User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

A question about our policies on living people

Jimbo, as the only WMF representative here who actually responds to questions, I am curious if using a picture of a Siberian tiger (on a user page, not in the article itself) to represent a living person known primarily for their extensive facial plastic surgery (Jocelyn Wildenstein) is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people or with the WMF statements in regard to how living persons should be treated on all WMF projects? To me this is a no-brainer, but I am not known for my good judgment, especially of late. Details are discussed in this ANI discussion, although I would hate for anyone to think that I am blatantly canvassing for your opinion in this matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Stv's response here is more than enough to show that there isn't a BLP violation. You really need to stop this crusade, DC, the AfD did not go through and going after the creator of the article now is just over the top. Silverseren^C 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am asking about something that I view as a clear and unambiguous violation of our policy and the WMF's statement on how we treat living people. Aside from the fact that User:Stvfetterly is the one making the violation, it actually has less to do with them than it does to do with treating Wildenstein with respect. If the image goes, I will leave Stvfetterly to continue their pattern of using obviously poor sources like Google's cache of an online store (so long as they don't do it with any biographies that happen to draw my attention). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very much ambiguous, if it is even a violation at all. You have no information, such as a statement from Wildenstein on the name, or anywhere else that using such an image is treating her with disrespect. Silverseren^C 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what your opinion is, I was asking for Jimbo's... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's poor behavior, rude and insensitive, and I'm disappointed to see it - and more disappointed to see it defended by others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read this diff, Jimbo. Stv perfectly explains, with sourced quotes, that Wildenstein purposefully had herself changed to look like a cat and is "ecstatic" at the outcome, having gotten "exactly what she wanted". In light of this, how is affiliating someone with something they like a BLP violation? Silverseren^C 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And how, then, is a Siberian tiger remotely relevant? Recall the imperative to be conservative in wrintg BLPs. Collect (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember, this isn't about content in a BLP, but an image used as an example on someone's userpage, since we don't have an image on the subject in question. The point i'm making is that denoting her as such on one's user page, when it is something that she likes being affiliated with, is completely not a BLP violation. Silverseren^C 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP:BLP applies to userpages and not just to biographies. Where an image is being improperly used to deprecate a living person, then WP:BLP applies. "Content in a BLP" is not the criterion applicable - the issue is whether the image affects a living person, which it does. Collect (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, how is it being used to deprecate a person? Stv has specifically said that he did not add it as a negative comment on Wildenstein and he has also given a number of refs showing that Wildenstein likes comparisons to being a tiger and purposefully changed her face to look like one. Silverseren^C 22:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Tiger image is back on the user page and the user is editing Jocelyn Wildenstein again. This time, it is an unattributed quote from a weekly gossip magazine. I'll start a DRV when the Fæ RFC/U talk page gets quieter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Stv's removed comment, how is it an unattributed quote? It is attributed specifically to Wildenstein and explains that the results of the surgeries were exactly what she wanted to look like. And good luck on the DRV, it'll fail, since you're motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing else. Your BLP statements have been thoroughly refuted. Silverseren^C 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I said "unattributed" not "unreferenced". The point is moot since the source is a weekly gossip magazine and therefore not a source that should ever be used in a BLP. Perhaps instead of trying to win arguments here, you could take it out? Based on that removed comment of Stvfetterly's, I have a feeling that I would just be starting an edit war if I did it myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you would. As has been explained repeatedly, it may be rude & insensitive, but that doesn't make it a BLP violation. Also, at this point, you're forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is the last thing it is - the ANI thread is archived, the image is gone from the user page, and I haven't opened a DRV request yet. But since you took the time to reiterate your opinion, I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm more concerned with systemic issues than with individual articles, so sometimes I comment on really obvious and/or easily fixed problems just to see what happens. I usually do that in places that I know are widely read. In this thread I have pointed out that an editor used a Google cache of a site as a source and that a weekly gossip magazine was used as a source in a contentious BLP. I'll leave it to you to guess what happened. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid Operatives

Continuing the thoughts about paid advocates, PR, etc. You make no mention of Political paid operatives openly or otherwise editing articles directly related to their client or boss. Isn't the orchestration of the product that wikipedia produces a problem? Ive been accussed repeatedly of poisoning the well by bringing this subject up, but I think it is important especially with the General Election to start soon. Since you gave so much thought and comment to the above IP's conversation I wonder if you might do the same for me. Your response to my email on this subject was disappointing. 6 or 7 words. Or point me in a direction where this important and timely issue is being discussed and considered. Maybe you have seen http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/ . Maybe not. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's busy, and we can't expect a treatise when a koan works better. I've jumped into the CREWE discussion on Facebook and got quoted in that CNN piece about the Gingrich campaign trying to shape some articles of interest to them. At least Joe DeSantis discloses his COI openly and honestly, and sticks to the talk pages lately. Credit where credit is due. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry that my email was disappointing. I think "political paid operatives" are the same as "paid advocates" generally, so yes, I think it is a very serious issue that can and should be handled well. The information I have to date (but I haven't read the CNN blog post you reference above yet) is that the account you are concerned about has followed what I consider to be best practices by openly identifying, and not editing article space directly. If that's true, then that's a good thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing. User:Joe has been commended, repeatedly, for being reputable. I gave him a newly created barstar for it. But you must admit that his intent and motivation to edit is different than mine and most other editors. His livelihood depends an his ability to flavor every mention of his boss with palitable easy-to-consume words, to remove all negativity and any taint of even a glimpse of scandal. He is paid to adjust the language of the many Gingrich articles to erase all "touchy" details. Not to edit with the reader in mind but to edit with how it will affect the candidate/campaign/voting populace, in mind.

Somewhere I read that WP staff estimates that WP gets about 7 billion views per month. One edit yields what millions of people will read on any particular topic. Billions come here, before anywhere else, to be informed. How many hundreds of thousands of readers/visitors will know that what they are reading, what information they are depending on, is directly orchestrated and sanctioned by a Political Campaign Headquarters? I speculate that your graciousness depends on the continuing ability of your non-paid volunteers to be vigilant and protect the accuracy and balance of political articles. But we unpaid volunteers don't have the same level of need. We don't pay our mortgages based on our ability to "slant the language". We don't have a staff to watchlist and focus on the effect of every single edit, every single word, across a spectrum of related articles. Paid political operatives are not just advocates. They are not Public Relations folks working for Campbells Soup. In this case, User:joedeSantis, an upright guy, is editing and formulating changes that may effect the election for the President of the U.S. There are many more serious, real-world-effecting consequences to that role than just increasing sales for beef noodle. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Note...From here this important discussion stops and is hyjacked. Rather than remain on topic, it swerves into patter about canvassing. Even I swayed off topic to present Jimbo's thought about canvassing, etc. Kidnapping a thread before it has a chance to develope is a breach of public order. Jimbo (or any editor) had a 1/2 hour window to respond before the opening (the opportunity to engage Jimbo in an important and timely multi-leveled discussion) closed. This editing tactic is used all over the talk pages to the detriment of editorial collaboration and unity of purpose. Some editors have become masters at it. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's Joedesantis's revisions to the mainspace:

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Newt_Gingrich&server=enwiki
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Callista_Gingrich&server=enwiki
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Rediscovering_God_in_America&server=enwiki
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Rediscovering_God_in_America_%28film_series%29&server=enwiki
• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Joedesantis&page=Political_positions_of_Newt_Gingrich&server=enwiki

I disagree with several revisions Joedesantis made, especially the 2010 revisions to the Callista_Gingrich article, but Joedesantis is currently restricting himself to the Talkspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Note: [1], [2], and [3]. Note also (for fun) WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buster7&diff=475518941&oldid=475514856 – Will Beback told Buster7 that it wasn't canvassing. If you disagree, then you should present your opinion to Buster7. Please keep in mind that there isn't a !vote or tally taking place here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I take it you did not read WP:CANVASS? It refers to all discussions, not just to !votes. And it most certainly has been applied to soliciting of editors to do anything at all -- including posting at article talk pages, user talk pages, dispute resolution pages, XfD discussions etc. It states simply:

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Note that it does not say "Feel free to CANVASS to get editors to join your position on any user talk page." Really. Collect (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I've forwarded your concerns to Buster7. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Jimbo has made it clear that it is not considered canvasing if an editor informs other editors of an on-going conversation HERE at Jimbo's talk page. 2) I am pretty sure that I waited until Jimbo responded before I left 1/2 a dozen messages. I could have left 50/75 more but I got busy elsewhere. 3) Administrator Beback confirmed by his note at my Talk page..." Since no policy other decisions are determined at user talk pages (except for unblock issues), I don't see how the prohibition on canvassing would apply". 4) I have zero interest in what Collect believes. 5) Collect is wrong. His objection has no legs (or feet for that matter). 6) Even if there was a prohibition on canvassing, some issues and conversations are more important than rules except to users like Collect. and lastly 6) A quote by Jimbo regarding canvassing in general...

"...almost every time WP:CANVASS is cited, the person citing it is in the wrong. [It is] used to shut down discussion. [It] s used to suggest that you shouldn't talk to people who you agree with." - J. Wales

I do commend User:Suarez for his good faith effort to be an intemediary. He should know, however, that interaction between myself and Collect is non-existent.```Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I make no effort whatsoever to deliberately "interact" with you, but, like any editor, when a post is made on a noticeboard I am able to make an absolutely non-personal reply. I maintain no "enemies list" of any sort, and think that folks who do so are a great problem on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Collect's block log shows that they sometimes use Wikipedia as a political battlefield. Your best bet is to ignore them when they engage in that sort of activity. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo knows all about me - and the fact that my problems arose from not thinking (inter alia) that calling Joe the Plumber a "Plumber's Ass" was proper in a BLP. You should also note that none of my edits have been "political" although 14 CANVASSED editors, including some socks now blocked, sought to have me banned in an RFC/U. Cheers - now try to avoid the inane trap of attacking the messenger. Collect (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Easier said than done. Their talk edits are constant efforts to send any discussion down a lonely country road where it eventually runs into a cornfield and stops. Finding the Interstate after that can be a mayor drawback and time-waster plus many editors are enjoying themselves in the middle of the cornfield. Getting them back on the road is near impossible. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers - when in doubt attack - right? I fear you should hope that editors do not look at your edit history attacking me on many other pages, and then saying you want to avoid contact with me <g>. Your credibility is zero on this IMHO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"1) Jimbo has made it clear that it is not considered canvasing if an editor informs other editors of an on-going conversation HERE at Jimbo's talk page." Not really, no. He has made it lcear that he doesn't consider it canvassing. That doesn't mean that it isn't canvassing. This is similar to when he proclailms that "I'm sure it will attract new editors. Not the kind we want, though." (higher up, about the South Park episode at the main page). He doesn't want that kind of editors (whatever kind that is supposed to be, teenagers? geeks? Animation lovers? Open-minded people?), other editors have a different opinion. Please take his word as his opinion, not as policy (the same applies to mine of course...) Fram (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

Donkey punch animation -- educational or not?

Is this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rick_santorum_caricature_satire_made_with_frothy_santorum_pic_1.jpg really what we want on this project? IsThisReallyWhatWeWant? (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Attack pages on Commons are already subject to speedy deletion, under Commons:COM:CSD G3, but I have created Commons essay page "Commons:COM:Attack page" (there as COM:ATTACK) as similar to the enwiki policy WP:ATTACK. I guess Commons tends to have fewer policy pages than enwiki, but COM:ATTACK is an issue that needs to be emphasized to remind people of the speedy deletions which can be done there. -Wikid77 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What about File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif by "User:Flyingfeck"? My wife somehow discovered this one through a comment about Wikipedia on dlisted, where someone expressed his sentiments as follows:

    "The wiki on "donkey punch" even has a helpful animated gif demonstrating exactly how a man can hurt a woman even more than raping her up the ass already does. Way to inspire criminals, Wikipedia. I hope your ass gets sued. Women: men hate you."

  • It should be noted that this sorry animation of a man punching a woman in the neck during anal intercourse was viewed 381,250 times during the last 30 days.
  • Is this what this project is about? Jimbo, do you not sometimes feel that the inmates have taken over the asylum? Because I sure do. What real-world reliable source would feature an image or animation like that? --JN466 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There was a deletion discussion about the donkey punch image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TTSGA.gif and it was kept due to it being in use on the Spanish Wikipedia and how it is not censored. However, it is that users only upload on the Commons and I am not sure if others have been deleted before due to copyright issues or anything else. I am keeping an eye on the Santorum images but speaking as a Commonist, Commons:COM:Attack page generally has been what we considered at en.wp (we never wrote down the policy since anything that looks or smells like an article is deleted on sight) and vandalism images generally are reverted/deleted under that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I remain baffled that Commons allows brand new users to upload pornographic images without any issues at all. It is blatantly obvious that a majority of these images are copyright violations. --Conti|✉ 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • There is another deletion discussion now, initiated by John Vandenberg: [4]. I hope Jimbo will forgive me if I display this image, thought to be educational by some editors in Commons, and not educational by others, here on his talk page; having more eyes on it may help to establish a more solid consensus. --JN466 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • There is now also edit-warring about the image in the article: "restore image - it makes sense to have it here" by User:Mattbuck, "Wikipedia is not censoroed" [sic] by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Again, I apologise for bringing this up on your talk page, Jimbo, but this has recently been one of Wikipedia's most-viewed articles, with nearly 400,000 views this past month. --JN466 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

          Oh please, I re-added an image which I felt had useful value and you declare it's an edit war. The cycle is meant to be "bold, revert, discuss" - you were bold, I reverted, you should discuss instead of just removing it again. As for the issue of "a man can hurt a woman even more than raping her up the ass already does" - first off, that's an assumption that it's rape, some people find anal sex to be pleasurable and so do it willingly; second, yes, it's an animation of an act of violence - read the WP:DISCLAIMER. In short, it says "we have stuff which may offend you, deal with it". As long as there is educational value in its presence it should be there. I am sick and tired of the fact that sexual stuff is held to a much higher standard than anything else here - "oh no, this image can't be educational, it's got a penis!" or "no need to show this, it's in the text". If we went on that basis, we first off would need to remove all maps (why do we need a map when we have coordinates?), then probably all buildings (it's a 100 storey building with a spike on the top, the text says that so we don't need an image), certainly all images of South Park characters (looks like made of paper, coloured bits, hairstyle, that's all in text so no need for an illustration). We illustrate articles because it helps with understanding - it doesn't matter what article, all articles are improved with illustration. People just get the idea better when there are pictures.

          As for you Conti, if you see an image which you think is a copyvio, flag it for deletion. But we will not say "you can't upload nudity or sexuality images until you've been on Commons X months". Why should we? As long as it's educational and freely licensed, it's fine. Maybe someone's first upload is of a sexual act, so what? Mine was probably a photo of a train. We all have different interests, and those drive what we upload. If someone told me "no, you can't upload any trains until you've been on Commons for 6 months" I just wouldn't have bothered and would just have given up. Stop trying to drag totally unrelated issues in here to muddy the waters. Copyvios are bad, but a copyvio of nudity is no worse than a copyvio of a celebrity or of a train. If you want to help, tag them for deletion instead of complaining. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

          • People just get the idea better when there are pictures: In this case, they get entirely the wrong idea from the picture, as the cited sources (Dan Savage, no less, responding, you guessed it, to a question from Wikipedia editors ... haha [5]) describe this supposed sexual act as an urban legend dating back to 2004 or thereabouts, roughly the time when this article first appeared in Wikipedia, and existing merely in the imagination of sexually clueless adolescents[6], rather than as a genuine part of human sexual behaviour. I am sick and tired too, of having sexual stuff held to a lower standard than anything else here by the likes of you, with a rationale that to me always sounds a bit like it's really saying: "Ooh, this image has sexual content, which means it's educational to me because I know fuck all about sex, having mostly just read about it and watched porn! Never mind that it contradicts the text, looks like it's been drawn by a 16-year-old, misleads the reader, makes Wikipedia look like it's written by a bunch of puerile and profoundly pathetic wankers rather than anyone with a shred of real-world educational expertise, is unprecedented in reliable published sources, pushes a POV, and carries a small but greater than zero chance that the "education" millions (literally!) of readers get here leads to someone ending up paralysed for no good reason whatsoever – lul". As long as we can show off that Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, eh? So, what educational idea exactly is it that's being "gotten" by looking at this image? What one would have to do to break a woman's neck while having sex? Could you point me to any reputable work on educational psychology that recommends the inclusion of sexually violent cartoons in contexts like the present one? --JN466 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

          • • I think you pretty much scuppered any claim to a valid argument there, sadly :S I've never been a fan of the abuse of "not censored", but in this case it seems fine. The concern that "someone might copy this and break another individuals neck" is exactly the situation it was written for :) Ok so it's a fictional sexual act, but I struggle to see how that precludes having an image depicting the fictional thing. I mean, you know, Middle Earth is fictional, but we have a map of it. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
              • We have a map of Middle Earth because reputable secondary sources feature maps of it. We are following the model of sources. However, when it comes to sexual matters, everyone pretends to be some kind of expert, and makes things up as they go along. The result is that our sex education doesn't much look like any published sex education I have seen in encyclopedias or other educational sources. If reputable secondary sources don't show violent sexual cartoons of this type, please explain to me on what grounds should we? (Btw, I would bet that the number of people who have seen and remember the animation outstrips the number of people who have read and remember the text by some considerable margin, just as more people will remember the image from having seen it here on this talk page than will read or remember this post. While the article's text is – now – suitably cautionary in the way you describe, the image is clearly not.) --JN466 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The OR argument is not unreasonable; although in this case the act is so simple in description that I don't see it as an issue. As to your latter argument; I have a passing interest in books on old houses. Quite often they are described in detail, but no floor plans are drawn. On Wikipedia, however, you will very often find a carefully drawn floor plan. As far as I can read you, and most of the other, objections to this image centre around the violence, or some non-specific potential for harm. This is what our Not Censored policy is written to address. You may find the topic peurile, but that is irrelevant. You call this article "sex education", I don't think it falls in that category at all - if anything it is pop culture or something along those lines. And to answer your question; because we can. that's not to say the image is of good quality, it isn't --Errant ^(chat!) 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your newly added comment that I edit conflicted with is confusing me because, if we take it as true, that is an excellent argument in support of the illustration of the topic. As to "cautionary", be very careful. We are not supposed to sit here and pass out disclaimers :) Reliable sources highlight the dangers, so should we with due weight. Your concern boils down to "someone might copy the image". Well, if they do they are clearly an idiot and I seriously doubt that the existence, or not, of an illustration is going to change that. This being the crux of "not censored". --Errant ^(chat!) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

JN, please try and avoid the personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The main page and good taste

Within the past few months, both The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (today's featured article) have appeared on the main page. In my view, these sorts of choices make Wikipedia look like it is run by a bunch of obnoxious teenage boys. I think the Main Page should be curated to put our best foot forward to readers of all backgrounds, and that not everything that becomes a featured article is necessarily a good choice for the Main Page. (And to the extent that evolution/Islam/whatever could also be controversial, I say give me a break/use common sense/educational value trumps controversy.) Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and rather than focussing on these examples, I'm more interested to know what is wrong with the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Main Page should match readership: I wish the process were more responsive to our readers, such as instead of promoting "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" why not balance (and protect) an article of Captain "Francesco Schettino" (of similar pageviews) with whatever WP:RS sources can be found to state he had been captain of the Costa Concordia since the maiden voyage in 2006, and could he face "2,500 years" in prison or can we get a better legal source? However, why not promote articles about novel The Hunger Games, which readers have viewed 40,000 times per day in January, as 151x times more than the Cartman episode. Even the film article "The Hunger Games (film)" had 14,100 daily pageviews, before the upcoming March release. I am not saying the Main Page should be all news, but just match the recent readership trends even more. -Wikid77 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While some caution about an "anal probe" cartoon on the main page is sensible, the previous section (#Seriously?) is far more concerning, although I could understand a reluctance to engage the Commons crowd. The main page featured article is fine, and including it on the main page is a reasonable acknowledgment of the broad range of material on Wikipedia, and the broad range of interests among readers. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not the most pressing concern. However, it is a result of the drop in regular editors? If the only articles being worked on to a great degree are films, cartoons and the like, we're going to have more of this, not less. We need to get more editors back on a regular basis working on more suitable topics. doktorb _words^deeds 10:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED - end of discussion. GiantSnowman 12:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the worst argument I've seen on my talk page in the past few months.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Lets face the facts here. Virtually nobody complaining about this article have actually read it. They simply got offended by the words "anal probe" and flipped out. This is a classic case of "don't highlight words/speech I don't like". Resolute 14:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description. You know what? I fucking love motherfucking South Park. I think that episode in particular is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I'm not even remotely offended by it. And I think it's a really really lame thing to put on the front page of Wikipedia. From the very beginning, people who are objecting to this have said that they aren't talking about censorship. When people parrot "WP:NOTCENSORED" as if it means something in every possible context, they prevent themselves from hearing what is really being said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time a South Park episode as run as TFA, so it is not the show itself that is the problem. When I read the TFA blurb today, I don't see anything that would particularly upset anyone, save the words "anal probe". Change it to "Cartman gets a kitten", and I doubt you see even a single complaint. Putting that aside, however, what is it about this selection that makes it "lame"? Resolute 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's "lame" about it? That's it's low culture? That's nothing but snobbery. We need to reflect as much knowledge as possible - and yes, that will include TV shows and naughty things and even, shock horror, a combination of the two as we have here. GiantSnowman 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Jimbo, judging by many of the opposing comments at the Talk:Main Page it is a censorship issue. People are saying it shouldn't be there because it's potentially offensive and that kids might read it. What are those if not pro-censorship arguments? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are arguments about editorial judgment, not censorship. Confusing the two is seldom a good idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"kids might read it" is an editorial judgement? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point ASCIIn2Bme, I'd also like to point out that anticipating the potential that this could be offensive doesn't take a rocket scientist either. Simply refer to the lead of the article itself where it states in clear FA prose: "South Park is deliberately offensive." The point is, it's poor editorial judgement to be deliberately offensive. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"This is a failed proposal." That's from POLA. Citing it as a policy won't help the argument. It is an issue of censorship, some things are shocking to some people, and those people shouldn't use Internet, must less go on any wiki where people are told to be bold about additions and development of the project. MW projects have already bent over backwards enough to accommodate every possible state organisation which doesn't like something, if we will start caving in to "somebody think of the children" crowd we might as well close the project. VolodyA! V Anarhist User:Beta_M (converse) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not the kind we want"

Jimbo, am I nuts here or is this argument ridiculous? I know your role here is not that of an admin but your opinion is important. Would you mind weighing in? If this is canvassing or severely in the wrong here I'll accept the block, I think this is an emergency. N^oformation ^Talk 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me find where the original discussion of this article going on the main page was held?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See Today's featured article. "The articles appearing on the main page are scheduled by Raul654, who was ratified in 2004 as featured article director, or his delegate Dabomb87". This article was listed inclusion for all to see on 26 January. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: doktorb's concern: isn't a demonstration that Wikipedia (where appropriate) can educate and inform about popular culture in fact likely to attract new editors? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it will attract new editors. Not the kind we want, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say "not the kind [of editors] we want", do you refer to vandals or people interested (in good faith) in creating articles relating to "low culture" (as some might see the South Park article)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) When you say "not the kind we want", do you mean those who may be interested in reading or writing high quality, balanced, professional-standard articles about pop culture for this encyclopedia, or do you mean some other category of editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So much for "the encyclopedia anybody can edit. Sounds like the tagline should become "the encyclopedia only the editors who are welcome can edit". Perhaps it's about time inroads into getting experts here instead of making them unwelcome by Randy from Boise. It's no wonder prospective editors are confused as to whether or not they should be editing. If Wikipedia were silver it would be so very, very tarnished. :The Hedonist (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For Jimbo, re "not the kind we want". It seems to me that your statement is in direct contrast to student recruiting efforts made by the WMF, via the WP:USEP, particularly in light of User:Wadewitz's statement about this article that she wrote and her university students. If you're not aware, Wadewitz was formerly Awadewit, she's a professor and English PhD, and if you attend Wikimania events, you may know her personally. Perhaps you can explain to her, in light of her comment, why we don't want her students, at the same time you can help me understand why WMF wants to recruit students to butcher medical articles? If we don't want Awadewit's literature students and the topics that interest them, why is it that we want psych students making poor edits and spreading inaccurate medical information (a problem that is huge on Wikipedia now because of WMF initiatives like USEP)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that the WMF has been sending out mixed signals for quite a while now. They would like to have a free labor force that produces the encyclopedia they (the WMF) think would attract most donations by appealing to the largest audience including avoiding as much as possible anything remotely controversial. Alas, many editors who are willing to volunteer their time do so because they care deeply about some topic area, and might also be EFF fans rather WSJ-types who expect monetary compensation for their 100% mainstream, customer-driven, businesslike endeavors. Quick test: how many of the FAs on Business and Economics topics would be core topics at a university? I see mostly oddities there: [7]. TANSTAAFL. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

it's an emergency? Ok, my first response when I saw the article was, "Wow, I wasn't expecting to see anal proble on the main page." My second response was, "Ok, it's not what I expected to see, but there are other issues that others do not expect to see." I mean seriously, it's gonna be there for a day... less than that now. Next week we might have an article on a serial killer, the week after that a controversial author, the week after that a saint. Are some offended? Yeah, but guess what we can't stop somebody from being offended. If we limited it to only articles that were devoid of being able to offend, then we'd be in serious trouble.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Jimbo, now the dust has settled, could you respond the queries please, in particular with reference to your "not the kind we want" statement? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Both cited works are essentially forms of trolling. They might be entertaining to some people, but probably they are not really good choices for the main page. We should feature topics of broad interest. A topic that 50% of people like, and 50% of people find offensive is probably not a good candidate for the home page. There is also a question of giving undue weight to pop culture in general and troll memes in specific. Probably there should be a discussion around main page content policy and setting some targets for how often (if ever) we want to feature troll memes, and how often we want to feature pop culture. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

These are good points, and it's good to see sensible comments regarding this issue. Nevertheless, how many articles like the cartoon appear on the main page in a year? Wikipedia is a sitting duck for puerility, but a small amount of dubious material is surely not a problem? A case could be made that the anal probe cartoon provides a service to society by mocking the "I was abducted by aliens" crowd, although some find the treatment puerile and offensive. However, Southpark is seen in many countries of the world, so a brief exposure on the main page seems due. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't really answer the question, and I wanted to hear from Jimbo directly. We have a top-notch featured article which is very well written about a niche subject and Jimbo says it will attract editors of the "not the kind we want" type. I want to understand what type of editors Jimbo does want here – ones that just write the traditional paper encyclopaedia articles or ones that embrace all manner of genres? Perhaps I've missed the point of this encyclopaedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Puerility

Puerility is a substantial problem on Wikipedia. And this is yet more evidence thereof. Collect (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia has broad coverage, including popular culture. South Park is a significant cultural influence. Of course, we should not only have articles on such topics, but looking at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2012, I see three historical biographies, one geography article, one astronomy article, one sports article, one historical article, and two that are popular culture (Cartman and a computer game article) . Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2012 seems to have an even more "traditional" mix. If we have a bias, it's towards dead white males, not towards "puerile" pop-culture articles. "A few months" gives us room for ~100-200 featured articles, and any reasonably diverse mix will have a few article someone finds objectionable. WP:NOTCENSORED is indeed a concern here. If it has to have any value, it has to mean that we do not only tolerate a wide variety of topics, but we give it adequate prominence, too. "No, gays are not banned from the pub. They can go and into the small dark room in the basement to drink their beer." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the article, as a whole, is notable as the pilot to the entire series (award-winning, watched by kids [hopefully in its censored version] and adults alone), and is well-descriptive of the subject. The show is a mockery of so many things in "human life", that it actually has "lessons" applicable to kids, adults, etc - if you choose to hear them. Yes, South Park has occasionally run afoul of the censors ... and to be honest, I would rather see Janet Jackson's boob on TV than Cartman. However, Janet's boob was an international TV incident; South Park is just TV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Janet was two incidents - one in the US, where the prudes slow-motioned every square millimeter of breast forwards and back to extract the maximum amount of righteous titillationindignation, and a separate one in the rest of the world, commenting on the weirdness of the US reaction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, Stefan I respect your intelligence, but not, I beg you, another Americans are all prudes statement. I'm from LA, California (home of the rich, flashy movie star) and if you happened to encounter me when I'm in a good humour my vocabulary would likely shock you as it typically does all the sophisticated Europeans who are lucky enough to receive an earful. When I'm in a foul mood....ah, better not get into that. I will say, however, that in many countries where a tiresome procession of bare titties, pubic hair, and floppy cocks regularly appear on television screens, you will often find that women and gays experience a higher rate of repression and physical violence than in puritan USA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that Americans are all prudes, only that the Superbowl incident was lovingly expatiated by (some) American prudes. No comment on the second half of your statement - I've not looked at any such studies, and I suspect there are more complex connections than a simple correlation of bare skin on TV and bigoted behavior on the street. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the Superbowl and the curious things people overreact to, this image is oddly appropriate right now. (Parental advisory: Image is M.I.A. related) Resolute 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Was the statement that "South Park is a significant cultural influence" meant to disprove Collect's statement that "Puerility is a substantial problem on Wikipedia"? --JN466 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not censored

I am going to stay out of debating whether it was sensible to mainpage this particular article, but I will point out that treating "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the be-all and end-all of a discussion on the issue, as a couple of commenters in this thread have done, is very poor reasoning. As I observed in a recent arbitration decision:

"The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content.... A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe y'all who dislike Cartman and his anal probe could work on a more serious and academic topic, such as anal cancer, and get that featured on the main page. The featured article coordinator needs material to work with: every featured article gets it's day in the sunshine. Generate other types of featured articles if you don't like South Park. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's anal, eh? --JN466 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians are famously anal retentive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

... and I have reviewed enough unblock requests that forcefully suggest that Admins are "assholes", so, meh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

TFAR is that-a-way

• Focusing on the Main Page selection process: Should the process be changed to link more articles which better reflect the pageviews of the readership, rather than whatever article has been made ready at the time? As I note above, interest in "The Hunger Games" has been very high. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, as always on Wikipedia, talk is cheap, and facts are in short supply. WP:TFA/R is where mainpage TFA requests are made. Raul set it up and turned it over to the community, and has given increasingly greater control to the community in choosing TFAs. What has the community done with that increasing responsibility? Ignored it, misused it, not updated it, not cared, not submitted requests, not looked at the page, not followed instructions, you name it. Oh yes, complaining on the mainpage is more fun that actually going over there and lodging a request, or helping keep the page updated. What do you mean, Wikid, "should the process be changed"? How about, "should those editors lodging complaints start actually using the process"? If no request is made, Raul chooses. Most dates are never requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the last controversial mainpage FA (Human Caterpillar) was closed with a comment that future potentially offensive choices should/would be called to the attention of the broader community besides TFA/R before appearing (don't remember what the link is, but it's resurfaced somewhere in the south park-related discussions - can someone find it?). Clearly this was not done. I'm not sure where the process failure was. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no process failure. There is an entire community that doesn't avail itself of the page where TFA requests are made, and then whines after doing nothing to help in the choices. And you assume that The Human Centipede equates to SouthPark? Those are individual standards. It's also astounding that one of Wikipedia's finest literature editors is the person with the most edits to that article, and she is being so disrespected in these discussions. Anyone aware of how much Wadewitz (talk · contribs) has done on the Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Most editors do not have time to watch every process page in the entire encyclopedia. How is it so outrageous to request that potentially problematic choices be more widely publicized? I even had watchlisted TFA/R, but I ended up unwatching it as it was generally quiet and I believed--given the outcome of the Human Centipede discussion--that I would come across any other potentially problematic articles in another forum. I also did not say this article and Human Centipede were equivalent. I think that Human Centipede was a worse choice, but it's pretty common-sense that anything involving an "ass probe" might cause trouble. (And I have said absolutely nothing with regard to the quality of the article itself, so I don't know how I could have maligned its principal editor. I'm just saying that not all articles are necessarily appropriate choices for the main page--wholly apart from their intrinsic quality in terms of the featured article criteria. The editor is totally irrelevant to this discussion.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently your "common sense" is at odds with A Wadewitz's PhD in literature, and her contributions to the Project, not limited to mulitple literature FAs. Go figure! Some "pop culture" debacle, huh? Awadewit has written more than 30 FAs, but because some editors can't be bothered to avail themselves of the page where TFAs are chosen, we're not supposed to highlight her work because some parents who don't supervise the time their children spend on the internet might be offended, when this Project hosts massive amounts of porn that is offensive to even adults? Please, perspective. Any parent whose child is on Wikipedia needs a talking-to by an adult. Cartman is not offensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia nobody wants to disrespect Wadewitz or you or any of the other editors who do all this fine work. All we're asking is that if there's an article that's portentially problematical or controversial could we please have a well-advertised RfC on it before it appears on the main page?

I understand that you are feeling defensive right now and that's understandable, but I'd like to get clear answer to this is question: in future, before a potentially problematical article is made the main page featured article, will we first have a well-advertised RfC, or not?. A simple Yes or No will clarify. Which is it, Yes or No? Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Defensive? Please explain; what connection have I to TFA? (Hint: none.) "Potentially problematical article" defined by whom? You? I never would have known that Cartman might offend, so who is going to call for that RFC? My example of what I consider the most disgusting article we ever put on the mainpage was when we ran a missing/dead girl's article on her birthday, containing unnecessary offensive remarks about her mother (the main author said he would change the date away from her birthday, I backed down, then he didn't change the date-- in my version, TFA was tricked-- the author disagrees, but I digress). IMO, it was tasteless to do that to the girl's mother on her missing/dead daughter's 21st birthday. Far more tasteless than anything related to SouthPark. Sure, you want an RFC on something that every editor is offended by, good luck defining that, since everyone's level of offense is different, and that dead girl's article would have been included according to my judgment, and many other editors I know. Who draws the line? Who makes the call? Who asks for the RFC? Who knows what will offend you, me, or the next guy? Particularly when the community has a forum for choosing TFAs (WP:TFAR) which it ignores in droves.

Furthermore, Cartman was scheduled on Jan 26-- folks had almost a full two weeks to speak up if they had an issue! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Editor says "potentially problematical article" - - - > it clearly translates as "I think this article is offensive to someone" - - - > editor is pointed to WP:NOTCENSORED. If people want wikipedia to censor offensive content, they have to start by changing basic policy.

Also, what Newyorkbrad and Jehochman say in the previous section. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating good taste with censorship. It is poor taste, I think, speaking as someone who's only read the lede, to put The Human Centipede (First Sequence) on the front page. Avoiding that sort of thing is not censorship. It is good taste. WP:NOTCENSORED does not compel us to abandon good taste.

There is nothing wrong with Cartman Gets an Anal Probe appearing on the main page. It is an excellent account of an important cultural event, and I congratulate those responsible. As for the suggestion that controversial articles should go through RfC before appearing on the main page, no. I see no evidence of a systemic problem; and without such evidence this would be an insult to the hard-working editors at WP:TFA/R. If you think your view isn't being represented in the choices made there, put it on your watchlist. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to note, just for the discussion about process, that this was never listed at TFA/R. (It was simply scheduled.) The only way anyone interested would have seen this would be to monitor every upcoming FA blurb. In my view, it would be a big improvement if this were more transparent and centralized (if there is a page that just lists all the schedulings/proposals in one place as they occur, please let me know and I will watchlist it). And I don't think that a full-blown RFC for every single thing like this is necessarily called for, but it would be nice for there to be the possibility of discussion before it's already TFA and a foregone conclusion because it's not bad enough to pull. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have opined elsewhere: I support having these articles on the main page. Regardless of the vulgarity of the topics, they are there because they're examples of our finest work. The very concept of a "featured" article which can never actually be featured would undercut the incentives that support the improvement of these articles. Moreover, I believe popular culture topics like these are just as important and relevant to society as more traditional academic topics, often having a remarkably widespread influence on politics and the arts; Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, for example, launched a series that redefined adult animated programming and has been in the news dozens of times. Dcoetzee 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While the "vote" is currently running about 10 to 1 against a shake-up of the current Today's Featured Article selection process, today we've had two FAs on the Main Page, the first one partly plagiarized and the second one with dead links. This after Tuesday's "anal probe" article was selected without any prior input from the community re its suitability for the Main Page. Why so many are interested in preserving the selection prerogatives of someone who within the past week accused Wiki bureaucrat Matthew Bisanz of being a party to some sort of ArbCom conspiracy is unclear to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And the person believed responsible for that plagiarism is part of that "1". Just sayin'. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I second SandyGeorgia here. I was going to propose something like TFAR in that vote ... until I found out it exists! Maybe what you need to publicize isn't "controversial" articles, but TFAR? What that last comment demonstrates is that there are worse things we can have on Wikipedia than the (horrors!) titles of cable TV shows. It is true that NOTCENSORED doesn't apply when editors freely make decisions of taste among worthy candidates to showcase on the Main Page; people have the right to prefer whatever article they want for TFA according to their own aesthetic choices and values. (Much as racial and religious civil rights don't protect Presidential candidates) But I truly hope that the overall balance of editors will favor a Wikipedia that is not ashamed of the common man and his entertainments. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the entertainments of the "common man" of wikipedia doesn't match those of the common (hu)man of the rest of the world. Consider that perhaps the percentage of the worlds population that finds Cartman's anal probes to be entertaining may no be as great as that topics representation on wikipedia suggests. The frontpage is for the world - not just for wikipedia editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas we have no way of knowing what "the world" thinks of this TFA choice unless the WMF conducts a proper readership survey. What we do know is that some editors think the BSA standards should apply to Wikipedia. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Extending the principle of BLPPROD

As we approach the second anniversary of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people coming into force, I wonder whether the time is right to extend that principle to all newly created articles (perhaps those created after 18 March 2012)?

While not the intuitive follow-up to BLPPROD, I still routinely see unreferenced articles created that have something to do with living people, 1982–83 Watford F.C. season being one example from the football world. There's nothing harmful about that particular article given its lack of development, but the fact is that unsourced articles focussing on the successes and failures of living people continue to be created. Other examples include lists of people, and sub-articles of individual living people.

By requiring all articles to contain some sort of sourcing, we would be accelerating Wikipedia's cultural shift towards a greater emphasis on verifiability. It would also be a beneficial precursor to further action on BLPs, as the higher a baseline we start with on all articles, the less onerous it seems to go a little bit further for living people.

Thanks for reading, —WFC— 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea, though we might need to organize things more and take our time with this. We don't want to move too quickly and end up tipping the boat. Silverseren^C 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that, given the huge numbers involved, that we start at the "most read" and "longest" and not worry about deleting tens of thousands of unread stubs at the start. And not just for "new" articles - we have a good number of horrendous ones still around. A long article which has "too few" references may well be far worse for Wikipedia than a stub with none. As a mechanical exercise (triage), I would suggest that we start with articles with more than 200 readers per month, where there are fewer than 1 reference per 5000 characters -- this should get the worst ones into focus, I trust. Articles read under 100 times per month may be bad - but we should prioritize the ones which are most harmful first. Collect (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the most harmful ones are established articles that a lot of people are reading. But if you first ensure that the number of unsourced articles is not growing, it becomes easier to chip away at the historical legacy. —WFC— 13:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A large number of "new articles" are caught rapidly now - and a tiny number of them are ever likely to be widely-read -- I think seeing how many of the older ones need repair is a sound first step. which would not mean such a requirement for new articles might not be adopted as well in due course. `Collect (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion (although I do question the assertion that the flow is subsiding). But when you've got a leak the first step is almost always to stop it at source, regardless of how bad the flood already is. Besides, in the short term it's likely that the community would agree to prevent new unsourced articles, quite doubtful whether it would agree to delete existing ones. —WFC— 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As an example, I don't agree to delete existing ones. Organize another editing drive, like the Unreferenced BLP one, that went well enough. Maybe focus on certain individual sections at a time though, because otherwise people will get discouraged when it seems they aren't making a dent.

But I don't think we need to deal with the old ones right now. Stopping any new ones coming in is a better first step and it will force people to actually write better articles before submitting them. Silverseren^C 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that such under-referenced (positing that one reference per eight hundred words qualifies as "under-referenced") articles are good for Wikipedia? The solution is simple - add references and delete excess baggage in the article. No need to "delete the article" is given - unless people do not wish to trim the article or to reference its claims. Meanwhile, let's see if we can get a rough count of how many articles are affected. Collect (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I see & delete, most new unreferenced articles are deleted via speedy or prod on other grounds. Some that could be so deleted get missed, but that's due the the known inefficiency of New Page patrol, which is a larger and more general problem. Some of course, just need to be referenced. I think they are, usually. I don't think we would gain anything by automatically deleting them except discourage the people who didn't know to add the references quickly enough. As for the old unreferenced articles, they need to be dealt with; I'm not convinced they necessarily pose more problems that the old referenced articles, many of which are inadequate by current standards, or have outdated information. We need a systematic way of reviewing everything once in a while, but I do not see how our basic dependence of volunteers will permit this unless we successfully encourage a large number of new people to become active. Attracting editors is the basic solution to most --or perhaps all--of our problems. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There were several big flaws in the BLPprod system and even more so in the out of process deletion spree that preceded it. Most seriously it was driven by people issuing ultimata and being prepared to ignore consensus, and as a result we wound up biting lots of newbies and other editors and prioritising some relatively low risk areas of the pedia. If we were to make another concerted drive to improve quality in a particular area I would suggest that we start by identifying an area where quality is demonstrably low and/or risk demonstrably high. The Death anomalies project managed that - we identified over 600 articles where people were alive on EN and dead on other wikis. This was a high risk identified group and without the need for any policy changes we got it fixed. I would suggest to those who want a similar quality improvement drive that they start by identifying a group of problematic articles and then publicise that. We have lots of unreferenced and poorly referenced articles, the vast majority of which turn out to be accurate if checked. Identify a subset of our most problematic articles and people will come help fix them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced data, even unsourced articles, are not necessarily bad - they're the forerunner of greater knowledge. Wikipedia readers really should know that you need to know the source to evaluate the claim made. And if they don't know, then tell them with a template about an unsourced article - don't just delete it because you think there's a "risk" of misinformation. Wnt (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh -- "Unsourcedopedia" has an interesting air. Alas - that does not seem to be found in any policies I have found. Collect (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well current policy is verifiable not verified. That said I think I'm seeing an increasing tendency for editors to revert unsourced additions rather than {{fact}} tag them. My preference would be for us to raise standards in the opposite manner and change the user interface so that editors are prompted for the source of any fact that they add to the pedia. Better in my view to train newbies to edit to a higher standard than the minimum we expect, rather than the current IMHO very unprofessional newbie biting mess whereby we don't require every addition to be sourced, but in practice a large proportion of unsourced additions will be summarily reverted. ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In a great many cases, the "facts" are blatant "opinions" for which a cn tag or fact tag is nigh useless. And I have often spoken against "biting newbies" on XfD discussions. What I do dispute is that "unsourced articles ... (are) the forerunner of greater knowledge" which I regard as quite unsupportable. Collect (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More Toolserver trouble

Toolserver is a vital but unreliable resource. In the annals of its mixed blessings, today User:Soxred93's Toolserve account expired. His webpage says he's retired. The loss over his tools is already being felt: User_talk:X!#Soxred93_Toolserver_tools. Among the excellent gizmos that are now unreachable: Edit Count (with the pretty pie graph and month-by-month, top articles breakdown), Edit Summaries (which tells you when you've been naughty), WikiBlame (which tells you who wrote what), and Pages Created (which tells you all the articles you started) . I don't mean to be apoplectic, but this is a travesty! And an indication of why the foundation needs to move fast towards integrating the toolserver into our ecosystem. Wikipedians do not live by NPOV and whiskey alone: we need our tools! What can be done?? --Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tools gone as feared: It was just a matter of time before tools based on a single user account would no longer work. Prior problems with access were a big hint, but at least many people suspected this day would come, and the edit-counter would be gone. Currently, it gives a "403" error:

• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=xxx&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

That link to the toolserver edit-counter has been showing "403: User account expired" so another edit-count tool will be needed. Fortunately, many other editors also feared the loss of these tools, so for several months, people have been thinking what could be done instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Other edit-counters to use: It did not take other editors long to identify several other edit-counter tools.

• Edit-counts for all-language WPs: The SUL tool "sulinfo" still works, and shows the edit-counts for all WP languages, including for enwiki:

Try: http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Axx

That shows the totals, of each language WP, for username "Axx".

• Edit-count for enwiki but no charts: For the English Wikipedia counts:

Try: http://toolserver.org/~River/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Axx&dbname=enwiki_p

For username "Axx" gives total and article/talk counts.

• Edit-counter pie chart for self use: The WikiChecker works for a user's own username:

Try: http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Axx

For username "Axx" it gives a time graph and pie chart for recent 500 enwiki edits.

There has been talk of other edit-counter tools as well, see discussion: WP:Village_pump_(technical)#"Edit count" and "Articles created" links. -Wikid77 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikid77 - relax, folks are on it. It's been noticed and it can be resolved without petitioning Jimbo to save the day. Every heard of 'start at the lowest level'?--v/r - TP 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking templates

Hi Jimmy, re: this edit summary: you should use the {{Xfd-privacy}} template when courtesy blanking deletion discussions, and the {{Courtesy blanked}} template in all other cases. Both of those templates should be substed to make it harder for users to find a list of courtesy blanked pages by using the "what links here" feature. While researching the answer to this question, I noticed that the documentation for the Xfd-privacy template was missing because the template had recently been moved to its current title and its documentation subpage had been left behind; I've just restored and updated the docs for the template. Graham87 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham! I think it is a shame that such things are so complicated. Why should someone who wants to courtesy blank an insulting page need to know all that? I think it should be foremost on our minds how to reduce such complexity. It's very hard for new editors to learn what they need to know. (I'm not exactly a new editor, I think I may have invented the term 'courtesy blanking' years ago, and I didn't know what to do!) What value does the template bring? Is there any other way to achieve that goal, and is that goal really worth achieving at the price of complexity? (In case it isn't clear, I'm not blaming you or anyone in particular. I just think we've gone off the rails on procedures in the past few years.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Courtesy blanked}} provides a handy link to the courtesy blanking policy, and {{Xfd-privacy}} effectively blanks a deletion discussion while still leaving it in a standard format (perhaps so it is still machine-readable?) I think that it's important to provide a link to the courtesy blanking policy, but TBH I'm not sure how important the standard format of the Xfd-privacy template actually is. On the other hand, there's no reason why an editor can't just adapt the text of these templates (or just write their own straight text) for the same purposes. But I agree with you about the overcomplexity of the whole thing ... how is a new user supposed to know that we even use the term "courtesy blanking" for this process? There aren't any readily available examples for new users to follow (and that would be absurd, by the very nature of the issues at play here). If they try to outright blank a page, they'll probably be quickly reverted and warned for vandalism. Graham87 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. In my fantasies for the future, I imagine that the MediaWiki software could notice when someone blanks a page and stop them and say "Oh, hey, wow, you're trying to blank all or most of this page! That is sometimes an ok thing to do, but let me help you decide if it's a good idea."

And then a simple set of options is given, one of which is: "This page says something about me that hurts my feelings", and if you click that one, you go to a further part of the wizard that lets you make other choices so you can get the right help, or not, depending on the specifics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

Since every Wikipedian learns the basic edit page when they first start editing here (especially its subsection on avoiding to remove likely true and especially sourced content!), it's apparent that a very active Wikipedian exists who has never heard of George Romney nor even his son Mitt Romney. Well, either that--or, the only other logical option avialable: the editor in question is currently engaging in some kind of pointyness? Viz., Collect--who, I see, is one of your talkpage regulars!--over at the Romney family (US) page (diff), in an open-and-shut case of the removal of sourced content, two identical citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story at the same time that deleted the list article's entries for George Romney and Mitt Romney. (Note that even without this citation, the article had a dozen references making refernce to one or the other, from up in the article's lede section.) I don't know if the editor thought that the article wasn't of value because the version that he removed had been published at Fox News or what. But, the point is, even if there weren't already a boatload of refernces to George and/or Mitt in the sourcing, everybody knows that the most notable members of the Romney family nowadays are George and Mitt.

I don't know if the fact that an election is going on is a contributing factor to this or not. Newt writes alternative histories. Here's one. Say that Hatch's proposed US Constintutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president had already passed and Arnold Schwarzenegger were running for prez. Would user:Collect be deleting Arnold Schwarzenegger's name from the list article about the Kennedy-Shrivers clan? If not--here's another newtonian, alternative history. Say, hypothetically, that (A.) Sirhan Sirhan missed. (B.) Marilyn was Bobby's mistress. (C.) And Bobby found her to be his political muse so he divorced and remarried his muse (D.)--joining Marilyn's church, Christian Science. (E.) If Wikipedia existed then, would user:Collect be editing articles about families whose religion is Christian Science in order to delete references to Bobby?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately "source" on Wikipedia means "using a reliable source" and the source must actually back up the claim for which it is used. Commercial genealogy sites, self-published genealogies etc. do not meet those criteria, and claims which are not found in the source are still "unsourced." The discussion at WP:RS/N was clear. And no one for whom you had provided a "reliable source" for the genealogical claims was removed from the genealogy. I fear you think that genealogies was a good feature on Wikipedia, but the rules are pretty strong on them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS != much reason. The RS/N noticeboard made clear that genealogies on Wikipedia have to be validly sourced. And Wikipedia is still not Ancestry.com. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Money and expenses

I've been reading around the web and i found some articles which say that the charity which holds this site has been spending only a fraction of the money they received for server equipment and technology... and the rest went to someone's pockets. What is this? Can you clarify it? Gravitoweak (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Might be an idea to back up those allegations with links to the articles in question. – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you're counting "someone's pockets" as including the developers, lawyers, fundraisers and other people employed by the foundation then yes the Foundation has a wage bill as well as the hardware and electricity needed to run the servers. That still means that we are an incredibly low budget site for our size, but yes the Foundation employs staff. If you think that the article you wrote is a serious critique from a serious source then link it here and tell us where it is, but if it is some anonymous rant on the Internet then I'd suggest you ignore it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone in the comments said that only 41 cents for each dollar are used for program services:

http://ostatic.com/blog/wikipedia-fundraiser-successful-but-should-they-do-it-again

Furthermore, some other people believe there should be no more donations for the site, because that's an inefficient way of doing things, and that free labor creates products of inferior quality:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wikipedia-experts-call-for-no-donations-to-wikipedia-111911964.html Gravitoweak (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first story got a few things wrong about our latest annual fundraiser, it wasn't our first fundraiser and it won't be our last. The plan was to raise enough money for us to flourish for another year, and to continue to have annual fundraisers. As for the "WikiExperts" thinking that we could do a better job of writing an encyclopaedia if we took advertising and paid editors, if they believe that, they are free to try that model themselves. As long as they don't call it Wikipedia, they are welcome to launch an encyclopaedia funded by advertising, or by subscription or indeed by companies paying for articles to be written about themselves and their products. Some of us believe that a free labour, volunteer based crowd sourced encyclopaedia can be better and more neutral than one where advertisers have influence. If someone thinks they can do a better job than us then good luck to them, competition is healthy. ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gravitoweak's user page is identical to User:Negativecharge's, who posted a bunch of jimbo-is-stealing-all-the-money conspiracy theories on my talk page some time ago and who has apparently been blocked for being someone's sock (the block message doesn't specify whose.) Quackquackquack. Kevin (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gravitoweak has been blocked in the past as a sockmaster; I'd say that Negativecharge may have been 'weak's latest sock, rather than the other way around. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone else who answered these questions. To answer some questions myself. First, since I'm the most known person involved with our fundraiser and people might think of me if they think of "someone's pockets", I don't take a salary and I don't take expenses, indeed I don't even take normal board expenses for my service at board meetings. That is, I pay for my own flights and accommodations. I sometimes do eat at a board dinner, and sometimes the Foundation has gotten me a car back to the airport when I leave a board meeting, although I generally ask them not to do so.

Our finances are audited and very open. Traditionally Sue has performed very well against her budgets, and we have tended to have the fundraiser perform quite well. What this means is that each year we have raised slightly more money than budgeted for (in less time), and we have also spent slightly less money than budgeted for (due to a frugal culture and things going well), so that our surplus is, happily, in a reasonably good place. Some critiques are inevitable whatever choices we make - if we overspend, we'll be rightly criticized. If we have a smaller surplus, we'll be accused of being irresponsible. And if we have a larger surplus we'll be accused of hoarding cash. While it is certainly possible to have respectable and differing views on precise details of strategy, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about critiques that stray from "gee, I think we should consider doing this differently" into the territory of character assassination.

The 41 cents per dollar on program services is a figure that really bugs me, because it both out of date and anyway misleading. To the naive reader it suggests that the rest is going for nonsense. But here's the funny thing: I was told that most of our IT budget, for arcane reasons having to do with how that number was calculated, couldn't be included under program services! For various reasons related to understanding that their metrics weren't doing a good job of identifying what they wanted to identify, Charity Navigator has a different methodology now, and under their improved metrics, we do quite well: Charity Navigator report.

One final point about financial efficiency. We know that 470 million people per month use Wikipedia. (Comscore) Our planned budget is $28.3 million, or $2,358,333 per month. So that's just about 1/2 cent per person served. A half a penny per month per person served. If someone came to you in 1960 and said for that amount they could put a free encyclopedia into the hands of a half a billion people at a cost of a half a penny per person per month, you'd have been astonished. I'm still astonished, I love the Internet. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Canada

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada came out with the ruling that ISPs are not subject to the Canadian Broadcasting Act because they have no control what is transmitted. See this CBC article if you are interested. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Desantis

Not sure whether this crosses the line, but Joe Desantis has been lobbying other editors to do his work for him outside of article talk pages. See where he posts on user talk pages [8]. And there are signs of meat puppetry at his behest [9] Mattnad (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joedesantis's talk page comments are simply suggestions. He isn't applying pressure, making threats, or offering money. I don't believe that Kenatipo should be characterized as a "meatpuppet". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't either. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

perhaps, but he has made repeated requests on user pages. and user Kenatipo seems to be leading in his follow through and cites the wishes of mr. Desantis as a justification. Mattnad (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mattnad, in light of your fascination with Joe DeSantis, and due to my remorse at deleting the paragraph about Joe D that you inserted in the Callista Gingrich article (I'm an inclusionist), I've started an article titled "Joe DeSantis (communications director)" where I've put your content that I deleted. With your permission, I'll copy the stub to your talk page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

FORUMSHOPPING? This has been iterated on this user talk page, on article talk pages, noticeboards etc. With the exact same result every time - JDeSantis has operated within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and trying to toss mud at him does not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikistalk much?Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WTH? I think you likely need to read up on what "stalking" is - and you should note that I have written on this page at least twice before over the years <g> and have it on my watchlist of way over two thousand pages. Cheers - and try not to make such absurd attacks on others. Collect (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While I think it is good to keep a close eye on Joe DeSantis - the media will be watching his every edit, I am sure - at least to date I have not heard anything particularly alarming. He did make direct article edits in the distant past, until he was cautioned against it. Lately he's been following what I consider to be best practice (and what I think should be firmer in policy): he's openly identified his affiliation and he's interacting with the community directly and respectfully, but he's completely avoiding article space edits.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, although I wholly appreciate the way he's editing (talkpages only, gaining consensus, etc), and that he has declared his WP:COI, I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that someone actually recommended that he promote his candidate in his signature on all of those talkpage comments! There has to be a better way than leaving campaign signs everywhere he goes ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "Communications Director, Gingrich 2012" allow users to know who he is? Doesn't it allow for greater transparency? It doesn't say "Vote for Gingrich." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Suarez! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, quite clearly. However, I disagree that it's the best method for transparency because it does, indeed, advertise the candidate. Don't get me wrong - I'm Canadian and have no dog in the fight. Can an editor spam the name of their company across Wikipedia using their signature for the sake of "transparency"? Hell no! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe isn't spamming the Gingrich name across Wikipedia; he's only editing on Gingrich-related talk pages. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, although Joe's signature may appear promotional, it is not being used in a promotional ("spamming") way, but only to increase transparency and avoid COI. And, even if it is a technical violation, Joe should be given an exemption in light of his editing practices (as commended by Jimbo). --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are edit notices locked up?

You may be able to shed some light here on why only admins and account creators can do anything with edit notices. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I know too little about it to be able to comment fruitfully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus of top editors from Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo, I think the number of high-quality editors who are leaving the project is alarming to say the least and the problem should be addressed ASAP. I am talking about content-contributors, those who create interesting, informative articles on a variety of subjects, expand the stubs and starts, and promote pages to GA and FAC class - these are the people who are getting fed up and throwing in the towel. When the engine starts to smoke is the time to look under the bonnet/hood, not when the car breaks down. Something needs to be done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't repeat that which everyone knows I'm still gunning for, but I'll say for starters that shunting IEP editors off to other wikis, where they could be much more useful, would go a long way; many of us are still feeling the aftershock of it, and it certainly helped demoralize many of our best editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "IEP"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IEP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also relevant reading is Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read and the associated talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As yes, of course, WP:IEP. Can you tell me how that debacle (which of course it was!) was 'demoralizing' to "many" of our best editors? Who in particular feels demoralized by it? It was a well-meaning pilot project that clearly didn't work out, so that's not good. But I would imagine that our best editors would welcome such projects and be excited about the opportunity to try (and fail, sometimes) to bring in new editors. That the Foundation acknowledges, quite plainly, that it didn't work, strikes me as the opposite of demoralizing. I'm asking my questions in a serious quest for more information, by the way, as opposed to doubting your claims and wanting proof!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you've ever interacted with Kudpung, but I've been talking with him a lot off-wiki, and he's extremely frustrated at how this has all worked out. He's dramatically scaled back his participation largely because of it. There are also a lot of comments a WT:IEP that would indicate a dramatically rising level of discontent as it gets closer to the present. Andy Dingley and Danger are two names you'll see a lot there besides Kudpung and I. And though I'm only one person, I'll speak for myself in saying that it's caused me to move into different places and almost stop NPP altogether; that's more or less what happened I the wider community. During it, we got the backlog of pages down to 10 days because we had to try to keep the copyvios out; now that it's over, people don't want to do it anymore, so the backlog is around 30 days. Those are demonstrative, though not exhaustive; do e-mail Kudpung, who's far more knowledgeable than I, and he can confirm what I'm saying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation is closely monitoring editor counts and so forth. I have to tell you, people throughout the history of the project have come to my talk page in alarm over precisely this issue - going back for so many years I can't remember. Usually it's because one or two people they actually know are drifting away, while other contributors are coming on board. People come and go, that isn't a problem.

The best analysis we have to date suggests the following 3 main facts:

1. The number of people as a percentage of readership clicking edit for the first time is stable. We also know that we can increase this number at any time, basically by metaphorically or literally "making the edit button bigger". We could run a banner campaign to get more contributors, and it would bring in a huge influx of newbie editors.

2. The attrition rate of highly experienced editors is stable. It's natural that some people will be committed Wikipedians for life, but that others will have it as a hobby for a few years and then move on to other things. Or to come and go throughout life as personal circumstances dictate.

3. The rate of people who make it from their 2nd edit to their 99th edit is lower than it was in the past. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Now, what you are suggesting is more precise than any of these things. You are suggesting that within (2), the editors who do more admin tasks may be sticking around, but the editors who get pages to GA/FAC standing are leaving. That's of great interest, but I know of no actual statistics showing that it is true. Can you help me think of a way how we might measure that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way would be to compare the number of articles that are both nominated and passed at each process over time. I'm sure there are such reports out there already, just not sure where, atm. Resolute 17:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, here we go: Wikipedia:Good article statistics. Note that the large bump in GA promotions in January and April 2011 were the result of backlog elimination drives. Overall, the growth rate of GAs is stable, but FAs has dropped slightly. I can think of any number of reasons for that. Resolute 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A Mockup Of My Idea For Banner

Hi Jimbo, I made a mockup of the banner I suggested a while ago