had to learn this lesson, and frequently see that many other editors need to learn it, too. David Spector (user/talk) 22:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Hello Mr. Wales and page watchers. At a recent point of meditation, some things occurred to me which are practically impossible to imagine editors supporting, but I tell you in my thoughts I was able to imagine some valid reasons. So I ask, does anyone see reason, or think there ever could be a reason or way that OR could find some place in this encyclopedia? The sum of human knowledge is not the same as the sum of published/verifiable knowledge. I am curious if this is just a bad idea, too hard to implement/control, or something else? My76Strat (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#OR.—Wavelength (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Original research - Wikiversity (= v:Wikiversity:Original research).

—Wavelength (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you. I do understand the current longstanding policy. I don't even know why I asked the question. Thanks for the Wikiversity link, I'll definitely look at it. My76Strat (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a different way to ask the question, to just get the mental juices flowing so to speak, is to ask what the borderline is. WP:OR addresses this question in a few different ways, but of course actual practice is always more complex than written policy. Some of the cases that I'm aware of have, in my view, generally gone in the right direction (our process of good faith dialog and discussion isn't perfect, but it more or less works) even though policy doesn't give a lot of particular guidance. One example is that we've begun, in limited ways, to accept some information from oldweather.org, an open project to analyse historical weather data from ships logs. I briefly read an email from an acquaintance there explaining to me how they've discovered that despite a lot of standard references claiming that a particular ship was not involved in a particular naval battle, the ships logs that they use for their weather work show clearly that it was. The people who figured this out are not professional historians, and their conclusions are not published in any other source, but we've reasonably tended to accept it. (Among other things, there's no agenda pushing here, so little danger of activists coming up with some sort of invalid synthesis to push an agenda. It's just really interesting bits of historical trivia about ships, really.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Wales. Once again you have appended a thoughtful reply, and I appreciate the insight. I should clarify that the only thing I would have advocated adding to an article is a template like the one that says "We have related images on commons" but instead something like "Wikiversity has original research related to this subject". Perhaps it is already allowed and I've simply never seen it. Again, thank you. Best - My76Strat (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to point to a particular article that does cite oldweather.org to claim that military history orbats are wrong? My experience of observing the Sinai campaign discussions in MILHIST is that orders of battle are highly contentious and politicised. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be traveling today and will read the email from my oldweather.org correspondent in more detail. I'll try to post about it in a few days. You are right, of course, that orders of battle can be highly contentious, which makes this question all the more interesting! But of course sometimes they aren't particularly contentious, there is just an (uncontroversial) error in conventional sources, an error which is easy enough to spot for anyone who looks at the data.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, whenever you've got the time and access. It isn't a time-dependent issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See a list of pages linking to http://www.oldweather.org/.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Original research - Wikibooks, open books for an open world (= b:Wikibooks:Original research).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lubetzky

Jimmy, please see my comment at [13] the admin's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured stubs?

I think we should feature stubs on portals and on index.htm the Main Page. That way we can attract more possible Wikipedians to contribute. --68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion a week or so ago at Talk:Main Page/Archive 165#An idea for converting readers to editors....?. It's a good idea, but any changes to the Main Page would require a pretty well-advertised RfC. Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Switch from .com to .org?

I thought I'd ask here, as I know people watch this talk page for Jimmy. According to Wikipedia, the site switched to the .org world in 2002, in the same message that he announced there'd be no ads. Fishing through wikipedia-l, I can't find anything. I can find the "no ads" post, but not the .org. And whois says the .org was registered in 2001, which doesn't make sense, unless Jimmy bought up multiple domains.

Any ideas of where he announced .org? There's a press request about this. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia moved to the .org domain on 15 August 2002, as also announced by Brion in this edit. The way I read it, the "Wikipedia" article just says that both the announcement that Wikipedia would not contain ads and the switch to the .org domain occurred in 2002, but there's also this relevant message from Jimmy from a few days after the domain switch. Graham87 11:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And it was also announced here on the mailing list. Graham87 11:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A special request

Hello, I have a very special request. An article stub I support at AFD is opposed only by the nominator and no one has commented. I said in jest: "I'd accept Jimbo's opinion like a WP:3O resolution". Fact is I would, and now I am rather keen to have your opinion. I understand you may be traveling, and this wouldn't be a high priority, but if you find it possible, that would be great. Of course I respect the many editors I often see commenting here, so please, take a look at it and opine. A discussion where no one discusses is rather lame. Richard Landis My76Strat (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You should try the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair consideration, but then I could be said to canvass for users likely to support my position. I am rather asking the competent editors who comment at this page comment appropriately according to policy and best practice. And because I do respect Mr. wales demonstrated inclination to thoughtful considerations, I agree to accept his opinion, without equivocation. Otherwise, what is the problem getting the discussion to move along? My76Strat (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An interesting aside just developed. I emailed Mr. Landis when this deletion first commenced. I just checked my mail, and today I received his thoughtful response, with expressed gratitude. He did provide some specific information which I believe will refine a more productive search for sources. But I think the article is a solid stub as is, and take issue that at least one editor feels it more proper to contest. But the matter will resolve, I'd just prefer to hear additional comments. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not resort to original research :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the :-) but just confirming for User:My76Strat, getting secondary source suggestions from Mr Landis is a good option, seeing as it is available to you. Just be careful not to fall foul of COI. Mark Hurd (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd best stay out of it. If I were to vote right now, it would be to delete. I support seeking more eyes on the question, and if WP:RS do exist, they should be used. I have to second Mark's caution about COI - I have very strong views on COI editing, as is well known. I think contacting the subject of a biography can sometimes be the right thing to do, but let's also acknowledge that if they are unlikely to have an entry in Wikipedia, then contacting them to ask for more sources may simply engage them in an issue that is only going to disappoint them and hurt their feelings in the end. Adding yet another not-very-good and not-very-maintainable biography to Wikipedia is always a bad idea, and attempting to do so in a way which hurts the feeling of the subject compounds that problem!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)