User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 115

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

Contents

RFC

There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Wikipedia analytical tool

Jayen466 posted a link in a Wikipediocracy thread today that I think will be of interest to Wikipedians. WIKI TRIP analyzes the gender and geolocation of contributors to any specified article over time. I suspect the location info is necessarily imprecise, but it's still a pretty fascinating little trinket that is well worth bookmarking... Carrite (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

How do they know gender? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I assume they're using self-declaration. The male + female edits does not add up to the total edits. --regentspark (comment) 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Anyone know what percentage declare? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No idea. But, to get some perspective, there were 5260 edits on United Kingdom with 2559 male and 71 female. Around 50% of the edits had gender information attached. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. On the other hand, the gender edits for Australia and India are both exactly 50%. Too exact. Methinks there is a bug somewhere. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Beware any 2 can have a coincidence: Always seek a larger sample of articles (>1001), because any 2 articles might have a shocking coincidence, such as the percentage of gender-identified editors. Just a statistics reminder. -Wikid77 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that back in January 2011, 55.7% of active administrators had no gender specified. I dare say that the percentage for less established users would be much higher. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If only the people who created this application had told us what the data meant ("This other plot shows wether the edits by regitered users are males or females. Note that only a small number of users inside Wikipedia specified their gender so this data is not about all the editors"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is likely that gender self-identification is significantly lower for women than men. So results like this, while interesting, should be thoughtfully considered in that light.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, someone should do a study on the "I am man" phenomena. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly it also shows User and User talk pages so if you want to see who's talkin to ya you can look that up too. For example there are 46148 people who have edited this page, of which 12143 were male and only 804 were female. Kumioko (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, what were the other 33201? I think you need to engage in a little more Jimboesque 'consideration' - though in the interest of not antagonising minorities unnecessarily, I'll state for the record that 'none of the above' might apply to a few of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
While I've run across some smart-mouthed young lads that fit the supposed WP demographic, I know a lot of us are over 40 and more than you might think are women. I'm a female over 55 and have edited this page a number of times. Yopienso (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are more women than we think, that'd be great news; it'd mean we can abandon all the initiatives aimed at getting more women and getting to what actually matters around here, like convincing people we need more than a bandage over cancer (it should be noted I actually like Page Curation, and have no problems with it; it's necessary but also insufficient). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast regarding the great news and abandoning initiatives...the question remains as to why women are not identifying gender. Why do we feel we need to hide? Oops, I guess I've just outed myself, at least for this thread ツ Fylbecatulous talk 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
One could hazard multiple reasons: 1)more secure 2)less secure 3)don't care 4)didn't know it was something people did 5)seems irrelevant 6)multiples of the above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to hide, nothing to flaunt. My user page has always said, This user answers to "Grandma." For editing WP, gender seems irrelevant, Alan, but when it comes to engaging with other editors, I do like to feel we are unique individuals with hearts and feelings--and gender--instead of faceless cyberbots. I'm not pro-affirmative action, though, and see no need to attract any particular segment of the population (specially dogs!). Yopienso (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, but prefer to attract them all, demographically speaking (except for the dogs) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No factual errors

The text of the oldest version in this diff [1] of Gjørv Report has not had factual errors pointed out. Therefore I have reverted, and added text. Name calling, in the edit remarks is a seperate issue. I wanted Jimmy Wales to be informed about that. --Etolin (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for checking the edits of indef-blocked User:Lucabrak, along with other editors. The text of article "Gjørv Report" is less often checked, due to being a spinoff of article "Utøya massacre" with Anders Breivik. Any text about preventing future attacks is likely to interest readers, as with recent attacks on each foreign embassy and similar topics of interest. Although Jimmy Wales might lack time to study those articles, due to current commitments, other editors would appreciate any help in carefully updating those topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Order all Wikipedias to discuss enabling of Flagged Revisions

Dear Mr Wales,

Could you order all Wikipedias to discuss enabling Flagged Revisions on all articles in order to combat bad faith edits, at least vandalism and spam? This is one of the best rapid response anti-destructive Wikipedia tools. I'm asking you this as a patroller from the Russian Wikipedia. Николай95 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, ordering people to do things is hardly my style and wouldn't likely be very successful. But I am eager to encourage reasoned discussion of the feature. One thing that you could do that would be helpful would be to post here a good NPOV discussion of how it is working in Russian Wikipedia - including a thoughtful discussion of objections and any downsides. I believe that the experiences of other languages can be very helpful in moving people forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Cluebot NG is pretty amazing. If the Russian Wikipedia is not using it yet, that is something you should look into Николай95. Here, it's catching a very large percentage of the vandalism. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I also think that a description of the Russia experience would be useful. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I do note that my (quite limited) experience there seems to show obscure articles essentially going static as their backlog of unapproved edits piles up. If this is the situation generally, it'd be troubling, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree the discussion is desirable, and that the experiences of other languages should inform discussion here. Many of the vandalisms that have made the news these past weeks and months would probably never have been seen by the public if the English Wikipedia had flagged revisions (which could quite happily co-exist with ClueBot). In addition, flagged revisions might catch many of the more subtle BLP violations that sail past ClueBot. JN466 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) (I've dropped a note on the German Kurier talk page asking if anyone in de:WP feels like sharing their experiences. JN466 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC))
The discussions of PC are going to kill me; that they haven't already is something of a miracle. And I still honestly can't understand why it matters so much to people; I can say, after all the discussions from this year, that I still Just Don't Care one way or another (I'm merely disinterested, not uninterested). But hey, someone has to do it, and it's at least somewhat more interesting than all the crap at Talk:Prem Rawat. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll open a "Russian section" in the WP:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. There will be the translation of the Russian reviewing policy, reviewing statistics & discussions of Russian experience. --Николай95 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've started translating the Russian patrolling policy. --Николай95 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia keeps having BLP problems on a scale that these other Wikipedias which have flagged revisions implemented across the entire article space don't have. They don't get media reports like this or these or this or this, because those kinds of edits would not normally go beyond the draft stage; in other words, the public would never see them, and the BLP subjects wouldn't be going through the ordeal that the English Wikipedia puts them through, with their names plastered all over the papers because some idiot vandalised their BLP. JN466 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
JN466, Why don't you join the WP:WikiProject Flagged Revisions if you support them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Николай95 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that some system needs to be in place for the sake of avoiding these kinds of fiascos. It's bad publicity both for the article's subject and for Wikipedia, and worse, it means that blatant libel still can be inserted into articles without an effective system of catching it beyond existing simple vandalism patrolling (which, as evidenced above, doesn't always work). I've found discussions by the community regarding it frustrating, as many editors seem not to care about the immense problems this can pose for the project, not to mention the opposed editors who seem to think that any form of flagged revisions is a fundamentally bad idea. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Something to consider is that 1. en.wiki is a lot more visible than other wikis, and 2. just because we don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Frankly, the dogmatic comments from all sides of PC obfuscate any consensus and make it that much harder to deal with these discussions. Draw another goblet from the cask of 43... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Flagged Revisions is one of the most organized Wikipedia quality control systems. --Николай95 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete hoax/fake article

Asylum (2012 video game)

A parody of batman's videogame R e minho pizzere (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
But not a WP:HOAX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Racist and abusive remarks by User:Radiopathy

Please look here for a most disturbing incident of abusive and racist actions by a wikipedia editor. 128.127.107.243 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Already dealt with at ANI - blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not quite Andy, Radiopothay is not in the clear yet. I encourage any Asian users to tell us how they feel about letting a few "gook" comments go with no big deal. What if they had used the N-word? I support ZERO tolerance for racism and encourage others to do the same. 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd have blocked for longer, if it was my decision. As for supporting zero tolerance for racism on Wikipedia, I'd do that too - but we have a heck of a way to go, and it isn't just confined to edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
And I think users who call others any derogatory names, such as, oh how about "retard", should get something more than a light rebuke from Jimbo and then swept under the rug after apologizing "to the community" through email to Jimbo. We shouldnt limit our zero-tolerance to being just about race.Camelbinky (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The editor has been blocked. Not sure why a second discussion is needed at Jimbo's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Camelbinky, at the risk of provoking another of your outbursts, I feel the need to remind you of this edit summary of yours from a couple of days ago: "seriously insulting and retarded. please dont ever put something so immature, ridiculous, and childish on my page again. Are you 5?". We all need to be careful not to use hurtful terms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You can't expect a Wikipedian to hold himself to the standards he demands of others. MastCell Talk 05:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Everyone here should be aware that this AN/I thread has been incited by sockpuppets, most likely in connection with the notorious capitalisation dispute. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That may be true, but apparently the consensus is that racist slurs only warrant a one week block. Disgusting. AniMate 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not the consensus at all. It's whether to site ban that particular editor for making racist slurs. Big difference. Doc talk 06:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't like Radiopathy, but I like sockpuppetry less. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The edit summaries are inexcusable, and a strong message needs to be sent. There's always WP:GAB and always the option of an admin extending the block to indefinite until it is certain that Radiopathy understands the gravity of what he did (several times). But a site ban without going to indef first seems like overkill to me. Doc talk 06:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't support "zero tolerance" for anything. Zero tolerance is the practical equivalent of "zero reason". Let's use our noggins to treat each issue on a case by case basis. Whether the general mood is to treat these situations harshly or not, that part of the discussion doesn't interest me. But if you want to go by zero tolerance, that is only going to lead to blocks because someone says "I like crackers" and someone get's upset over a racial slur. Besides, in my experience, this always leads to reverse racism.--v/r - TP 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"Zero" is an inapt description here, as there are multiple "unacceptable" and "inexcusable" edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your sentence doesn't really make sense to me, but my point is, let's not kick kids out of school for wearing the American flag on Cinco De Mayo. Zero tolerance is a free license to put zero effort and thought into dispute resolution. It's a lazy way of dealing with these issues. Each should be handled on it's own merits.--v/r - TP 13:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that Zero Tolerance policies, tolerate no act (zero) that contravene the policy, whereas action taken against multiple acts are not the operation of zero tolerance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
We should obviously stick to using Geek, Nagger, Chunk and Yed (except don't use "yed mae" with Thai editors... ) can we use "mutha" with female editotrs, or is that a gender stereotype? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole thing has me scratching my head and wanting to leave the project. Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention, and we have multiple editors *and administrators* saying using racial slurs is "sort of" okay if you have a lot of edits. Let's be honest. If an IP had called another editor a "gook" they would have been blocked indefinitely. If an editor with twenty edits had called another editor a "gook" we would have blocked them indefinitely. Because editors and administrators have heard of this editor he or she has basically gotten a slap on the wrist, despite an extensive block log. I really don't understand this at all. AniMate 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it more or less objectionable to racially slur an unknown ip? Do multiculural geolocates present less risk? I guess there are no degrees of zero tolerance, unless we go into the minus region. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
AniMate, I'm going to look at the glass as half-full and pretend you're just not a careful reader. Otherwise your sarcasm, and the suggestion that I think racist epithets are OK, and the claim that I just set precedent, are really inappropriate. That you'd follow the open proxies to Jimbo's talk page to find another forum, then, I will take as a sign of immaturity, not of bad faith. Oh, IPs are rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely, and the block log for Radiopathy shows a big gap between 2010 and yesterday, but perhaps you don't believe in redemption either. There's no place for racism on Wikipedia, hence the block; if he does it again, no doubt he would be indeffed. Finally, if you really, REALLY, feel so strongly, you could have put your money where your mouth is (and it was in many places) and overruled me, with an extension to indefinite. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AniMate - what your proposing might seem well and dandy in a local region like where you live. However, in a multi-national project like Wikipedia it is just not realistic. I, personally, have never heard of gook and while I get the picture it's a racial slur, I have no idea yet who it's a slur too (someone feel free to educate me). The point is, there are going to be racial slurs from the other side of the globe that even you are not aware of and new ones get created every day. What happens if I use the word "gook" and I think it's a word I made up to mean 'icky' and I get slammed for something I wasn't even aware of. I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance (hehe). Condemning zero tolerance doesn't make it "'sort of' okay", it is forcing us to actually think through our problems instead of taking short cuts. Besides, if your going to combat incivility, then combat the whole thing. Giving priority to racism is sexist, ageist, ect ect. If you want to take all of them seriously, then do so. But take them seriously based on each cases merits alone.--v/r - TP 14:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
See Gook. I still think of it as an enemy soldier (Viet Cong or NVA) and not going beyond that but others do.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, what you think and how reliable sources define the word and how it is used are at odds. AniMate is correct to be discouraged when admins refuse to use a dictionary and instead fall back on their personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
...and clearly what you think is at odds with how it is handled in WP policy but then that is you falling back on your personal beliefs. Two way street.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that your belief about the word is not supported. Instead of changing your beliefs to reflect reality, you've attempted to promote your erroneous belief. That's the opposite of rational discourse. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the article and the sources? It doesn't sound like it. My belief is fully supported and that is the way many folks think of it. I'm not encouraging its use but the politically correct police have been overreacting to this. You will have to change the vandalism policy because that word and the N-word and all sorts of other foul racial slurs & epithets get introduced into articles every day and we simply revert and warn a few times and if they persist then we block. We do it with far less drama than being generated here. IPs don't get blocked on first use so why would a regular user?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Your position on this matter is totally untenable. Only somebody living in an alternative reality would claim that the word "gook" was used in this context (and in a contemporary context) to refer to "enemy soldiers" devoid of racist connotations ("not going beyond that"). The Wikipedia article (not a reliable source, btw) clearly states the term is both derogatory and a racial slur, and that's exactly how it was used by the editor in question. Apologies, but I don't inhabit your alternative reality, so I'm unable to see your position on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I never claimed how it was used in this context; that was your mistake. I said "I still think of it as an enemy soldier" which comes from my personal experiences and hearing others use it in that context. I'm happy to not occupy your "reality" and will continue with my beliefs. And you still have that big plank in your eye because you don't think one should be insulted for race but don't mind insulting others by suggesting they live in an alternate reality? Please. You didn't respond to my point that IPs aren't blocked on a one-off for slurs so why should a regular account be blocked?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that you don't believe that the word "gook" is a racist term and that the user in question did not use it in a derogatory manner? Are you saying he was referring to the IP as a soldier? Remind me how you became an admin? Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas, I was answering TParis' "I have no idea yet who it's a slur too (someone feel free to educate me)" with a reference to the article and then went on to state a truthful statement about how I have heard this used in life but acknowledged that others do see it differently. Check the indents to see that I was responding to TParis and not commenting on this particular incident (5 indents behind his 3 so that the comment would nest as an aside).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm playing "devils advocate" here, but suppose Radiopothay used "gook" thinking it was acceptable, and a short form of "Gobbledygook"? Would we then be forced to call him a liar? Or would we AGF and say he is terribly misinformed? Perhaps we might concede that using gobbledygook is pejorative nonetheless because it was directed against a Hong Kong ip user? My concern predominately regards the rush to assume we know the facts without an inkling to desire a reply from Radiopothay. My initial thoughts after reviewing contributions was that this is more characteristic of a compromised account than what the court of popular opinion has already ruled upon. And it is scary. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's not think about this too hard. He used the term he used, and it wasn't about "gobbledygook". It doesn't mean we need to burn him at the stake for it, either. Doc talk 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've personally never heard of the editor and I'm still against an indefinite block. If someone called me a paddy, mick (or much worse that exists that I won't mention) in the same way I still wouldn't think they should be indefinitely blocked. I think assuming good faith is important here and that it was some sort of mistake or a moment of stupidity. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, racism is hardwired into the human brain so everyone is potentially a racist. The trick is in recognizing our bias when it comes up and making an active effort to move beyond primitive xenophobia for the purposes of survival and group cohesion and into the realm of knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, societies and institutions will manipulate the human propensity towards racism for political expediency. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
My main question regarding this is, at what point does Radiopathy run out of chances at "redemption"? Just because this is the first case of him using a racial slur doesn't mean it should be treated as if it were entirely separate from everything he's done in the past, and the fact that he's earned himself another block shows that a pattern of disruptive editing has been established, despite protests to the contrary at AN/I. That is the dictionary definition of a pattern.
I feel I should point that he's never apologized for anything he's been blocked over, and he makes a point of only going to AN/I when the discussion is about other people. For what it's worth, I am very much in favor of extending the block to indefinite and forcing him to apologize for what he did. Maybe that's because I have a grudge; maybe it's because I know him better than most of the people who have been part of this. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How can you block someone indefinitely and then 'force' them to apologise?--andreasegde (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A forced apology is no apology. And how does an apology protect Wikipedia?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I meant in relation to appealing the block. Regardless of whether or not he has legitimate contrition for what he did, I think it would have a longer-lasting impact on his future behavior if he had to acknowledge what he did wrong, rather than just taking a vacation and waiting out the block like he has the past nine times he's been through something like this. He needs to be able to mentally process that disruptive behavior is unacceptable, and that it won't be tolerated again going forward; this is something he seemingly has not done to date. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • One week is not enough, but done's done there. A repeat should bring an hasta la vista. A very severe warning followed by a head chopping for recidivism on racist taunting strikes me as the way to go. Zero tolerance is excessive, but not by much. There is really no excuse for this sort of supremacist dogshit. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Jimbo What? Really? Are you going to let (Personal attack removed) off with one week block after disgusting and repeated acts of racial taunting? This is bad Jimmy, dont duck and run, one week slap on wrist for this is not very good now do better. 103.246.114.87 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
And your language is not much better:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Extend block please. 128.127.107.10 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have witnessed phishing activity and hacker activity

BIOGRAPHIES

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Dear Jimmy,

I would like to thank you for all your contribution to this amazing encyclopedia called Wikipedia!

I would just like to bring your attention to what is happening on the page that I have created called Tony Samara. It would be wonderful to know your point of view in the matter and be able to address the situation in the most appropriate way. Here are the links to the referred article and its discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Samara and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Samara_%283rd_nomination%29

Thank you for your consideration and I wish you a wonderful day!

Kindest regards,

Pedro Bestler Pedro Bestler (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Image filter (yet again)

Any thoughts on these claims that WMF has ignored an offer of free or discounted image filtering software? It smells like PR, but nonetheless, a readymade solution that actually works would change the terms of the debate at least a little.... And while I'm at it, you never did comment on the KISS image filter I mentioned here (now at Wikipedia:VPR#KISS_image_filter). Rd232 talk 18:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously discussed at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_114#Yet_another_bad_publicity, although Jimbo did not comment. There is no real need to use proprietary software for an image filter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Need, no. But having something that works to hand is different than saying "we should develop something that works". Particularly because this software has some kind of learning/analysis algorithms, which AFAIK hasn't been seriously suggested as something WMF could/should develop. Rd232 talk 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody looking for free publicity for their software tries to make Wikipedia look bad by implying that we are aiding and abetting pornographers by not buying their product at a "discounted rate"; and of course the Wikipedia-bashers and FAUX News are eager to give them aid and comfort. This is news how? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, this is non-news. Why is this being dragged up again? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe because Jimbo has repeatedly said he really really wants to get something done, but fails to engage with possibilities like this software ((for which donation was mentioned as a possibility, BTW, but in any case WMF has enough money) or the KISS image filter?? Rd232 talk 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this question should be addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that demonstrates no interest in the installation of the filter. The Wikimedia Foundation has some good reasons for this indifference. Installing this filter will reduce the traffic to Wikipedia's most viewed content . Less traffic = less donations; less donations = less benefits for the Wikimedia Foundation's employees. Unsuspecting donors as well as most Wikipedia volunteers don't even realize that 54 cents of every dollar they contribute will be wasted on ledger items that are not the program services that the Wikimedia 501(c)(3) is obligated to uphold. And then the WMF will have no compunction about washing their hands of their volunteers just like they did with Fae.--108.60.145.58 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that reducing traffic to those pages would impact donations very much! In any case it's not clear that a filter would actually do that. Rd232 talk 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That link isn't even Wikipedia's most viewed content, or Wikimedia's most viewed content, it's Commons most viewed content. Few people actually visit Commons directly, given its main role as a service site. Compare to English Wikipedia's most viewed content and "Commons:Category:Shaved genitalia (female)" wouldn't even make the top 1000. the wub "?!" 12:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Quite true. The heading at the top of that page is very misleading, and it would be a very good idea to change it (and to update the figures, as those shown are from Dec. 2010.). JN466 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well that is a good point! Though even the Wikipedia stats are kind of weird - why is ball-jointed doll in the top 61, right beside YouTube? Wnt (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for Wikipedia and therefore you deserve the tastiest cookies in the world. Pajee27 (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pajee27 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Pajee27

Keep encouraging better software or gadgets

This is just a reminder that there are numerous people who can create extremely powerful tools for Wikipedia, and many already have, but perhaps some tools need more polishing for primetime use. I think, again, your hunch is right that the current status of our wiki-technology is backward, compared to what it could become soon. Remember how quickly I was able to "fix" the slow-citation problem, with lightning-fast templates, even though disliked by some negative users. The technology is ready, but the resistance is contrived. Now, with the apparent success of Lua scripts, planned for early 2013, then many computer people, with formal training in languages similar to Lua could create very powerful Lua "modules" for use in articles, or used just during edit-preview, by using the #invoke template interface. Note well: Lua scripting will likely be difficult writing for the lay users, as a very "computer-language" system of macro scripting, but due to formal training, many computer people already think in complex procedures with loops, arrays and function calls. Meanwhile, after working to simplify some complex templates, I am ready to write a "wp:Template technology" essay to foster creation of smarter, faster templates, along with new modules in Lua script. The competition, and cooperation, of new gadget ideas is likely to create a positive synergism for better tools in both systems, to put wrappers in articles and have these template/module tools transform or analyze articles for better quality using very quick methods. However, there is still the growing problem of "wp:Data hoarding" in articles which are overrun with infospam beyond the basic facts about a subject. This goes back to your idea to have a simple version of each major article, such as "United States" as a basic article, linked to "United States (detailed)" to be the data-hoarder version, and similar for other major articles overrun with factoid tables and 9 tangent-topic navboxes. However, the era of smart wiki-tools is emerging. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:00, 13 Sep., revised 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your templates were "disliked" because they broke articles. The idea may have been good, but you were (apparently) unable to implement it correctly, or the technology was not ready. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you've been misled by the hype, where actually, the templates worked well, linking both titles and footnotes to text, but lacked the author-name backlinks later added within 6 days (see history of Template:Fcite). The exaggerated complaints were as if a person had edited an article, swapped a few words and removed some rare wikilinks, while making the article display 3x times faster, but accused then of "breaking" the article. Few other people who notice 10% of rare wikilinks removed, would declare an article as "broken" and for that reason, the templates remained in major articles for days, with no other concerns. In fact, in several of those major articles, there were no wikilinks affected at all (no Harvard citations), yet some rampant cries of totally "broken" persisted for weeks. This is another example to "beware complaints" as not representative of what most users think. Seek to have broader samples of data. For that reason, always beware over-the-top complaints that "the world will end tomorrow" because of some minor changes. I mean, really, a "broken article" means what, how ever will life continue. Anyway, it is amusing to review these antics. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of Rich's template changes actually did break articles (made them undisplayable), but they were later fixed. Yours just reformatted the information, lost some, and lost some links (Harvard citations) to the actual information required to verify the sources. Those who pay attention to the citation templates could justifiably have said that the reformating "broke the articles".
If someone systematically swapped a few words (philosphy game?) and removed rare wikilinks, they would be justly accused of vandalism. Why should doing it by editing the template be different, except that the template editor may well remain unaware that the articles were vandalized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Anything which breaks Harvard citations is an improvement in my book. Name one thing other than wikitext itself which makes editing less accessible to novice editors of articles where they are used. It's absurd to pile on to people who break a few obscure things, and accuse them of vandalism no less, when they are simply trying to make things faster for everyone who needs to log in. The Cite templates have always been difficult to port and needlessly verbose ("|accessdate=", really, with no shorter synonym?) and the fact that they spike rendering time for people who log in so much might have something to do with why editing isn't as much fun as it used to be. 31.170.166.17 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. I've been here long enough to remember when adding inline citations was something special. Yes, there's much more "friction" (in the Clausewitzian sense) when editing nowadays, but that has much more to do with higher standards on sourcing and citation, not the templates being used. {{sfn}} is a sight easier than scrambling around trying to remember what name you gave that ref tag and where inline you actually hid the text of the citation. For people making long, thoughtful edits, the page rendering time is a trivial factor by comparison; and I suspect the effect is largely masked by people editing articles by section rather than all at once. Choess (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Fcite blamed for prior errors in Harvard citations: The whole situation is a complex set of problems, where people are confused by the slow-cite templates and too many parameters. Yes section-based edit-preview is faster, as typically 1-second reformat. However, ironically, when Template:Fcite was accused of "broken" articles during the first week, I discovered how some broken author backlinks were due to prior improper parameters for Harvard citations (author2 coded as "coauthors="). So, Fcite handled Harvard citations 7 days later, but some citations in article "India" had to be fixed to set "last2=" rather than coauthors. People broke article "India" long before Fcite. Meanwhile, the speed is only an issue for major articles with >50 citations, so people who edit pop-culture articles get the slow-down for every edit. However, readers with Special:Preferences image size higher/lower than 220px (or other options) also get the slow-down for simple viewing, which is 10x-25x slower than simple-text citations, compounded by some other large templates running very slowly (Template:Weather_box). I cannot emphasize enough that a huge article, with no templates but 25 images, will reformat within 2 seconds, or 3 with top infobox, rather than 24-45 seconds with large templates. Plus there are other concerns, as people have been confused by the 230 cite-template parameters which they "break" when using, as many times, people have set both "author2" and "last2" or "surname2" where some think surname2 is first name for last2, but last2 hides surname2. Here's the best part: when cite templates run faster, then there is more time to tell users do not set both last2 and surname2 or other illogical choices. Hence, Template:Fcite_journal is not "breaking" articles but rather speeding edit-preview to deter users from "breaking" article text themselves or slowing reformat time 4x slower in major articles. There are multiple improvements with the Fcite templates, and users "break" many articles with the old {Citation} template. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename reftags to subst cite templates: The reftags "<ref>" should be renamed, temporarily, such as "<xxref name=zz>" to allow wp:subst'ing of cite templates into simple wiki-text for porting to other systems, such as Simple English Wikipedia or also translating dates to German or another language. It can be a frustrating barrier to moving several citations to another wiki because "<ref>" prevents the "subst:" prefix from working on the templates inside each reftag. Currently, the plain visible text of citations must be copied, and then retro-fit with italics and wikilinks re-added even if already valid wikilinks for the other wiki. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There are other templates which slow reformat time: Although {cite_web}, {cite_book} or {citation} can cause articles to reformat, or edit-preview, 10x times slower, there are also other slow templates, which could be encouraged for improvement. For example, Template:Weather_box, which provides numerous options, could be changed to be faster than 4-5 seconds in every article. Meanwhile, I have advised people to use Template:Cite_quick (fully documented to match {cite_web} or {cite_book} ), which runs 10x-12x times faster, in major articles which reformat in over 10 seconds (such as pop-culture articles). Plus, Template:Cite_web/smart (Cite_web/sandbox4) is intended to replace {cite_web} as 4x faster for all remaining articles among the 1.2 million using {cite_web}. Result: almost all large, cite-related articles on Wikipedia will reformat almost 2x faster, and those with {cite_quick} can edit-preview 3x-4x faster. Although large infoboxes run only 1 second, other templates need improvement, and so people should be encouraged, not accused of "broken articles" or accused of "vandalism" because they write templates which run 6x-12x faster than older templates, with more features, and can warn users when an option is misspelled, or allow "acc" as an alias for "accessdate". -Wikid77 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Example brick chart

  one - 42 %
  two - 32 %
  three - 12 %
  other - 14 %
  • Template:Brick_chart for example: Although we were distracted, above, by people still trying to defend slow-cite templates (while {cite_quick} is ready for use), one of the "gadgets" or "tools" I found is Template:Brick_chart, which was begun in August 2009, but had a severe bug (for these past 3 years) which caused the brick-bars to overlap due to incompatible div-tags inside. Today, I fixed the 3-year bug, and now brick charts can be quickly displayed on any page in 1/6 second, on any browser, from live data, without needing to create and upload a diagram image. The original author of that template had noted that Template:Pie_chart does not work for most MSIE browsers, whereas {Brick_chart} provides a similar graph but portable to all browsers, yet did not work in 2009-2011. Over the past 3 years, lost interest as a 1-edit-per-month editor, so we were very close to having quick brick charts, all these years, and finally we do. There has been similar progress (see: wp:Graphs and charts), but in general, more gadgets can be created, or improved, for current use. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think {convert} is a good place to start. Any template with hundreds of subpages is, IMO, not very efficient. It might run quickly but its a real nightmare to try and sort out what goes were and how. Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
See Help:Convert for many options: I have been revising {Convert} for years, to reduce complexity while allowing more options, but {Convert} reflects an entire complex sub-culture of the world, with hundreds of unit names (more added every month). Might as well demand, "Let's simplify this alphabet of 26 letters to only 13, to make it 2x easier". The World is not that simple. Convert is a case of wp:54CARDS. Now, we do have a "mini-Convert" for the most-common units, to translate into other languages. However, many people keep wanting even more, such as cuft/s, 23 cubic feet per second (0.65 m3/s), or psf: 165 pounds per square foot (1.15 psi). So, via Help:Convert, there are detailed instructions for any user to create more dozens of conversion units, when actually needed. Yet, I do favor creating a 2nd simple Convert, similar to a basic calculator, while also supporting a scientific calculator with sine and cosine. But Convert, with hundreds of subtemplates, needs those hundreds to handle the world's complexity, as many users have requested. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Vent

I like to come here at times to vent, but it seems pretty senseless in the long run really, but I will say this, I am almost certain Wikipedia is getting more difficult for everyone. I used to love working here, but all my efforts seem to really mean very little. The rules, policies and guidelines are not the problem. Its the fact that there is absolutely no place to turn when you need assistance, real assistance. You almost...no....you absolutley need to be connected to someone with "power" to get any real attention that isn't a threat to "Boomarang" back at you or just get a smack in the face with ridicule by those intrusted in these official locations. I am taking a Wikibreak. I am sure I will edit again, but I will no longer use the Admin Boards. They have great uses for some situations but for the most part...not a place to actually look for help. Just a place to turn someone in to get kicked off the site. That seems what they are only used for.

So here, let me leave this with you Mr. Wales....I won't be needing it anymore.

Project editor retention logo 1.svg WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I certainly don't want to see you leave, Amadscientist, and hope that if you need a break, that you take it and come back. For what it is worth, I think there is no question that you are an asset to Wikipedia, the key is finding a way that Wikipedia can be an asset to you. There is no question that ANI is an ugly place. I know because I worked for a long time before becoming an admin, and the ugliness a was huge factor in my decision to run the gauntlet at RfA, to try to make it a little less ugly. But by its nature, it will always be a little ugly, kind of like the emergency room of a hospital isn't representative of the entire organization. It is designed for quick decisions, and quick action. We put out fires, which means sometimes things get broken or stepped on. It isn't on purpose, however. You are correct that the rules can be frustrating and the list often seems to grow by the day, but that was part of the reason I started WP:WER, and why you joined us, to try to address some of these challenges. As for venting, you are welcome to vent on my talk page or via email any time you like and if you do take a break, I hope it isn't longer than what is needed to clear your head. If you remember back, you and I first met at ANI and you didn't like what I had to say at the time, yet now get along very well. Take a few days off, and I will be glad to lend my ear when you come back, friend. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 10:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not leaving Wikipedia, the WER project or my volunteer work with Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or other boards I assist on. I simply have no further interest in being that helping hand reaching out to others, when my reaching out is almost always slapped back down. Dennis, from the beginning I could tell you were cut from a different cloth. This was solidified when the two other admin I have the greatest respect for...tore into each other and became a personal war. I have several Admin who watch my user page and no doubt more to now follow, but it is clear that few steps are being taken at the one place that needs it the most. The Admin noticeboards are almost out of control and I cannot accept that it will always be that way. I honestly believe that these two boards are doing more harm then good and I would fully support their simply being torn down and completely rebuilt from the ground up. Look at the work of DR. The changes there are amazing to me, but more help is needed. If AN and AN/I were more like the other boards and less like they are now there would be no excuse for the sarcastic and uncivil tone slapped at good faith editors. It is exactly like being told you are worthless and "Go away boy, your bothering me".--Amadscientist (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I am going to spend some time outside in the fresh air. Visit a forest, climb a rock...and maybe a primal scream or two. Thanks Dennis.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • While I am set with how I feel right now.....
Rainbow trout transparent.png
Whack!

I'm slapping myself with a trout and moving on.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's not like he hasn't doled out his own doses of frustration. The most obvious Fair Use candidate I can possibly think of and it's like, well, we could not have it in the article, so take it out. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Incredibly poor timing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From Russia

Hello! In 2011-2012, I wrote 30 articles for Wikipedia. Almost all of them were related to article Соседов, Пётр Иванович. This article was deleted by the administrator. I ask to restore the article.

kalash1111 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no article of that name on this encyclopedia. Was it on the Russian wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can't see a deleted article by that title - and when whatever it was was up for deletion I couldn't see any of the 30 articles. Are you using different accounts each time? I can see no other edits for this account - and no deleted ones. Anyway, you ought to take this to WP:DRV Deletion Review - but make sure you're using the exact title or we won't be able to find it. I would remind you that you should stick to one account when editing. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The title translates to 'A neighbour, Peter Ivanovich" - this suggests a book or play whose English title may not be the same. If it is a notable work, there will be an article here already. The page on the Russian Wikipedia has been deleted twice - in 2011 and 2012. Is it there you are talking about? Peridon (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think it was there. I've found your account there. I'm an administrator here, but not there - so I can't see what things you wrote there that were deleted. I would suggest going to ru:Википедия:К восстановлению and asking there. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There is also a Russian basketball player named Peter Sosedov, if you take this to be a proper name. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The joys of translation.... Think you're very likely right. I think literary before I think sport. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A little article to note

A bit late to the party, but Andrew Lih, a member of CREWE, has written an article about the Philip Roth thing and I think it's one of the best, most evenhanded portrayals of the incident and situation thus far. I just wanted to let everyone read it.

You can find it here. Thanks to Jayen for pointing it out in the first place. SilverserenC 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Best article? Not likely. The article mentions that Roth was told he needed a secondary source and then goes on to imply that that's a defensible policy. In fact, Wikipedia does accept primary sources for claims like this, and the claim that he needs a secondary source was simply Wikipedia screwing up, followed by other Wikipedians compounding the screwup by refusing to speak up against it even after it became publicly known.
The article also comes perilously close to the "we include verifiable information even if it's false" fallacy. As soon as Roth told us that the information was false (at least after it became obvious that it was really him), we should have made the editorial decision to exclude the false material. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
We need more essays... to explain how articles are written. I started with "WP:Beware mindreader text" to avoid the whole "what-the-author-was-thinking-but-has-not-said" imagined inspiration, in this case. Last year, there was "WP:Acceptability" to help explain what gets excluded from articles. We need more essays. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The meaning behind Lin's statement is that secondary sources are, almost always, the best source to use, because primary sources are too close to the topic. This leads to things like exaggeration, misremembering, or just plain human error.
While in this case, the primary source is really the only place to go for information on inspiration for a book, it doesn't change the fact that secondary sources are preferred in almost every other case.
Furthermore, the main point in regard to Roth is that what he was trying to do was not properly presenting himself as a primary source. Writing an article in The New Yorker or on his personal website is a primary source, commenting in a Wikipedia article or even an email are not primary sources. This is quite obvious. So what Roth was doing before he published his New Yorker article was not presenting a source at all. SilverserenC 07:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't care if the "main point" is that primary sources were okay but Roth wasn't being a proper one, because that "main point" is not what Wikipedia said; it's what you would like Wikipedia to have said. I'm going by what Wikipedia actually said. You (and the article writer) are ignoring the problem if you claim that Wikipedia didn't do anything wrong just because what Wikipedia was trying to say was fine, when what Wikipedia actually said is not. Telling an outsider the wrong thing isn't a technicality that is fine because Wikipedia's actual policy is okay. It's a Wikipedia failure. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I never said Wikipedia didn't do anything wrong. Whomever the admin was in question, they were most definitely wrong for telling Roth that thing about secondary sources. What they should have told him was that he should write the information on his personal website or organize a newspaper interview where he could state the info. Then we would have had a source to use. Though that doesn't change the fact that 1) he should have never tried to remove the information about Broyard, as it is relevant that so many critics compared his character to Broyard and 2) he really should have explained the inspiration for Silk a long, long time ago, rather than saying there was no inspiration in interviews past. It is absolutely not our fault that we didn't include that info, when it had never been published anywhere.
The only part that was our fault was that erroneous statement by the admin, but nothing else. SilverserenC 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Questionable views by Lin: Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but Lin referring to Wikipedia as "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO) made me cringe in horror, after years of cross-checking facts, for logical consistency (and avoiding repeated rumors), plus expanding the scope, so that articles are encyclopedic (all-encompassing: 6 W's), rather than merely regurgitating the input garbage. Then, get this, Lin concludes that Wikipedia is "being quick by nature, yet slow by design" and I am thinking the exact opposite: because sources state that Wikipedia was designed to be quick ("wiki" means "fast"), not require pre-approval by 7-level expert committees. Plus, by nature, WP has become S-L-O-W: as I tried 2 months ago to promote fast-cite templates, and they stayed in wp:TfD for weeks/months, when a typical template is usually discussed for keep/delete within 7 days. But in reality, that is the current "nature" of Wikipedia: templates designed to make Wikipedia articles reformat, or edit-preview, 3x faster, are kept in wp:TfD 3x slower than 98%(?) of all templates. Finally, I was amused by Lin's end remark about the "mercurial volunteer community in need of a decorum upgrade". However, the whole situation indicates that Wikipedia does not, adequately, explain how articles are written, nor how editorial judgment affects the results. Yet, on balance, even when properly explained, many people are still misled by false impressions, so this seems yet another case. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "Garbage in, garbage out" is really not a good term to use in regard to what he was trying to explain, but his actual explanation still holds perfectly true, besides the cringing terminology. His point is that Wikipedia is indebted to its sources and references. It relies on those completely because to do anything else would be to violate our OR rules. Therefore, we can only include information that has a reference to attach.
In this case with Roth, before his New Yorker article was published, there was no reference to use. Therefore, the information should not have been tried to be changed, because it was a direct violation of original research, regardless of Roth being the author. We require a reference to use directly, per our verification policy. Without that, no changes should be made. In any dispute between someone who's presenting sources and someone who's not, the person presenting sources should always win on Wikipedia, because references are the only thing that matter. SilverserenC 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
NOR was meant to keep out crankery, unfortunately, as demonstrated here it has failed, as given the choice WP preferred crankery over correctness. John lilburne (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly pointed out in prior discussions about the book article, there was nothing incorrect in it. It stated that certain critics alleged that Broyard was in the inspiration and that Roth said he wasn't. There is nothing incorrect about that statement at all. SilverserenC 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
-blink- It stated original research and opinion, and when told by the author that the OR and opinion was incorrect, WP prefered the OR and opinion rather than the correction of the author. In a nutshell you have crankery on the part of WP editors. John lilburne (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is OR about saying that literary critics stated that Broyard was allegedly the inspiration and that Roth stated that Broyard wasn't? Both of those things were sourced and everything. Of course they're opinion, they're the critics' opinion. How is any of that "crankery"? SilverserenC 08:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
-sigh- The critics are engaging in OR and the insertion of their research in to WP article of the book, is akin to inserting David Icke's opinion that the royals are space lizards into the bio of Queen Betty, and preferring that description over that of her doctor. Crankery is in believing that made up rules should always override common sense. John lilburne (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
John lilburne, WP:OR refers only to Wikipedia editors expounding their own unpublished views. Secondary sources are all, always original research - the author is presenting their own view, based on anything from academic research to personal gnosis cobbled together with stuff they read in Titbits. Which is why WP:RS recommends that secondary sources have some kind of editorial oversight or peer review process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Did I NOT make myself clear? When C identifies a character in a book by A as being based on X then C is giving an opinion which may or may not be based on some research of their own. When A turns up and says C is mistaken and the character is based not on X but on Y then common sense ought to prevail and C's opinion consigned to history. Instead obsessive adherence to a rule overthrew common sense and made the project look like it was inhabited by cranks. John lilburne (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not how it works at all. If an opinion is found to be later wrong, you still note that the opinion existed and that it turned out to be wrong. You don't just erase it. Otherwise no one will know that it was wrong. SilverserenC 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again YOU are wrong. There are far more things published that "just ain't so" than are so. The editorial process discards the former in favour of the later. If that wasn't the case articles wouldn't be based on modern scholarship but would retain al the previous beliefs that "ain't so" too. You would have, in say the articles of historical battles, the opinions of historians from the 18th and 19th centuries as to the location, the numbers on each side, how they were arrayed and how the battle progressed sitting, cheek by jowl, alongside modern scholarship based on archaeological evidence and examination of archival documents made available in modern times. John lilburne (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The critics' statements are OR...what?! Do you even know what OR means? It only applies to us, not to any of the sources. Furthermore, please stop using erroneous metaphors. A better one would be akin to inserting...that long statement of yours into the article after a huge amount of notable newspapers writers wrote about it seriously. Then it would be proper to include, though it should always be included as "This person said" or "This person believes". Not to mention that the doctor's view would then be included as well. SilverserenC 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Seren stop being tiresome. Blind adherence to a rule is a form of disruption. John lilburne (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, you have no counterargument, so you fall back on your normal tactics of accusations. SilverserenC 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Timing is everything. Accusations occur before conviction. John lilburne (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Silver seren: I keep hearing that there was "nothing incorrect" abut the article. Claiming that there was "nothing incorrect" because someone said something incorrect, but it's correct that someone said something incorrect, is Wikilawyering. A person who read the article would have believed incorrect things, regardless of any Wiki-technicalities. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would they have believed incorrect things when the article says that te critics believe this thing and then the author stated that, no, that thing is not correct. Unless the readers are skipping the line about the author, then they shouldn't be believing anything incorrect. Instead, they should be more informed that a number of critics thought this for this reason for the longest time, but Roth explained that, no, that couldn't be true because he didn't know that info about that person until after he wrote the book. SilverserenC 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
During the time period that "was not correct" refers to, there was no such statement by the author. The article just gave the critics' views. At that point in time the article was incorrect. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
What time period was that? As far as I know, it stated Roth's view (from earlier, at least) along with the critics' views even before all of this. Besides, wouldn't it have been better than to add more to Roth's views and not try to remove all of the informationa bout the critics, as the biographer tried to do? SilverserenC 08:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A demurral -- "references are the only thing that matter" is absurd -- the idea is to write a long-term encyclopedia article based on fact. Our acceptance of speculation and opinion with regard to BLPs is a major long-term problem, and one which has been shown to cause far more friction than light. IMO, contentious "opinions" ought almost never be attached to BLPs, allegations and rumours should almost never be attached to BLPs, and in those rare cases where we do put opinions in such, they should be absolutely clearly marked as "opinion" and sourced to the specific person or group holding that opinion. It is not the proper task of Wikipedia to do anything else, and most especially not categorise people in any contentious or non-factual manner. Thus I would have opposed the initial opinions once any sign of them being contentious was shown, and I would not have told Mr. Roth that his statements "are not a source at all." Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have clarified about the references statement, but you know I didn't mean it in that regard anyways. And, of course, these were all opinions, reviews by critics are always included as their opinion. That's how book articles work. And this wasn't a BLP or anything, so no issue there, unless you'd say the fictional character Silk falls under the BLP heading. And you should know full well, Collect, that we are meant to show both sides. The fact that a huge amount of the literary world that existed around Roth's book thought the character was based on a certain thing is of course notable and should be included. It's acknowledged everywhere. And, of course, Roth's statement that this viewpoint was wrong should be included, as it was. And Roth is a great source for his opinion, but only if he has published it, even if only on a personal website. His editing it into the article (or his biographer doing it for him) is not a source of anything. There is nothing to cite as a reference there, nothing to fulfill the requirements of WP:V. SilverserenC 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


We don't know the full e-mail exchange but one thing that appears to be getting lost in the rather dry (but oddly emotional) primary/secondary source issue is that with respect to Bailey -- when a reliable publisher, publishes his work on Roth, that work will be a reliable secondary source (using, in part, primary sources). So, saying to Bailey (not Roth) he should produce a reliable secondary source is correct, even if it is based on primary information. (And, if he could not do so, no one could). Whether, there is a way for Wikipedia to ever publish the writings of people (e-mail) and thus take on the position of reliable publisher of the (secondary or primary) sources themselves is doubtful or at the least COI (for a tertiary source) and resource problematic. But it certainly was not set-up to do so in this matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think of that regarding Bailey. Yeah, he would be a secondary source if he published something in regards to this. A pretty darn good one too, since he's a biographer and all. Too bad he didn't do that. :/ SilverserenC 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I also have a hard time thinking this could be a thing that would be 'no problem' merely if the Admin had said "primary/secondary." Although mayhap, it could have "looked better." What Roth seems to be complaining about is control, and not that Bailey was somehow grossly misled by the use of the rather broad term 'secondary.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Control as in, Roth wants to be in control of the content in the article? SilverserenC 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh ye gods. "Control the article" is one of the most annoying cool-ades we drink around here. I mean, probably he read it and thought "that wasn't my inspiration". We overthink it to justify our position, and then accuse him of trying to control the article content... no, sure, that is our job! Absolutely all it needed was for Roth to publish somewhere that he disputes this being his motivation - due to a miscommunication he was told something slightly different, which upset him. And after that we've circle the wagon and whined and whined. --Errant (chat!) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
My reference to "control" was in regard to the question of "who is in control?," which is a conundrum, and a central facet of the Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Better article by Okeyes

Sorry, Andrew, but Okeyes' blog post here is now my favorite article on the topic. It cuts right to the point and explains everything perfectly and exactly on how Roth was completely in the wrong here. And I mean completely. SilverserenC 07:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it merely shows how obnoxious and superior Wikipedians can be. --Errant (chat!) 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you reading the same thing? If so, you should start a motion to change BLP to WP:Slavishly kowtow to anyone who demands their way, even if that person is completely wrong or lying and we know it; it'd lead to less accurate information, but I suppose it would make my life easier not having to watch over articles like Fiona Graham and Liza Dalby. Aside from the fact that Philip Roth really has better things to be doing with his life, I'm not seeing how Wikipedia editors are being obnoxious for wanting to verify Roth's claims; in fact, that's what we're supposed to be doing instead of listening to some random person on the internet claiming to be someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how Wikipedia editors are being obnoxious for wanting to verify Roth's claims; that's not what I was referring to. In general Wikipedians tend to exhibit this sort of elitest mentality where we hold some important role... it makes us obnoxious to people who don't speak the same language (i.e. 99% of the rest of the world). We should be much more humble. --Errant (chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
One thing that Oliver missed is that the wording Roth quoted when he said, My novel “The Human Stain” was described in the entry as “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” (The precise language has since been altered by Wikipedia’s collaborative editing, but this falsity still stands.), was actually in his biography, not the article on The Human Stain. In the bio, it was not qualified beyond the "allegedly". Wikipedia just said, Allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard, The Human Stain examines identity politics in 1990s America. That's the wording Roth objected to. The discussion that brought this to light was initiated by Andrew Lih, and is located here. The Devil's Advocate was the editor who located the quote. And of course the section on Broyard in The Human Stain was hugely expanded after the initial attempt by his biographer to remove the erroneous speculation, which is likely to have added fuel to Roth's resentment. On the whole, I also do not like the tone of this piece, and it will confirm people's judgment of Wikipedians. Andrew's post, while also spotlighting some debatable issues (verifiability, not truth/garbage in, garbage out), was more circumspect in this regard. (And note that "verifiability, not truth" is no longer the current policy wording, beyond a mention in a footnote.) JN466 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Without even looking at the book or the article here, I think it should be clear that secondary sources supporting both positions should be cited, and the contradiction (and the emphasis by the author) noted. The author is obviously the most important source about a novel, but Wikipedia has been hoaxed before and will be hoaxed again, so it remains best to require him to generate a citable primary or secondary reliable source we can cite rather than relying on an account name. (His own self-published work should be sufficient, if there is no ambiguity in how to describe it) Despite all these things, authors cannot override and erase third party sources. In general, there are many reasons why an author might tell us something that is simply wrong - to play with us and have a laugh, because of a libel lawsuit, because he doesn't want to pay someone for using his life story, because of potential copyright infringement claims, because a person politely asked him to keep their name out of it, because he doesn't like that person any more and doesn't want to be associated with him in the future. So the only alternative is to cite both, point out the disagreement, let the reader make his own decision. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Cybercrime law

IDK, but have you hard any news about it, Jim? I was wondering since you recently made a statement regarding you and Wikimedia's decision on not to host any of the project's sites in the UK unless if the local libel laws were re-worked. Judging from the provisions in that now-passed law, it allows individuals (i.e. government officials, celebrities, etc.) to like have the right to sue anyone whom they think is saying ill at them. And since there are a lot of Filipinos who frequent and edit here, the potential for mayhem can be quite huge if you ask me. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I had heard nothing about it. The EFF has approached me about the proposed new law in Australia, and I'm just starting my research on that one. It's a shame that I didn't know about this one in the Philippines earlier, I could have perhaps helped by making some statement. (It's unclear to me how much good my statements do, but they do seem to get attention.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, especially now that another representative has been coming up with what appears to be a SOPA-style law. Sure, piracy is rampant in my country, but that could be quite draconian, and I really hated that I couldn't convince my father to change his stance on it and embrace a more permissible model of things. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and are you planning to make a statement, or give your opinions on it, perhaps? I'm thinking about contacting the EFF and ask if they can do something about the Cybercrime legislation. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What stands out to me about that news item is that this Anti-Online Piracy Act of 2012 says that downloading or linking would be penalized very harshly. An obvious problem with this is that there is no way to know when something viewed or mentioned is pirated or not - if you see something on, say, YouTube, maybe it's official, maybe it isn't. Especially, how do you know if you can't even look at it first? You can't even ask someone else to look at it first, because that would be linking. Commiserations for the poor Filipinos! Wnt (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if the articles Internet in the Philippines and Internet censorship by country#.C2.A0Philippines would provide more information. An update would be an excellent first step. There should be a lot more information about the new laws, it's very outdated. --Atlasowa (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Link-penalties are more dangerous: If a hyperlink to another webpage was set before the webpage contained copy-vio data, then a person might be blamed retroactively for something they did not know would be there later. This is another issue of being blamed for precrime activities. It is related to search and seizure limits, where a judge should grant a motion to suppress evidence from items obtained by searching an area which a defendant was not proven to know, such as under a car seat, or inside a wall panel. In the U.S., many cases have been dropped due to concealed evidence, and so the lying police officers might state the evidence was "on the dashboard of the vehicle" as items viewed through the window, rather than allow the evidence to be dismissed as concealed and unknown to the suspect. When making laws, people must consider the effects that the lying police officers will have on the potential charges, although revision-history records could help catch police officers in their lies, if the judge was not also corrupt in accepting those lies, or corrupt witnesses. Because the prison sentences for drug possession in the U.S. can span many years, then planting drug evidence is an effective means to frame people and have them imprisoned for years, such as sentences of 44 or 55 years for minor amounts of drug possession, after prior offenses. When sentences or penalties are limited, then the risks are decreased, and then lying police officers, judges and dishonest witnesses are less of a problem. Hence, that is another issue which could reduce the risks of link-penalties, by treating them as only minor offenses. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Expert third opinion

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I found out today that Wikipedia does not have in place a system whereby someone can ask for a third opinion from an expert in a certain field. If there is a dispute over content between two people and a third opinion is desired, it would be very useful to have the capability of asking an expert to answer the question. The internet is amazing because we can have direct access to the e-mails of experts. Of course, asking the question of the expert will not guarantee their response, but at the very least it seems like it would be an easy kludge to make a simple form that would allow you to post a question to an expert at, say, an academic institution through Wikipedia and have them answer the e-mail so that people could read their responses.

What I envision is a system administered like third opinion where someone writes the expert asking a specific question and gets permission from the expert to post their response. This might be a very beneficial thing to have here and, frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't exist already. I could, of course, e-mail the expert myself, but I think it would be much better if the developers could incorporate this functionality into the wiki software.

What do you think of my idea? I ask this to get your third opinion as a subject matter expert on Wikipedia!

Sincerely, Junjunone (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your [[WP:TO|third opinion]] link points to wikiproject toronto. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you would run into a significant problem there, namely that many academics treat Wikipedia with scorn and would probably not want to be involved with it. Their ivory tower perspective does not allow for the possibilty of "normal" people, unpaid volunteers no less, forming any sort of reference work of value. That this view is behind the times and will ultimately reflect very poorly on them has yet to penetrate the veil of academia for the most part, but there are a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that many academics wouldn't mind to offer a quick opinion if the question was worded carefully and wasn't too difficult to understand. Sure, Wikipedia is looked down upon, but if I e-mail an expert a question I have on a subject that is associated with their research I have found that nine times out of ten they respond with a thoughtful reply to my query. What's the harm in asking? Junjunone (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
While I feel that Beeble's statement is overbroad and generalizing (I've had great cooperation from academics at UW-Milwaukee, for example), I would point out that this leaves Wikipedia in the awkward position of annointing certian persons as The Experts in a given field. Imagine a query about the American Civil War: do we send it to a progressive historian such as Eric Foner, or to a Confederate apologist such as several I won't name? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
How is your objection not a standing one for third opinion as is? If one asks for a third opinion and it is rejected by the editors writing the article, then that's just another data point. Is we "assume good faith" as many of the policy pages exhort us to, we would look for only the most high-quality academics and experts and ask them for their opinion. We are, of course, empowered to reject their opinion, but when it comes to interpreting sources where else do we have to turn? Junjunone (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Best way to avoid disputed content is by providing a Verifiable and Reliable Source, expert not required..Just saying.--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
When someone misinterprets a source as greatly as I have seen, it is absolutely required to get a neutral party to determine which person has the comprehension problem. Sometimes, the sources are too difficult to understand for the layperson, as is the case in my dispute. Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We turn to consensus. I think you're misunderstanding 3O. As a wise man once said, 3O is like 'having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn[ing] to a passer-by to ask "hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?"' 3O's purpose is only to get the two sides to agree, it has no authority to overrule or enforce a particular decision. If the two parties don't agree after a 3O, then the 3O has failed and that's all it can do. Writ Keeper 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Asking a passerby may not be the best way of resolving a dispute when it is academic. In that case, it's best to ask the professor down the hall. If third opinion is not equipped to handle this basic sort of request, then maybe we should have Wikipedia:Ask an expert. I guess I could put together a basic form there, but I'm not well-enough versed in wiki programming to do so. Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Junjunone--Might I suggest that you go get yourself a cup of tea or something? Everyone that edits at Wikipedia and virtually all of the administrators are volunteers. You are having way to high of expectations as to the timeframe for your problem to be worked out. You asked your initial question at Teahouse at 17:27 and by 18:35 you are at Jimbo's talk page complaining about it? As I said, everyone here is a volunteer and has real life issues and other things that they do at Wikipedia. What you have going on is an edit dispute. I am personally involved in working on three others besides yours at the moment and I am sure that the same is true for anyone else you may have contact with. There are over 4 million articles on Wikipedia, and the are ALL edited by volunteers. Wikipedia editors, by design, are NOT experts. Wikipedia articles are written so that the average high school student can understand them. The person you are in dispute suggested to you that very fact. Take some time to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. After you have done that, go back and look through your communications with the person you are in dispute with. Then maybe you should take a look at WP:BOOMARANG. Please calm down. You are not helping yourself at all. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel fairly calm. I was pretty appalled at having errors continually reintroduced into an article, but I understand that Wikipedia doesn't hold a very high priority for fixing errors in a timely fashion unless there are mitigating circumstances. One takes pride in ones' work and it is difficult at times to not invest some effort in figuring out the solution to the problem. It looked to me like there was one particular user who was a problem. I tried to approach the situation as to get the user removed from the situation, but now I realize that Wikipedia doesn't work that way in spite of certain indications of the banning policy to that effect. Instead, what I have learned is that Wikipedia prefers to have disputes resolved in a mediated way, but in this case it would require someone who was versed in the material to help. That's why I think we need the ability to ask an expert. Junjunone (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note the proposal here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Ask_an_expert. The two main problems as I see are the two Beeblebrox and OrangeMike pointed out; you have to annoy random people, not even that, you need to ask them to give their sources! Further, how do you decide who counts as an expert in a particular topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There was also some discussion at WT:3O#Expert third opinion, which is where I gave the suggestion to take it to VPR. It seems like it could be a useful thing if we (somehow) got it to work, so I don't see the problems with having a discussion, even if it will probably get shot down quickly. While Junjunone definitely was way overheated when he posted to the Teahouse, he seems to have cooled a bit with this proposal, so I'm not sure we need to be throwing boomerangs around quite yet. Writ Keeper 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding, IRWolfie. The idea is not to get the expert to add content with cited sources. The idea is to get the expert to weigh in on a dispute over content. In the case of the dispute referenced above, I was upset that a user could not seem to comprehend a very simple argument given a very straightforward text on the subject. Instead, the user twisted the source to say something way beyond and even contradictory to the point the authors were trying to make. In this case, it requires a subject matter expert to weigh in to decide which person has the correct interpretation of the source. There is no citing of sources required. A simple question such as, "Do numerical simulations of galaxy formation and large scale structure show that baryonic matter follows dark matter?" would suffice for example. Having given two sources that the other editor seemed to have read and then regurgitated in a way that is contrary to fundamental understanding in this subject, I was feeling quite frustrated, but I am fairly confident that if I e-mailed any one of a number of numerical simulation experts they would probably say something similar to me. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd agree with my opponent. The point is that it would be nice to get an expert to help out in these cases. Junjunone (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
See Template:Expert-subject.—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if this template actually looked for an expert or had the capability of asking one directly. Junjunone (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It does and I think one has started to look over the article you are concerned about already. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That's great! Can you show me where in the code it does that? Is it possible to get it to e-mail the experts directly by adding a flag for an e-mail address perhaps? Junjunone (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This almost always works:

The reason that this isn't annoying is that experts who are corresponding authors on literature reviews have basically made a promise to their editors that they will accept just exactly these kinds of questions in return for having their article published (so that the editor isn't bothered with them) so in fact it's actually their obligation, which assures a speedy reply unless they are on vacation or dead. —Cupco 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's simply untrue. However, many experts are happy to answer questions as long as they are clearly stated and can be answered concisely. If a question shows promise of turning into a massive time-sink, most will duck it. Looie496 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been the tacit agreement ever since journals started publishing corresponding author addresses. It's absolutely true prior to the article being accepted for publication, and with retraction rates being what they are these days it remains implicitly true. —Cupco 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Corresponding authors aren't under any enforceable obligation to answer, but they are far more likely to respond than you'd think. That's because far fewer people actually read their papers than you'd think... Wnt (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There are some really odd ideas about what it means to be a corresponding author in this thread. It's pretty simple: a corresponding author is provided so that interested people can ask questions about the specific study published by that author. Corresponding authorship is absolutely not an open-ended commitment to provide volunteer tutoring on a general scientific topic to anyone with an email account. That's not an obligation or even an expectation; it's not part of some implicit contract with a journal publisher; and I'm not sure how the rate of scientific retractions is in any way relevant here. MastCell Talk 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I take it all back, except for the part about it almost always works.Cupco 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Expert Third Opinion idea sounds good until you realize that many of the big matters of content disagreement on WP have parallels in the academic literature. Orange Mike, above, is right on the mark. The choice of the expert would inherently resolve the question one way or the other. The real world is a clash of opposing POVs... We just need to represent these sides fairly, proportionately, and dispassionately... Carrite (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Experts can also be neutral, in discussing many things, but the thing is, 1) the Users have to agree that they are an expert, who will give a fair take, and it's actually just another bit of info in the discussion, because the expert is not making any edit or discussing WP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If I understand correctly this is now under discussion in four or five different places. We should probably close all of them and just discuss at the actual proposals' talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm the editor Junjunone is complaining about. To help Beeblebrox above, the pages I'm aware of are
Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia edited by experts, for that see Scholarpedia as I've pointed out to Junjunone. I'm not sure that calling for experts helps - you can get people who consider themselves experts but who aren't, Wikipedia is looked down on by some academics so that discourages others from engaging with it, and you need time and patience to help out with Wikipedia so it is a big ask to expect anyone to edit an article. As proposed by Beeblebrox, I've suggested on the talk page for galaxy rotation curve that further discussion on the content use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Need a dark matter.2Fbaryonic matter simulations expert. So let's see ... Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Your post at wikiproject astronomy was focussed on attacking Junjunone and not dealing with the issues. You might reflect that when your reasoning on the talk page is based on OR, and there is someone you acknowledge is an expert [2] on that subject, it might be an idea to listen to some of what they have to say when they tell you are completely wrong. Further, why are you listing a neutrally worded post to Wikiproject physics/astronomy as problematic, they don't even mention you; surely you should welcome the extra editors. His post at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_do_you_discipline_a_problematic_user seems typically of a new user who doesn't know how wikipedia works, but in your reply you suggest he is a probable sockpuppet and find it necessary to say that "He also fundamentally disagrees with the way Wikipedia operates". IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What??? I find it difficult to find one sentence in the above I can agree with. I think Junjunone is the one who is attacking. My post on Talk:Galaxy rotation curve#Further investigation was not based on OR but on my reading on the paper Junjunone had cited in the article - of course my reading may be wrong, but it is not OR. Junjunone has never made any attempt to point out any error in any discussion, simply tried to shut me up in various ways - one of which was simply to cite the paper without any other explanation, possibly to just bury me in paper, but I read it. The link you show is just me paraphrasing Junjunone's claims to be an expert, I certainly do not endorse them. I think he clearly isn't an expert, for one thing because experts try, at least initially, to explain where the other person is wrong. He has actually said nothing about why I am "completely" wrong. Only that he is the expert and so I should trust what he says - I think not. I am not listing Junjunone's post at the Astronomy or Physics projects as problematical, only trying to list where Junjunone had spread these discussions in response to Beeblebrox's comment above. I do welcome extra editors, but Junjunone had said nothing about which part of the article was in dispute, and it is clear from the discussion here that experts respond best to focussed queries - so that's why I too posted stuff on the project pages, as well as to say that I welcomed other editors.
My suspicion that Junjunone is a sockpuppet may be wrong, but it is reasonable given that it took him just 7 minutes from posting a question at the Teahouse at 17:27 on 17 Sept asking about how to deal with people like me to filing the request for me to be topic banned [3] (of course no-one had replied in that time), and that just before he filed for a topic ban he had written on my talk page that I was to be topic banned (I think a new user would do it the other way round to check it worked first, assuming they ever found out there was such thing as a topic ban). An hour later he started this section here, and less than 1 1/2 hours after that he had completed a new admin proposal page: Wikipedia:Ask an expert. During this 2 1/2 hours he has posted on various forums, including the Astronomy and Physic projects. He says he is a newbie and his pages start on 3 Sept 2012 and he asks these naive questions, but he knows an awful lot about Wikipedia and he clearly has no need to ask any questions - he is an expert user of Wikipedia if not an expert in astronomy. So why does he ask these questions? And if he can find out so easily the correct way to post a new admin proposal, why is he so wrong in other ways, e.g. using the vandalism tag [4] (which again is not something I'd expect a newbie to do), calling for a topic ban, etc?
If Junjunone is a sockpuppet I think his proposals here alone are enough justification to say that "He also fundamentally disagrees with the way Wikipedia operates." I suspect he could be a sockpuppet for User:ScienceApologist, who also thought that Wikipedia's policy on experts was wrong, and now I come to think of it also like Junjunone did not engage in discussions about content. Junjunone also claims "I have worked for years in the subject field and follow the literature closely" [5] which fits with ScienceApologist. I've had run ins with socks of ScienceApologist before, and whilst I may be paranoid, sometimes you are right to be paranoid, and that would be a motive for a sock of ScienceApologist to attack me. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, when I make a major change of meaning to an article, I'll email the author of the source with a courtesy note to advise them I'm citing them (I usually tell them how many people per month read the article) and invite them to let me know if I'm misrepresenting or misusing their ideas. I am very concise and focussed. All I really seek is acknowledgement that they've looked at the relevant text. About half respond. And they don't hold back when I've got them wrong. I find this informal process very comforting. While Randy from Boisie can have his way with their work very few working, serious scholars will bother with writing or reviewing entire articles. There is an upheaval occurring in peer-reviewed publishing; Wikipedia may be a part of the new paradigm. I'm not sure anyone knows what our role will be, or what the new paradigm looks like yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If someone is an acknowledged expert on the particular subject, it's a good idea to listen to what they say, but still at the end of the day policy based arguments should win. Typically the expert would just need to be shown how to phrase his responses in that form. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a new sockpuppet investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist#20 September 2012. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably irrelevant, but the expert they're asking for there appears to be extremely narrowly tailored, and it seems like they're asking for them to rewrite the whole paragraph. I'm not that expert, but I'm close enough that for a clearly posed question I could probably be really helpful (my doctorate and subsequent research are both on planetary/stellar dynamics, not galactic, but I probably know enough to be helpful for their problem), but looking at the messy problem and the likely amount of work to solve it, I don't really feel like I want to get involved. 86.27.186.89 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19544299

Today Gibraltar, tomorrow... The World! 212.250.138.33 (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • QR codes also need small article pages: The use of quick-response codes at (Gilbraltar) landmarks, to link a tourist's phone to a related WP article, is another reason to stratify articles as basic "Landmark XX" versus huge page "Landmark XX (detailed)" where some people tend to obsess on vast details about a topic and expand into a data-hoarder version of the article. I recall some people think the lede section could fill the role of "basic-article" mode, but accessing just the lede currently requires formatting the whole page, with perhaps 300 cite templates. Instead, a basic article needs to be a separate page, where most citations say, "Refer to 'Landmark XX (detailed)' for sources" so that the short-article version has few footnotes and gives a nutshell overview of a topic in "speakable" language. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we already have WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK or do we just need to implement one? Carrite (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
.....of course, that would cut into the pocketbooks of a couple consultants "Wikipedians"... Carrite (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide book, it is an encyclopedia. But it is an encyclopedia you can access on your phone. So why would you carry a guide book when you can look up any fact about anything on your phone? Wikipedia replaces guide books with encyclopedic content. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Respectable guide books (in their printed versions) mostly count as reliable sources, and, interestingly, most such respectable guide books are very uncomplimentary about Gibraltar as a tourist destination. (In comparison to the lovely areas of the Spanish coast to the west of Gibraltar.) If there really are concerns about the Gibraltar government's off-hand comments about not wanting "nasty" material added - which seemed quite innocent and unremarkable to me - then the concerned people should spend some time adding neutral and due weight content from guide books to some of the Gibraltar-related article. I somehow doubt there will be mass reverting of such additions, which will helpfully show that we're still getting neutral and encyclopedic content.
If all of this brings us to a point where detailed summaries of such respected guide books can be easily accessed through Wikipedia when visiting Andalucia, that would be a huge benefit to people like me. So get to it!
(Disclaimer - I was in Gibraltar earlier this month, but I don't have anything to do with Gibraltarpedia. I didn't meet any members of the government, although I did take a look at the Governor's Bible.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
In a way, I think it's an updated version of the blue plaque scheme; except that instead of a single interesting factoid, you can get a full treatment of a topic. Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the overall initiative is great, although as is often true of many new ventures, there are some kinks to work out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Jim, we need 2 talk.

I have an idea for wikipedia. Its calld a comments section. It would be placed below articles. The differents between comments and talk is that at talk pages, we only talk about edits to the article. On comments, wed get to talk about anything we want. Also, i have a question. Who got the idea for wikipedias logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.66.126 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing stopping an enterprising third-party from doing this, Mr. 76.220.66.126. All of the content on Wikipedia is freely available. And with a little programming, you could easily have WikiTalk.com or similar where people could comment on live Wikipedia content and even have linked discussion forums. But this isn't something Jimbo has to do, or that Wikipedia has to or even should do. The content is here and is available for re-use. It is simply up to people to find a way to use it in a new way. -- Avanu (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You might find WP:NOTAFORUM to be an interesting read. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
As for your second question, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. Graham87 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Being cynical, I could see it as a wonderful vehicle for spammers, concealed spammers and point-of-view pushers. And a load of extra work for those who take out the garbage. Who would be the moderators, or would it be free comment with no restrictions? Yes, it's a good suggestion and an interesting idea - but I could see it going the way of so many internet and usenet forums - a mass of advertising and shouting. A bit like ANI or RfA - no, there's no advertising there... Peridon (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I imagine it would be more like most comment sections on news media sites, loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling... Anyhoo, this is an encyclopedia, there are plenty of places to have broad, open discussions without regard for facts or civility on the interwebs, this just is not one of them and was never intended to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think such a section would be a highly useful historical resource for future readers. It would also be a pleasure, and believe it or not, your editors are not employees to have policies brandished at them for your convenience, but free agents you should be trying to keep interested. Best of all, such a section would suck this crap away from the legitimate Talk pages, and give the POV pushers something besides Wikilawyering to do with their time. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Man, I can't believe that multiple people have commented on this without trashtalking the Article Feedback Tool yet. I'll boldly volunteer. </silly>, but not really Writ Keeper 18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There may be a less useful feature somewhere on the planet to add to a reference work, but I can't envision one (with the obvious exception of a "Like" button). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The new Article Feedback feature already encapsulates this idea, and it is a huge waste of bandwidth, with rarely (if ever) anything sensible being added to the pages.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In medical articles, most of the feedback from the article feedback tool is constructive and useful. Popular culture and nationalism articles may be different. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's probably the luck of the draw, but the most recent comment on a medical-related article was on Niacin, and it said "My hair needs more Vegemite.". Before that, it was a comment for Medical sociology: "its too shallow". Internal fertilization has "the process of among animals in science come on today will recieve in his process"? But these are only the visible comments. Very recent comments that have been hidden include List of countries by infant mortality rate: "defour suckt!" and "hoereeeeeeeeeeeeee". This comment was flagged and marked as helpful at the same time by the system, even though it is just random abuse. Fram (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Try a bigger sample. Here are two lists of 100 feedback comments. The first starts with Niacin and works back on the list of all feedback comments. The second starts half an hour ago, working back on medical articles on my watchlist. I think you'll notice the difference between the quality and value of comments on medical articles compared to those on a cross-section of articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So, for one week now on Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/psychology, and for a day and a half on this user talk page (hidden here through collapsing), we have had the pure BLP violation "full name is homosexual". If this had been posted on the talk page of Psychology, it would have probably been zapped in minutes. Hidden away in the feedback pages, it has stayed up for a week, and even worse, "Article Feedback V5 marked this post as helpful on 19 September 2012 at 06:52" (but then again, that ridiculous script considered "Im virgin male homosexulal 40 years old" also "helpful" as feedback for the psychology article). Can we please get rid of this useless monstrosity? Fram (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden the comment, clearly we need more editors monitoring feedback. Anyone can hit the flag as abuse button (which may get it attention). Monty845 07:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) people do not spend much time looking at the Article Feedback pages. This means that WP:LIBEL could stay up for much longer than it would do elsewhere. I spent a few days removing all of the junk comments from some of the high profile articles, but it took far too long. A better option would be for this "feature" to sail off into the sunset, as it adds little of value to the project and is an accident waiting to happen if libel and other oversightable material is not picked up quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Umm. If that were a BLP violation I would have hidden the comment. That's not a BLP violation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You must be joking. Any statement saying "First name - Last Name" is homosexual is a blatant BLP violation. They don't come much clearer than that. It's not not a BLP violation because the person named is not known to us. It also doesn't matter whether it is true or not, or whether the person named would perceive it as an insult or not. Would you consider "Barack Obama is homosexual" a BLP violation? Would you consider "Tom Cruise is homosexual" a BLP violation? It doesn't matter whether one may be false and the other may be true or not, we don't allow unsourced and possible contentious statements about someones sexuality, and this was a very clear example of such a thing. What makes you believe that that was not a BLP violation? Fram (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I know who you mean when you say "Barak Obama is homosexual" and "Tom Cruise is homosexual" but I don't know who you mean when you say "Joe Bloggs is homosexual" if, as in this case, there's more than one Joe Bloggs and none is famous. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Accountability and paid editing

One of the Nolan principles is accountability. Essentially, those holding office "must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office". Scrutiny sometimes involves asking 'difficult' questions. Accountability means not calling the scrutineers 'trolls', questioning their motives, or bullying them in any way. I am not seeing accountability in the the behaviour of those involved in the current 'paid editing' affair at WMUK. All the scrutiny, as far as I can see, has been polite and well-mannered. Yet at least one person (see below), an editor in good standing has been complained of bullying and hate mail, and being 'cold shouldered'. Another editor in good standing has been called a 'troll'. See the links below.

I would like your view on this, and would welcome the view of any other Wikipedians who have a concern that problems in the Wikipedia world cannot be raised without fear of bullying and ad hominem attacks. Thank you. Hestiaea (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that there has been no paid editing so the claims in that respect are completely false. Frankly, some of the accusations that have been made (notably by Andreas Kolbe aka JN466) seem to be quite defamatory; if his victims wanted to sue him for libel I think they'd have a strong case. There is a big difference between raising well-founded concerns and making gratuitous accusations of corruption as part of an ongoing campaign against WMUK. It's remarkable that some of those who make the loudest noise about BLP issues have no compunctions about trashing their fellow editors in ways that would have likely got them blocked if they'd behaved that way toward biographical subjects. These are real people and real reputations that are being damaged by the ongoing smear campaigns being run by Wikipediocracy members. Prioryman (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Prioryman, offering a reward, such as free air travel, as is being done here is paid editing. That, in itself, is not a problem. Hestiaea is right, the response from some of the individuals, such as calling Jayen a "moron" on the Wikien mailing list, has crossed the line. Also, I think you just made a legal threat. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying that I think others would have a case against him is hardly a threat from me, is it now? Grow up. I wouldn't call him a moron since he appears to have some degree of intelligence. It's not his intelligence that's the problem - nor yours - but the constant conspiracy theorising, attacks on others and unvarying assumptions of bad faith. He's rightly been called out for those traits. And I would point to the blatant hypocrisy of the concocted outcry on this issue; nobody objected when the British Museum offered prizes for writing featured articles on its collections, or to the very successful "Wikipedian in residence" programme pioneered by Wittylama. These are all tried and tested approaches which have resulted in numerous good articles, goodwill from institutions and raised public awareness of Wikipedia's value and work. As Victuallers has rightly pointed out, Gibraltarpedia has been heavily publicised and scrutinised at every stage of the way - nothing that it's doing is different from what has been done in past GLAM collaborations. This isn't just an attack on Gibraltarpedia, it's an attack on the entire GLAM programme. Frankly, after this, what institution is going to want to collaborate with Wikipedia in the future? But that's the point, isn't it, for those who want Wikipedia to fail. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Prioryman, do you really not see a difference between a museum or public library and a commercial operation like a tourist board? I'm also disgusted and annoyed by your constant and totally false ad hominem accusations that only those who hate Wikipedia are concerned over this issue and the resultant scandal. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think we should have third-party-sponsored incentives for article generation. In this case the situation was particularly unusual, because a director of Wikimedia UK was being paid by a territory's government to recruit and train volunteers to write articles of interest to tourists, and suitable for QRpedia plaque placement (which he also provides consultancy services for), and assurances were reportedly made by "Wikipedia UK" (according to Professor Finlayson) that those volunteers would easily be able to revert the articles if any "nasty" content were added (see [6]). This has caused at least a proportion of editors here looking at this a significant headache (see discussions at WP:AN for example). JN466 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"there has been no paid editing" -- So, the editing was done by volunteers? Is the right, Prioryman? Did all these volunteers know they were being directed by a PR consultant who was making money off their hard work? Did all these volunteers really understand that the project was basically a PR campaign to pump up tourist revenue for a paying customer?
Honestly, Prioryman, WMUK is an insulated group with blinders on, immersed in groupthink, and spitting venom at anyone telling you the things you need to hear. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You're an obvious sockpuppet of a Wikipediocracy member (account created 15 August 2012). Would you mind telling us what your previous account was and what you were banned for? Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and evade my argument, Prioryman, it betrays you. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the only serious issue is the allegation that negative content would be reverted. Paid editing goes on, and it should go on. WMUK is little more than a fan club; it is not the same as being a director of WMF. I would say that it is a question of WMUK's policies about such matters, and also a question of charity status. What I see is that those who oppose paid editing are jumping on this bandwagon, even though that is not really the issue, it's COI and disclosure.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on what I've been reading about astroturfing, an article I have been contributing to, the Federal Trade Commission has an expectation that organizations establish a policy to encourage bloggers, media and others who receive "gifts" to disclose their "financial connection" to the subject. The British Museum example seems fine to me, though it would be a best practice to encourage editors to disclose their incentive.
Knowing very little about all the different organizations and collaborations involved, I have an honest open question. If a permission-based WP:BRIGHTLINE-type approach was adopted from the get-go, would it still have been a problem? The DYK conversation could have gone like this:

"Hey, I'm working on some articles for XYZ and we have some interesting factoids; do you think we can do a few DYKs?"

"Yah, sure if they're interesting."

"Here's 17 DYKs."

"Cool, I don't want to overwhelm the page with this one subject or backup the queue, so I'll just pick 3 of them"

I am a marketing professional and frequent COI contributor and I'm interested in figuring out what the takeaway lessons are here for good-faith COIs. Corporate Minion 16:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That sounds eminently sensible. JN466 17:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Slightly missing the point

The remarks about are all well and good, but my point was about people raising concerns in good faith. People should not be afraid to raise them for fear of bullying or abuse. Could the WMF appoint someone solely to address such problems? Or someone demonstrably neutral from the community? Hestiaea (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia have a warning?

Jimbo, I tried to understand why more than 14% of the most active editors, the editors who made tens of thousands edits were either blocked or have not been editing for at least 9 months. For my research I used the first 2000 users listed here. I'll let them speak for themselves:

There are also some disturbing comments like this one:

The next comment was made by an active editor but I consider it to be disturbing too:

Shouldn't WMF add some kind of warning to this page? I mean, adding a warning about dangers associated with editing Wikipedia, something similar to cigarette warnings, something like this: "Editing Wikipedia is addictive, and could impact your health and your reputation". Thanks.--31.193.133.208 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of research to put in only to come up with such a ridiculous conclusion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

109.123.127.243 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite interesting that this IP is so quick in pulling out all this stuff from two years ago. I had quite forgotten about this myself as it was simply a good faith attempt at a way to tell everyone that a user had served their time and was no longer banned. The community didn't like the idea, so I dropped it. the idea that it drove anyone off is laughable, but it is interesting that this was your go-to response to my remarks... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)>
Hi, Mattisse!! :) - Alison 19:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If the best CU on Wikipedia says I am Mattisse, it ought to be the case, or maybe not :)--109.123.127.243 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL - I'm semi-retired these days and wasn't speaking as a CU, just where you made the this page link, it returns back to User talk:Mattisse. Gotta wonder why :) - Alison 21:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You are? Should I add you to my list too, Alison?--109.123.100.144 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL! --Conti| 21:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but nine comments out of 2000? The odds are twice as high that you will be on a plane with a drunken pilot (and even higher for Jimbo, given his travel schedule). Get the airlines to post a warning on their planes, and after that we can talk. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked only at a very few comments. The most important part of my research was trying to understand why more than 14% of the most active editors are either blocked or left the project. If my conclusion is unsatisfactory let's work on a better one.--109.123.127.243 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The question is worth asking, but the implication is that this number is unacceptably high. It is hard to know what level would be considered acceptable, as there are few comparable projects. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The numbers speak for themselves. The odds you will be on a plane with a drunken pilot are only 0.85%, but there are 14% of the most active editors who are out of editing Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians are concerned about retaining new editors, but how about retaining editors who made tens of thousands of edits?--78.129.190.116 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic, but this is a basic misunderstanding of statistics. The incidence of being on a plane with a drunken pilot - for a single given flight - is 0.85%. The prevalence of active editors leaving is 14% - over the lifetime of Wikipedia. You can't directly compare these percentages, because they measure two different concepts. If you take 20 flights, you have a 17% chance of having been on one with a drunk pilot. MastCell Talk 17:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, 15.7%. The calculation isn't (20*0.0085), it's 1-(.9915^20).—Kww(talk) 17:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Damn you. :P MastCell Talk 17:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Should we have a warning? Probably not. But the fact remains that Wikipedia is a very high-stress environment. Burnout is common and is oftentimes only resolved when the exasperated editor leaves the project, whether forcefully or of his own will. That a banned editor posted this concern shouldn't be taken into account, as it is valid. What, if anything, the community can do to reduce the high stress level needs discussing. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not only a very high-stress environment. Wikipedia is addictive. Editors should be warned about this. --109.123.115.221 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Most of the time it's editors who should have left months ago who don't recognize they're not interested until they completely flame out. I don't read too much into those sorts of comments because they're so typical of the bluster of someone who's finally realized they just don't enjoy it anymore and want to blame something besides their own declining interest. Why people feel the need to do that is somewhat beyond me, as if I ever leave for lack of interest I'd just say as much, but you'd have to ask them why that is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The very premise of this thread is flawed as it conflates two separate issues. The blocking of a long-term users and retirements by long term users are two very different issues except in the odd case such as we see here where a user "retires" by deliberately getting blocked.
Some of the comments in this rather oddball collection of mostly older remarks were made by users who were obviously not able to work in a collaborative environment, it just took a while for that to become clear. Some we're made by experienced good faith users who just burned out. That is in no way unique to Wikipedia, people come and go from all sorts of projects both on the web and in RL all the time. It's no different than realizing your best player isn't on the softball team this year because he's now into mountain climbing or something instead. An 86% retention rate is actually pretty damn good if you ask me. Better than I wold have thought actually. If one focussed only on the drama it is easy to get a very wrong impression of this project. Although there is constant drama, all day long, every day of the year, it usually only involves a tiny fraction of the total number of users active at that time. Admins who deal with drama do tend to have a higher burnout rate than those who deal with things like uncontroversial page moves, blocking obvious spammers, or other "slam dunk" types of admin work. It's the same in any organization, the persons who do the high stress work end to come and go faster than those who do equally necessary but less stressful work. And some (I include myself among them) are able to let the stress slide off them like water off a duck's back most of the time. It's all a matter of persepctive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"Beeblebrox" I learned about this administror with a funny user name from FOXNEWS: "But Wikipedia administrator “Beeblebrox” agreed with Wales. “Roger is acting as a paid consultant at the same time as he is on the Board of WMUK,” he posted in response to the co-founder’s comments. “That's their problem but I share Jimbo's feelings on the matter, he needs to resign one post or the other.” I think the best way to get familiar with an admin is to look at his/her RFA, and I did. I followed the links from this oppose vote, and now I know that even you are not able to let the stress slide off you like water off a duck's.--109.123.100.144 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Shock news - Wikipedia administrator discovered to be human, and possibly even fallible. Whatever next? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, shit, who blew our cover? Find that mole!!!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone still seriously believe that this IP is posting here out of a legitimate desire to rectify a real problem and not just to stir shit up? (Although I must say I am somehwat disgusted at being quoted by Fox News. I need a bath now. ) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry: nobody watches Fox News ... and those that actually believe anything they say on Fox News probably couldn't find a computer at the Apple Store dangerouspanda 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Life needs a warning: When ever your out there doing good things, someone will come along and at least try to make it stressful for you, if not stop you altogether. See "No good deed goes unpunished" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sysop abuse on tr.wikipedia

Hi,

I realize your plate is full of problems probably (as always) but I am currently having difficulty reaching out to someone who would care. This RfC failed to generate the reaction I had hoped despite the community consensus behind it.

I can go to great detail about what transpired but that is present in the summary section of the RfC. The community expects two main outcomes, overturn of the 4 blocks and a vote of confidence for the tr.wikipedia sysops.

The issue basically is that

  • A sysop indef blocked a long term contributor without a warning or discussion.
  • A day after vast majority of active sysops held a secret meeting and handed out indef blocks to some of the people whom objected the original block without a community discussion.
  • A steward asked me to file an RfC and so I did.
  • Tr.wikipedia sysops have also mostly refrained from even bothering to comment on the RfC.
  • Some tr.wikipedia sysops have however ran an intimidation campaign since with actions ranging from blocks to interwiki stalking.
  • Stewards have not reacted to the RfC. My impression is that a good chuck aren't even aware of the discussion held at stewards mailing list on the issue.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of categories

I think it would be fair to let you know about a systematic failure with deletion of categories on History and Politics. The categories are removed on the grounds that they are "POV". This is serious problem because removal of categories leads to inability of people to navigate through Wikipedia, as I argued here yesterday. Two cases I saw negatively affected were subjects related to Category:Victims of political repression and terrorism/terrorist-related categories, but there are probably many more. The consensus model works poorly here for two reasons: (a) few people know and take part in these discussions, and (b) admins who close such discussion tend to ignore the results of vote and opinions of users and decide everything on their own discretion, but ... they actually do not know the subject or look at the subject from a very narrow US-centered perspective, being highly dedicated volunteers who work mostly with technical issues. Yes, one must know the subject to make the proper categorization. For example, I am involved in a real life work with classification/categorization of proteins. Could I do it without knowing the subject? Of course not. But I still have to rely on work by three other research teams who specialize in the area of protein classification. And any judgement errors with removal of categories can not be undone: the removals are irreversible. Yes, I think that even the most "controversial" categories can be properly included, rather than deleted [7]. A lot of damage has been already done, I think. At the very least, I have one suggestion: the closing admins must follow opinions of contributors who created these categories and actually worked with them, simply because these contributors know these subjects better. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Need guidelines for how to wiki-think: Some people have also demanded that every subpage under a user-account contain POV-neutral text, almost to the point if someone makes a list of articles they like, then it would be subject to deletion unless they expand to include an equivalent set of articles they dislike. The deletions are similar to the common term "control freak". When enough people are involved in a discussion, then ideas often drift far from common sense, and so guidelines are needed to focus the thinking of large groups of people. It would not surprise me if someone started rewriting the plot of articles like the tragedy "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" because the way Hamlet was treated was a violation of wp:Civility. The reason separate guidelines are needed to explain wiki-thinking is because many people would be overwhelmed if common sense were explained in every page, and hence some separate pages could be used as a reminder, or revelation, to people who are unaware how to think, perhaps due to unusual cultural mindsets. Even though explaining common sense might seem an extreme bother, it is preferable to direct people to read such pages rather than denounce them as "cowardly, clueless liars" or whatever snarky, rude remarks are tossed to the first person who thinks differently. Perhaps there could be a guideline "wp:Choosing categories" to explain how to select and arrange wiki-categories, plus explain the limits of POV-neutral text in categories and when POV-splits are needed. However, try not to be upset with people who are slow to understand, and remember, there are only 2 categories of people in the world: those who put people into 2 categories, and those who don't (!). Hang in there. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
We already have Wikipedia:Categorization and it tells: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Yes, certainly. This is an important technical feature that allows navigation. Removing categories that help in navigation because they describe defining - characteristics of an object (and I do not care if that was a protein, a political prisoner, or a terrorist) does serious disservice to reader. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
One man's freedom fighter: Part of the problem is that POV-neutrality is relative to the preponderance of sources, as a major factor. Meanwhile, many people think that "POV-neutral" means 50-50%, but also is relative to the core values in play, such as the common expression, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". However, the wiki-text should follow the percentage of wp:RS reliable sources, such as 90-10%, which refer to a person as "terrorist" rather than "superhero of the downtrodden" or "the Great Satan". Many categories are limited to entries which are named for the category by the sources, such as "Category:Signature songs" so that not every famous hit which is sung by someone is their "signature song" but only when stated by a source document. Plus sources re-think the categories, such as formerly, dinosaurs were reptiles, then dinosaurs were birds, and now birds are reptiles. If the sources label something with a category, then that justifies the inclusion within that group. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:10/23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I gotta ask; who uses categories? I've never once found them to be particularly useful, and a quick perusal of the self-anointed policemen board would seem to indicate they can create huge fights for such a small part of any given article. I'm open to persuasion on this, though; obviously not everyone browses Wikipedia the same way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I used and created them a lot when I was more active a few years ago. It would be impossible to navigate without them in Biology-related area. This cat, for example includes 10,000+ pages, but this is poor categorization. Fortunately, there is no problems with scientific categories since no one regards them as "POV". However, a lot of cats I created in History-related areas were deleted as alleged "POV". Why "molehill"? Well, nothing creates tensions and discourage people from participation that much as deletion of their work, especially when people know per policy that their work should not be deleted. That's why we have so many heated discussions on AfD and CfD (look here and here for a couple of recent examples]). My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
CfD isn't really what I was getting at; I was making reference to the unbelievably vicious fights that break out over categorization of articles at that board. Sometimes I get that there's debate to be had, but I distinctly remember going to BLPN once with a request for another person to join me in assisting an article subject; I got nothing while about 200,000 KB of text was spent on whether or not some guy belonged in an LGBT category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think if this is a BLP article and there is a dispute, a contentious category (and this is probably one of them) should never be used for this person simply by default per WP:BLP. However, it does not mean that the category should be deleted because there are many other non-controversial cases where it can be used for other people without causing any disputes.My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Cats can be very useful, either for maintenance activities, finding related articles or even tracking down spelling or other name variations. Other than Cluebot, they probably are the most obvious way (compared to WikiProjects being hidden in talk pages) that an article has to be found, watched and maintained. Without cats many articles would slip down the cracks and never be checked once they skip past npp. The-Pope (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Long before I started editing, I used categories all the time; however, they weren't very useful for navigation. It might be useful to create some type of web map of all the categories. Ryan Vesey 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to slightly amend my previous question. I do use a couple of maintenance categories, so I get that, but who uses them for content? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
They are the only serious way of finding out what coverage we have in a particlar area, except in some areas with templates, and very powerful & I use them all the time, especially the smaller ones - the bigger ones tend to be not much use. I also create and add to and tidy them. I'm always amazed byt editors who say they don't use them. I think our readers (and many editors) are not as aware of them as they should be though, being stuck down the bottom of the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Refer to pageview-stats for each category: Compare the readership numbers, with Category:Films_about_mice, such as stats for June 2012. Because relatively few readers perform maintenance (perhaps only 1 in 27,000 readers would fix a tagged article), then most likely, it is the typical readers who truly view the category 5 times per day, for "Films about mice". As a rule of thumb, perhaps consider 1 in 1,000 pageviews to be maintenance-related. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What I am trying to tell here is actually very simple: let's follow the policies and the reason. A closing administrator, unless he is really an expert in this particular subject, should never close as "delete" any CfD cases that cased significant objections, such as in this case. I am telling this because a lot of cats were previously deleted in a similar situation. In general, the bar for removal of categories should be kept much higher than for AfD because such deletions are irreversible, unlike deletion of article (an article can be placed in the userspace and reworked if needed, but a category can not). My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy Wales

How can I delete my Wikipedia account? I would like to do this, but cannot find an option to delete account... is there a way? Thanks.

-HistoriadorMexica — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriadorMexica (talkcontribs) 19:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address. Editors seeking privacy per their right to vanish can have their accounts renamed and their user pages and (in some cases) user talk pages deleted. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Beer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337 15 +3!-! 835+ L4NGU4G3 3V4!-! (talkcontribs) 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Amazing

Wao Great Skills.Thanks --111.119.172.212 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Donal from University of Bloomington, India

Gibraltarpedia cats

It seems someone accidentally categorized your user talk page with a Gibraltarpedia category while posting the project's banner up as an example. Not sure if you would rather just have the banner removed or if there is a way to remove the cats, while keeping the banner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the categories; they didn't make sense. MBisanz talk 05:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

PR company with 900 socks?

Are you aware of this? Tijfo098 (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia, Wikimedia UK and concerns about paid editing and conflicts of interest within Wikimedia UK

Jimbo, do you have a view on the developing discussion here? JN466 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case. However, I can make a couple of observations based on general principles.
1. Panyd is, as usual, speaking good sense.
2. It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. This is just one very narrow example of a much broader principle that it's wrong to work in any capacity whatsoever editing content as a paid advocate within Wikipedia. This applies to articles and the front page, but of course I leave open the very valid option of someone with a conflict of interest doing the ethical thing and identifying fully and proposing things to the community.
As I mentioned at the start, I don't know enough of the facts in this particular case to be able to comment specifically. However, if the facts turn out to be as stated, then the honorable thing for anyone with a conflict of interest driving them to act on behalf of a client in the manner I discussed above is resign from the board of Wikimedia UK, or resign from the job with the client. Anything else raises the appearance of impropriety at a minimum.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There is now further discussion of this on the Wikimedia UK mailing list, in a thread started by Thomas Dalton under the title "Paid editing by Roger Bamkin": [8] JN466 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo, in all honesty, if you're "not aware of the specific facts" then why are you commenting at all? It's not advisable for anyone to make sweeping comments about a situation like this without looking into it in detail. Given your position as co-founder of Wikipedia and the weight that your words carry, I would think it especially inadvisable, to the point of irresponsibility, for you to intervene in such a way. Find out what the facts are, then comment, if you have to, or preferably sort things out behind the scenes with a minimum of controversy. This is not the first time you've made questionable interventions but publicly calling on people to resign while admittedly not knowing what the facts are is simply unacceptable. It's not the way that any responsible organisational leader should behave. Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I just became aware of all this myself, but several facts are immediately apparent:
  • Roger is acting as a paid consultant at the same time as he is on the Board of WMUK. That's their problem but I share Jimbo's feelings on the matter, he needs to resign one post or the other
  • Looking at his contribs it does look like he may be slanting information in a fairly subtle way in some Gibraltar-related article
  • He is violating the username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME as he identifies as running a company called "Victuallers LTD". Couldn't find any web presence of said company, but he has spelled it right out on his userpage and in the WMUK declarations page that it is his company
Troubling to say the least. and WMUK really doesn't need any more scandal involving their higher-ups. The decent thing for Roger to do would be to step aside, to change his username, and to suggest edits rather than making them himself on any topic related to Gigraltar. Beeblebrox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Three points: First, Gibraltarpedia isn't a WMUK project so why is Roger's status with WMUK relevant to it? Second, how and where is Roger "slanting information in a fairly subtle way"? If you're going to make this charge, you should provide some substantiation. Third, I don't believe WP:ORGNAME is really applicable in this instance. The registration for Victuallers Ltd shows that it was only registered on 9 March 2012; the Victuallers account was registered on 27 October 2006, five and a half years earlier. It seems that the company was named after the account, not the other way round - WP:ORGNAME was written with accounts named after companies in mind. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Board members have influence over how the chapter expends its resources. It is my understanding that WMUK is lending material support (although not financial support) to this project, which is in turn paying a member of its Board. In such situations it is best to avoid even the appearence of impropriety. I don't think ORGNAME ever foresaw that a user would name a company after his account and then get paid to edit Wikipedia with that same account, but the underlying principle applies. Something simple like "Roger (Victuallers LTD)" would do it. As to the slanting, I did say " may be" I haven't had time yet to look deeply, I only became aware of all this about an hour ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The only material connection that I know of between WMUK and Gibraltarpedia is that WMUK has printed up a few dozen "how to edit" leaflets at a cost of less than £10 for distribution in Gibraltar. The notion that there's some kind of impropriety about providing a few leaflets at pocket money prices is ludicrous, to say the least. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The order doesn't matter. The problem is the connection between the user name and the company. Even that is not a problem if the user avoids doing anything on Wikipedia relating to the company, but that exception doesn't apply here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it does. I run a personal company with Gigs in the name, but I never for a second thought that I might be violating orgname, since it was never my intent to promote that company here (and my user name does predate my company name as well). I'm sure a lot of people here have small consulting companies that happen to coincide with their username. It's not what the policy was designed to prevent. Gigs (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
But are you being paid for your work on Wikipedia in association with that name? That seems to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
QRpedia isn't "on Wikipedia". It's a program that generates QR codes that links to Wikipedia articles. See QRpedia. You don't even need to be a Wikipedian to develop such a product - it's entirely external to the wiki. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this at all. You said over on the DYK talk page, "According to Roger, he's being paid for the use of QRpedia, which as I understand it is software that he developed." But QRpedia says it is free software (MIT License), so where does the payment come in ...? So I thought you meant the two sites, qrpedia.org and qrwp.org, whose ownership is currently being transferred from Roger to Wikimedia UK. But according to Rexx (Doug Taylor), no money is being made off the qrpedia sites either: "There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Commentators also need to differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the domain names. WMUK's interest in QRpedia is in finding ways to ensure that the service provided remains secure and free in perpetuity." On the other hand, on his LinkedIn page, Roger says, "I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment." In principle it is nobody's business how much money Roger's project makes for him and his colleagues – but it becomes a matter of interest to this community if he makes this money as a Wikimedia UK director, an editor here editing articles for his clients, and a project manager here getting volunteer editors to work for his project for free. There just needs to be more transparency, clarity, something. --JN466 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's not conflate two unrelated issues. I understand why there are overall questions about getting paid, but those questions are not the main concern with the propriety of the username. If someone adopted the name "Mother Teresas Orphanages" then was associated with an organization of the same name, we would have concerns about the name if there are any edits relating to the organization, even if it is a purely charitable organization. The ORGNAME concern isn't paid editing per se, it is concerned with actual or perceived COI and the concern that this editor would be viewed differently than other editors of the article. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't pursue whether any payments are occurring, but that is a different issue than the name issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find the "> £2m payback on £50K investment" refers to the benefit of extra tourists to Monmouth and Wales which is predicted to arise - effectively the equivalent value of publicity against the investment Monmouth CC made. The launch of Monmouthpedia generated over 100 news articles and more than 1,000 tweets worldwide. It's difficult to be precise about money equivalence in these cases, but I'd guess that's not far off the mark. It's pure nonsense to think that Roger is talking about receiving £2M himself, and it's quite disingenuous to make that sort of implication as Andreas does above. If Jimmy wants to become "aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case", then my email is enabled - or a quick call to the WMUK office will get him my phone number and I'd be glad to chat at any time and fill in any details he wants. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that is helpful. Now, how much of the £17,500 that Roger and Robin were awarded for the Wikimedia UK Geovation project goes into their personal pockets? I am asking because this is part of Roger's Declaration of interest ("Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales."), and because he and Robin (rather than Wikimedia UK) are named as winners on the Geovation website. Yet, as shown below, the project plan involves Wikimedia UK being asked to run the project. Could you or Roger explain? And what about the remaining £100,000 they are hoping to raise? Who will receive this money, if it is raised? What do you say to people like Orangemike below, who seem concerned about mixed roles and the conflicts of interest between Roger's paid consultancy role and his role as a trustee? JN466 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
And do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be offered to highest bidders as a marketing tool? Roger, Steve Virgin and others are basically telling interested towns and cities that for an investment of £50k in Roger's Wikipedia project, they can get £2m worth of free publicity. For reference, see [9], or see Steve Virgin's blog ("277 news stories across 36 countries and created immense value to the town of Monmouth and to the technological innovation-driven notion of hyper-localism using multi-lingual Wikipedia pages") or business website ("Monmouthpedia – managed press campaign for the launch of the World’s first ever Wikipedia Town in Wales..300 media stories across 40 countries..worth millions to Monmouth"). The Gibraltarpedia project is widely perceived and reported as a cost-effective project to market Gibraltar as a tourism destination ("Gibraltarpedia: A new Way to Market the Rock", "... the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success.")
Now, given that the project offers such good value for money, it is to be expected that people will continue to queue up at Roger's door to be picked as the next Wikipedia town, as they have been; and in the process, Roger makes the selection, and is paid. How is that compatible with the Nolan principles quoted on Wikimedia UK's site? In particular, Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.? Or Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.? These are just the first two. How can Roger act personally as a paid consultant for projects involving Wikimedia UK, advertising WMUK involvement to his private clients, and be a director of Wikimedia UK at the same time, and comply with the Nolan principles? JN466 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the £17,500 that Roger and Robin have raised so far for the Geovation project will be part of £50,000 which will in turn attract matched funding to make the £100,000 project budget for Geovation. You seem to have mistaken income generation for expenditure, as the project has not begun to incur expenditure yet. I am unaware of any WMUK commitment to running the project. The investment made by Monmouth Council consisted of engaging an ISP to provide wifi access across the whole town, staff time to work on the project, and provision of facilities within the town. Roger has taken no part in any of the decisions made by the WMUK Board concerning either Monmouth or Gibraltar, so it is difficult to see how he could be accused of placing himself under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK. I believe that all of the WMUK Board who have been involved in such decisions have no financial interest those projects. I remain convinced that Monmouthpedia was a very successful and worthwhile project, benefiting both Monmouth and Wikipedia. I hope that Gibraltarpedia is equally successful. It deserves support, even though WMUK is not providing finance for the project. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Doug. Could you clarify: in whose bank account are the £17,500 raised so far? Where will the other £32,500 come from, and in whose account will they end up? And likewise, where will the matching £50,000 come from, and where will they end up? And are you saying there has been income generation without expenditure? As for your being unaware of there being any WMUK commitment, surely you are aware that the description of Roger's and Robin's proposal at https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422 includes the passage Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. If there is no such commitment from WMUK, is it appropriate for Roger to imply that there is, in order to be awarded funding? Either way, there is a problem. As for the next point, can you not imagine that Roger's business partners in Gibraltar might seek to influence [Roger] in the performance of [his] role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK? And is he not under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations in Gibraltar? He is a paid contractor: that means he has obligations, and his contacts in Gibraltar might very well seek to influence him, or ask him for help, if some difficulty should arise. You really need to face the facts here, Doug.
You have not addressed other points I asked about at all, such as the fact that Roger has people queuing up to be selected for another local Wikipedia project, and that he is taking a consultancy payment from whatever candidate he selects. If he and his company, Victuallers Ltd., profit, then how does that fit with the selflessness principle? Look at it from the perspective of an outsider, like Violet Blue. She may well imagine that Roger is swayed by the size of the consultancy fee he is offered, because that is a common way for people everywhere to behave. Even if that is not a consideration for Roger at all, this is the appearance that is created, and which according to the Nolan principles he has a duty to avoid. On top of that, the pitch is clearly that the tourist industry and local businesses in places like Monmouth and Gibraltar will profit from their Wikipedia exposure, and the resulting publicity. There is a considerable monetary value attached to this publicity (said to be worth £2m), and the PR materials of Roger and his colleagues stress this monetary value. And it is up to Roger to decide who shall be the next beneficiary of this £2m worth of free exposure, and it is Roger who will receive a private payment from the successful candidate, in part because of the standing he enjoys in the customer's eyes as a WMUK director. Uncharitable observers may construe the entire transaction as a bribe: you have to pay x amount (undisclosed to date) in Mr Bamkin's private account to get £2m worth of free publicity for your town, with the blessing of WMUK. WMUK trustees are required to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety, and several people have told you that this looks absolutely terrible. JN466 04:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I can only comment on facts, Andreas, as I have no brief to speculate. The Board are hopefully discussing the Geovation bid tonight as stated on the WMUK wiki, so we may be able to update the present position then. I understand that the bid will seek matched funding from one of the Welsh agencies and will include the employment (via an open advertisement) of a manager to run the project, so I think that it is a mistaken reading of the bid to conclude that WMUK will be running it. One fact that I am certain of is that Roger is an honourable man, and I would expect him to be perfectly capable of giving paid advice to Gibraltar without taking on any of the editing obligations that you seem to imagine. I find the Gibraltarpedia project to be an exciting opportunity for collaboration with Wikimedians in Spain and Morrocco as well as Gibraltar, and I've been happy to receive reports from Roger on its progress. It is a pity that you should think so little of me and the other uninvolved Trustees that you should imply that Roger would be able to influence our decision-making about the project. Our in-person Board meetings are open to the membership to attend: perhaps you should avail yourself of that transparency to see for yourself the propriety of our decision-making processes. --RexxS (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what he will or will not be doing, the fact remains that he appears to be exploiting his position with Wikimedia (UK) for personal gain. Grover cleveland (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This article on Gibraltarpedia has just gone up on the BBC website describing Bamkin as a representative of Wikimedia. How would the BBC know of Bamkins connection with WMUK unless he has cross the line that blurs his own commercial work and his responsibilities as a trustee and former chair of Wikimedia UK?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems, from the Gibraltar Chronicle that the Gibraltar Museum "...made the first contact with Wikimedia UK to start the ball rolling". In that article, Roger Bamkin is identified as Wikimedia UK director. TheOverflow (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea how much Roger is being paid? I must say that my personal experiences of him are very positive and I think what he is doing in regards to wikipedia cities should be replicated everywhere on the planet. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Untrikiwiki

And what about this graphic by untrikiwiki, entitled "Wikipedia Editing as a PR Service", apparently produced by Maximilian Klein, a Wikipedian in residence with excellent community connections?

Quote: "A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services. untrikiwiki

I mean, the good chap is even quoting you in his graphic! How is that different from what Gregory Kohs and MyWikiBiz wanted to do openly five or six years ago (and has been doing surreptitiously ever since)? JN466 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it. It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Both of your responses are admirably clear, and sum up my feelings pretty exactly. Thank you very much. --JN466 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

untrikiwiki seems in part directed at PR agencies. The graphic includes the following e.g.: "Being able to offer Wikipedia-based services will differentiate your offerings from your competitors and will allow you to present an unusually strong and valuable proposition to your clients. [...] Our experience and connections will allow you to offer Wikipedia services but without the need to spend years developing expertise in-house." I've dropped User:Maximilianklein a link to this discussion. --JN466 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken down now. See [[10]] Thegreatgrabber (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. They've posted a statement:

UntrikiWiki has recently received some public attention from Wikipedians who disagree strongly with our belief that COI consultants can serve in a mutually beneficial liaison that is good for both Wikipedia and organizations that contract us. We’d like to explain in more detail what it is that Untriki has been doing, and what our future plans are to try to ameliorate some of the confusion around us.

We’ve never made a single edit for which we had a conflict of interest on Wikipedia – ever. Although we have advertised such a service, we’ve not aggressively pursued it – and we have not accepted any clients interested in on-Wikipedia work. [...] We believe – strongly – that there’s nothing inherently wrong with accepting for-profit engagements that involve contributing to Wikipedia, as long as it’s approached in a transparent and ethical fashion. We understand why it’s a controversial issue, but we believe that it’s a necessary and emerging field and believe that it’s important that people with knowledge of Wikipedia’s ecosystem move in to it and establish standards that protect Wikipedia’s integrity.

Starting now, and lasting indefinitely, we will not accept any paid conflict of interest Wikipedia editing work. To support this statement, we have removed mentions of the services from our website. This isn’t because we think it’s wrong, but because we think it would serve as an unfortunate distraction to our current work and because we recognize that if we ever pursued paid editing as a service, we need to first publicly develop and declare a process that will be acceptable to Wikipedia’s community. We think our currently intended process would have been ethical and more than meets the ethical standards of an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s community, but we made the error of not publicly talking about our process before posting a graphic about it in public. [...]

The advertisements for PR Editing on Wikipedia have now indeed been removed from the site. --JN466 14:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic

Wow, just ... wow, it appears like Roger Bamkina, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant, using Wikipedia's main page and the resources of GLAM to pimp his client's project. Go look where http://gibraltarpedia.org/ redirects to. Kohs got banned for less. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. was everyone here aware that someone was being paid for their work? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. Someone deal with it, please? Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha, it seems honesty and openness is the quickest way to get banned around here. Also, Prioryman, get a life. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That Wikipediocracy thread appears to be two days old, not six months. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
sorry, you're right. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the Foundation has a duty to notify all the contributors that someone was being paid for their work, and to investigate whether they were misled about that fact. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is possible that what Roger is doing may be legal in the most narrow of senses, it is totally unethical: it is clear that he should step down NOW from any position of trust or responsibility in any Wikimedia operation, AND should cease to edit any article where he is operating as a paid agent of the subject, be it Gibraltar or Bashar al-Assad or Microsoft or the National Front. Contributors to any project where he has a fiduciary conflict of interest, including Wikimedia UK, should also be offered a refund of their monies. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Chris Keating, the chair of Wikimedia UK, has just posted a statement on the Wikimedia UK mailing list: [11] JN466 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a helpful statement, which confirms that this whole controversy is just a storm in a teacup, based on nothing more than misunderstandings and misrepresentations. People, would it be so hard to try to find out the facts before rushing to judgement? Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
He is profiting as a direct result of his involvement with the charity. That is a conflict of interest. There is also serious potential for this to damage the reputation of the charity. What if he was blocked or banned? Then you would be in the situation of a WMUK being blocked from editing Wikipedia, the project it is meant to support? How could a trustee possibly be in that position? Hestiaea (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Gibraltarpedia isn't a WMUK project. He is profiting, apparently, because of his involvement in developing QRpedia - which also isn't a WMUK project. Nobody is paying him to write articles. How is his involvement with WMUK relevant if WMUK is not a party in the Gibraltarpedia project? Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you privy to the contract between Bamkin and the tourist ministry? Hestiaea (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
WMUK has established that blocking or banning doesn't affect one's position as a trustee. TheOverflow (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The statement changes little for me about the basic fact: that a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client. At the very least, his position as a paid consultant is incompatible with his directorship, not least because his position as a Wikimedia director could be seen as giving him an unfair advantage on the PR consultancy market. Editing for a paying client might be similarly incompatible, especially as the customer has apparently been reassured that there won't be any "nasty" content about Gibraltar ('As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; "The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds."') I had occasion to mediate a bitter content dispute related to Gibraltar once, and I am aware that the subject area is quite as fraught with POV issues as Northern Ireland, or Palestine, with Spain and Britain taking very different positions. However, my primary concern, before we come to anything else, is that no one should be able to use his directorship to market himself. And let's be realistic: anyone else doing such a project on behalf of a client, using a company account, would be blocked in no time at all. Think of Gregory Kohs wanting to write articles about a hotel chain, or tourist attractions in Abu Dhabi, and organising an on-wiki competition, complete with a first prize of an all-expenses-paid VIP trip to a five-star hotel in Abu Dhabi, advertised on a Wikipedia page. I thought Monmouthpedia was well-intentioned and educational, and I praised the project at the time, but the wider implications really need thinking over. Most of all, whatever is okay for Roger must be okay for everyone else too. If it isn't okay for everyone else, it's not okay for Roger either. Cheers. --JN466 20:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jayden. This 'statement' definitely belongs in the 'Pathetic' section here. It fails to say who was paid for what, whether or not a team of Wikipedia volunteers were being directed by someone making money off their work, and if they were aware of it. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain to outsiders what the distinction is between this arrangement and, say, paying an intern at the British Museum to post pictures of stuff in the British Museum? Apparently Bamkin is being paid by the people of Gibraltar, which remains part of the UK which WMUK strives to cover. Is taking payment for a neutral mission to put all the notable stuff in Gibraltar on Wikipedia really a bad thing? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Gibraltar isn't part of the UK. It's a British overseas territory. Not that that should stop WMUK from doing stuff there if they want to. 92.39.201.50 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a lot of trouble to edit on page "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and now I begin to understand why.Juanmatorres75 22:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talkcontribs)

Illegal?

If Bamkin's paid editing was exploiting his involvement in the charity as a means to profit personally, that may well be illegal. Particularly as his activity may harm the charity, by damaging its reputation. Hestiaea (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Geovation

According to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." There is a reference to it on this page:

Under the heading RB, this says, "Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more". What is this Geovation bid? What involvement, if any, does Wikimedia UK have in the project? What is this 100K funding? Does this too involve paid consultancy work? JN466 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Roger? Seriously. If you're interested in actually getting answers rather than just provoking drama, why aren't you asking him directly? Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I asked this question on the Wikimedia UK mailing list, and I have not received an answer to date. I would like to ask this question in public, and I would like to be given an answer in public. Roger is well aware of discussions on this page. --JN466 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
So because you've not yet received an answer, you've escalated it to Jimbo's talk page. In what way is this not drama whoring? Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In what way is calling another user a whore, or (as you did below) invoking the term "witch hunt" intended to help? Such terminology invariably makes things worse. Let's all calm down please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It's better than that - he came here first - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I first asked about it here, around lunch time, well before the statement Chris Keating posted in the evening to address the various questions raised in the mailing list thread. JN466 12:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself, as no reply has been forthcoming, including that £17,500 funding (with another £100,000, apparently, still sought):

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-challenge/

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to edit for free. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on-wiki to date. --JN466 13:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Roger and Robin had £17,500 awarded to them as individuals – Roger included this item in his Declarations of interest: "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." – for a bid that promised that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians" (and that local cafés would be able to post their opening hours in Wikipedia, if I understand it correctly). This looks like he is deriving personal profit from committing Wikimedia UK services and resources. Jimbo, what do you make of it? --JN466 14:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is now some further discussion of this at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Grants_and_scholarships – it appears that, even though the £17.500 was awarded to Roger and Robin rather than Wikimedia UK, Wikimedia UK paid for Geovation-related expenses. JN466 00:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

gibraltarpedia.org

This may be a more complex question than it first appears, but if Gibraltarpedia is for-profit project of Victuallers Ltd and the government of Gibraltar, why is the project's home page here on Wikipedia? Gibraltarpedia.org redirects to Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA‎. Surely that gives the impression to a reader that this is a project sponsored and endorsed by Wikimedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

At the absolute minimum it's a direct contravention of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't be silly. It's a Wikipedia project like any other. The domain name serves an obvious and trivial purpose: http://www.gibraltarpedia.org is a damn sight more memorable and easier to communicate than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA . There's absolutely nothing to stop, for instance, Jimbo registering http://www.jimbowales.com and redirecting it to his profile. If an editor wants to register a domain name and point it to a particular page there's nothing to stop him from doing so, and no reason why he shouldn't. WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't come into it because it's a mainstream, bona fide Wikiproject, with the involvement of many editors, not a personal website or web page. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think silliness became a factor here until 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC). Prioryman, I think you are on the wrong side of consensus here; as well as policy. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Citing WP:NOTWEBHOST against a mainstream, well-supported WikiProject is silly. Frankly, I get the feeling that this has degenerated into a witch-hunt. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it either frankly. If the WMF has no hand in this project, there are paid consultants working on it, and the government of Gibraltar is bankrolling it does kind of seem out of place to host the whole thing here. Like I've said elsewhere, it is a really cool project and I do support it, but if it's being run by non-WMF entities and paid consultants surely they can host it. Seems odd to just have it crammed in a GLAM subpage, Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's get something straight: it's not being run or "bankrolled" by the government of Gibraltar. Nor are "paid consultants working on it". It's purely a volunteer project, run by Wikipedians as part of a normal process of outreach. The idea for it came from a local Wikipedian and it's being supported by the local museum. It's no different in that respect to any other GLAM project. The WMF hasn't had any involvement than I'm aware of in the existing GLAM projects relating to the UK. The Gibraltar government's ministry of tourism has said that it supports the project and it's offering some fairly modest prizes for contributions (see [12]). Again this is no different from what, say, the British Museum has done. I'm not aware of the government having had any involvement with the content. The only "consultancy" that seems to have been involved relates to QRpedia, which is a software product, not content. It's not even essential for the project, which would continue quite happily if nobody was using QRpedia. As far as I can see this is really no different to Monmouthpedia, which has been a big success, so why the witch-hunt? Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Roger is being paid to work on it as a consultant. His consultancy is far broader than QRpedia, which really doesn't need any consulting (it's just a website that you link to and then it forwards you onto the appropriate Wikipedia article in the appropriate language - anyone can use it very easily). --Tango (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"witch-hunt" !!! Really, Prioryman? Speaking as a dedicated Wikipedian myself, I'd like to know if the people pulling strings and directing various projects here are making money off my efforts, and at their direction. Don't you think that is fair? We still need to hear from all the parties about who exactly is getting paid for what, and if the volunteers were aware of it. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A "dedicated Wikipedian" who's supposedly been an editor only since 15 August 2012? Sure. Perhaps you could disclose your previous account so that we can identify which banned editor you are. Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear God, now your behavior is starting to make sense. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this needs to be reported to the UK's charity commission, as this could affect WMUK's charitable status. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Domain name and intellectual property

The domain registration for this "Wikiproject like any other", gibraltarpedia.org (and .com too) is owned by a private entity called Victuallers [13]. Does the WMF have any ownership of anything gibraltarpedia-related in any country, like a trademark or something? If not, this campaign is just increasing the intellectual property value owned by a non-WMF entity. There is nothing preventing gibraltarpedia.org from being redirected to point to just about any other site, now or in the future. Also, the project banner is prominently displaying this domain name and transcluded on at least 100 pages, see below. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarpediA project  
Category:Unassessed GibraltarpediA-related articlesCategory:Unknown-importance GibraltarpediA-related articles
WikiProject icon
Bienvenido, آداب عرض, स्वागत, ברוך בואך, Benvido, Benvenuto, Benvinguts, Bienvenue, Bonvenon, Willkommen, Fàilte, Ongi etorri, Tere tulemast, Tervetuloa, Üdvözlet, Välkomna, Velkommen, vítáme vás, Witamy, Καλώς Ορίσατε, Добро пожаловать, Salvē, 歡迎, 欢迎, 歓迎, 환영합니다, ยินดีต้อนรับ, Dobrodošli, أهلاً وسهلاً, Вітаємо, Welkom, सुस्वागतम, Добредојдовте, Croeso, Добре дошли, Вітаем
This article is part of GibraltarpediA and the World's first Wikipedia City. Please visit the project page, See what we are doing, What we've done and help us!
WikiProject icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

I cannot keep up with all of this. The domain name "Gibraltarpedia.org" is administered by me. Currenntly the domain name is meant to be given to the people/government of Gibraltar at the end of the project. If someone can think of a better owner then can we raise a consensus. The domain name for the wikitowns in Monmouthshire are owned I believe by Monmouth County Council with the exception of Monmouthpedia.org which is owned by WMUK. Victuallers (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not just that name that is of interest. The QR code shown in the Gibraltarpedia box, for example [14], resolves to "http://QRWp.Org/Gibraltarpedia" - whois at www.pir.org gets me a WHOIS record, "Registrant Organization:Bamkin Family". Now, I suppose this is a for-profit arrangement with the city, but from this example it looks like the city may have bought a bunch of plaques that only point to Wikipedia entries by the continued good graces of this registrant, and I'm not sure they've actually bought that consideration going forward for many years to come. Wnt (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The qrpedia.org and qrwp.org domains are not controlled by the WMF or WMUK. It is not clear if one or both of them will be turned over to WMUK. You can see this discussion, but it seems to be getting more and more muddled instead of clearer. It is my understanding that transferring a domain is a simple and uncomplicated process, but there appears to be some undisclosed legal subtlety about this case. At any rate, the domain name gibraltarpedia.org is no longer on the project banner, having been removed when the template was nominated for deletion as redundant to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Gibraltar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Report on CNET

--JN466 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • That article is a good summary of the situation. WMUK and WMF, anything you can do to correct this problem? Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you asking corrupt organizations to correct corruption in their organizations? Sweet. --66.85.128.186 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's merely a blog hosted by CNET written by someone who isn't a CNET employee and who has personal grievances against Wikipedia, and the content is just a regurgitation of nonsense being spewed by the Wikipediocracy bullshit machine. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Prioryman, I'm not trying to discredit your opinion with an ad hominem approach, but could you please explain the circumstances surrounding your trip to Gibraltar next month? If it's a personal trip, sorry for my presumption. If it is related to the WMUK's involvement in this issue, however, could you please explain how it fits in? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's none of your business and it has nothing to do with WMUK. Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen more attractive photos and video of Gilbraltar all over the internets/twitters/facebooks in the past six hours than I had previously in my middle-aged life. Whatever the PR guy was charging for this, the Gilbraltar tourism folks got the bargain of the century. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get the problem. If every tenth town hires some Wikipedia-person to go around and document the local tourist attractions, why does that have to be a bad thing? Provided that we could uphold something along the lines of my once-suggested WP:Paid editor's bill of rights, at least. Wnt (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If that was all that was taking place, there probably wouldn't be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
They're not hiring a "Wikipedia-person"; they're hiring a "Wikimedia (UK) person". Big difference. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I agree with Panyd and Jimmy that paid for editting that involved a wikpedian being paid to create articles and/or a positive spun position for a client is wrong. The members of WMUK may have made a mistake when they voted for me despite knowing that I was acting as a consultant. However they did make that judgement. I have continued to offer my resignation from the board over COI as it is a tricky situation (and even one where it seems that the choice of a name for my company becomes important - can I thank the more reasoned voices).

When I stood for the board last time I clearly made the point that I would have COI issues but I wouldn't have undeclared COI issues. The difference is important and you will see that my interests are well documented and they overseen by the WMUK board, our Chief Executive and our legal advisors. Gibraltarpedia is not a WMUK project - its enable by an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Government of Gibraltar and the Wikimedia Foundation signed a bilateral agreement during Wikimania. At Wikimania, the Gibraltar Minister for Tourism announced that he was "inviting the whole of the Wikipedia movement to build a bridge to Africa". The video featured me talking about the the world's first Wikipedia city and local people from Gibraltar welcoming you (the community) to help them create articles in lots of languages. I'm helping to make that happen. I'm working with people who are trying to make that happen too. Victuallers (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Roger, the most problematic element here to my mind is that you and your company apply for paid service contracts involving Wikipedia, at least partly on the strength of your being a director of WMUK. In the Geovation case, for example, your bid stated that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial." Yet the funds that were on offer were awarded to you and your colleague, on the strength of your bid, and not to Wikimedia UK, or any other volunteer editors due to become involved in writing these articles. It is not unreasonable to assume that your WMUK directorship gives you a competitive advantage in applying for jobs like the Geovation project, or consultancy jobs like the one for Gibraltarpedia. This being so, I cannot see that these circumstances are in line with the letter and spirit of the Nolan requirements, notably requirements 1 and 2. I believe you ought to resign, and do your for-profit work as an independent consultant. JN466 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Victuallers: I lost every bit of confidence and respect for WMUK after the Fae-affair; if you can have a banned editor on WMUK, then apparently everything goes. Including having a leader who does openly, and in a big scale, what Gregory Kohs has been doing in a smaller scale for years. Huldra (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Violet Blue has a new story posted; http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57518384-93/wikipedia-honcho-caught-in-scandal-quits-defends-paid-edits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlickitatGlacier (talkcontribs) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is CNET generally recognised on Wikipedia as being a reliable source? Looking at that bitter little attack piece, I'd say it shouldn't be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Violet Blue certainly has a history with Wikipedia, and yet her articles are clearly written with more detail than most. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
... including "details" that can't be backed up by any reliable source. Nice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Roger Bamkin?

Given the serious conflicts of interests, breach of trust, and abuse of position for personal gain, if Roger Bamkin doesn't voluntarily resign then it seems time for proceedings to begin to forcibly remove Mr. Bamkin from broad of trustees for being in violation of section 72 of the Charities Act 1993. In that regard, I believe it would be useful to begin compiling the specific allegations and evidence in a single space to bring coherence and civility to a quickly unfolding event. StevenPine (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to get his name right if you are going to file court proceedings... I haven't seen anything that I think goes so far as to violate the Charities Act. Roger's position of the board is, ultimately, a matter for the Wikimedia UK membership - I doubt the courts are going to be interested. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to block Bamkin entirely

I was asked to put a spamuserblock on Bamkin's Victuallers account, since that is the name of his for-profit company; I declined, stating "[s]uch a heavy-handed action would be grossly inappropriate", since apparently his for-profit venture is named after his Wikipedia account, not the other way around. Nonetheless, this whole mess is not going to go away until and unless he steps down from all positions of trust and responsibility within Wikimedia and all related entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with your refusal rationale and your latter comment. It would be a gross misuse of the username policy. Gigs (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm being accused (on my talk page) of insufficiently aggressive enforcement of the spamusername policy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Not insufficient, merely selective. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit silly to go, "I think OrangeMike enforces our spamusername policy poorly. I know what will fix him: trying to talk him into placing a 'spam' block that would be extremely controversial and almost certainly be overturned amongst much drama based on IAR!" Yes, you can squint at the spamusername police and see how a block on Victuallers could be argued for, but if you can't also see that this is not nearly as clear-cut a case as most and that a unilateral block by one admin is likely to inflame, not reduce the drama, then you don't have much business ordering other admins to go place the block. No admin is obligated to place a block on your orders, even if you think that makes them "inconsistent"; if you want Victuallers blocked, well, you have admin bits too, and you can do it without trying to piggyback the issue of OrangeMike's blocking habits onto this case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Asking for Victuallers to change usernames seems unnecessarily punitive and is a distraction from having a full and frank discussion of the issues. Given the nature and scale of Bamkin's consulting business, the username is not likely to be recognized as a business name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record I considered the same action before my first posting here and decided not to. To just go ahead and block is, as Mike says, punitive. However as I've already mentioned I don't believe when WP:ORGNAME was written that the possibility that someone would name a company after their WP account and then turn around and get paid for their Wikipedia activities ever occurred to anyone. I do believe it violates the spirit of the policy and that Roger should change it a sa gesture of good faith, but that is up to him for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Roger has stated [15] that the company only exists as a tax item and has no advertising or promotion (or employees, evidently). WP:ORGNAME was written to prevent editors promoting a company for which they work ("the following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional", bolding as in original). If there is no promotion involved, I can't see how WP:ORGNAME can be invoked, since the company only exists on paper. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this question, for which I was ridiculed at Wikipediocracy. I think naming a private consultancy after a WP name is bad form, at a minimum, and violates the spirit of the prohibition against user names that promote commercial interests, most would agree. Is it unambiguously commercial? No. Do I think Orange Mike was being inconsistent by not blocking on request? Perhaps a bit, but I don't agree with many of his blocks on commercial entities and I feel there is enough ambiguity here that the name could well slide. Should Mr. Bamkin select a new user name now that he has established Victuallers Inc.? Yes, he should, in my opinion. Should he separate himself from WMUK? Yes, definitely, immediately. Participate there as an independent observer, not as a functionary. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note Roger has filed at WP:RFCN to ask for community input on his name, so any further discussion of it should probably go there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Report in Le Monde

Deux membres de Wikipédia accusés de corruption ("Two members of Wikipedia [sic] accused of corruption"). Grover cleveland (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to give them credit, whoever they are - they've certainly oiled up the media pipeline, and finding these two unrelated cases to publish together and make each look worse than it is was a stroke of genius. I don't know where they did all this planning either - I assume they must have some new forum, apparently one more secure than ArbCom's lists. I don't know what's going on at all, but I wonder ... instead of sitting around, waiting to be publicly humiliated one by one until whoever these people are take it over, would it make more sense for the WMUK trustees to take the initiative, disband their organization entirely and donate its assets to other charities? Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
So, Wnt, you think WMUK should take the money that people donated to Wikipedia (and the WMF transferred to WMUK) and give it away to another charity? Do you think that this might be in violation of certain legal agreements, not to mention the expectations of the donors? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps other WMF chapters or related charities, but I'd rather see them pile the money up and burn it than be taken over by someone who spends it on some censorship crusade. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There's more press coverage of the scandal today:
  • "Wikipedia contributors decry pay for posts" (Computerworld) [16]
  • "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia" (CNET) [17]
  • "Governments paying for Wikipedia edits?" (Foreign Policy (blog)) [18]
  • "Wikipedia Brand Trust Erodes With PRikpedia, Gibraltarpedia Scandals" (BrandChannel) [19]
--John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Drop the ad hominem crap and the paranoia

Could we drop the ad hominem crap and the paranoia, and simply address the horrific public relations and ethics problems we have here? I don't care if this is being pushed off-wiki by Kohs, or any and all of the rest of the haters (who hate me too): it's a genuine concern for many of us who spend time and energy we don't have to spare, and don't like to see somebody leeching off Wikimedia funds as a consultant, or abusing their powers as an admin, officer, etc. to get free trips, lucrative contracts, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you address a public relations problem without asking what the motivation of those making accusations might be? The ethics of each individual deal of course should be considered carefully, and appropriate policies should be enacted, but I don't think this became news all by itself. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
What could it possibly matter, Wnt? I think you will find that it became news when those who have a responsibility to act in specific ways and not act in others, ignored their legal obligations and went straight for the personal gain. Yours is the kind of thinking that says punish those who tell, not those who did the improper deeds. If what the whistleblowers say is true, it does not matter at all what their motivations are. To say otherwise is to think like a politician. I am appalled that you see this as a "public relations" problem and not an ethical and possibly legal one. Bielle (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a shande far di goyim, Wnt; I don't give a darn what the motivations of the whistleblowers are, we need to keep our house clean as an ethical imperative; the public relations aspects are secondary. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I think you're doing an excellent job of distinguishing what should and should not be done here. While we have debated certain blocks in the past, I think in this case, you have made an impeccable call, and I think the very best thing at this point would be for the community as a whole to applaud your discretion and use your rationale as a guide for the future. I know you personally give a lot of time and energy to this specific issue in your role as an Admin, and you've shown a strong willingness to let the wisdom of the community guide you, but I think in this case, the community should allow your wisdom to guide it. -- Avanu (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Mike, while I totally agree with your comments about the crap and paranoia pushed by the usual suspects, I don't think you're on target with your comments about "somebody leeching off Wikimedia funds" or "abusing their powers". As far as I can see there's absolutely no hard evidence of either having happened, just a lot of uncorroborated accusations, often by individuals with a track record of participation in off-wiki attack sites. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS Wnt: the Wikipediocracy crowd (the thread in question is here, for the talk page stalkers) is not a monolith intent on destroying Wikipedia, but we are pretty good at investigating bad behavior by cabals (practice makes perfect). The NPOV assessment of this debacle is pretty clear: some people are abusing their positions, some other people probably should have spoken up about it but didn't until it was too late, and still other people (like you, Wnt) are so embarrassed by being caught supporting the wrong people that they're trying to blame the watchdogs.

Having active and intelligent watchdogs around is a good thing for entities like the WMF. Don't kick the watchdog when it's just doing it's job. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Compared to what every American local government gets away with, Bamkin's "crime" doesn't sound like much - he sold Gibraltar some fancy lucite plaques and advice for a few thousand bucks, possibly benefiting from his position on WMUK to close the deal. Did I miss anything? True, it would be worth hearing whether he had permission to use the Wikipedia trademark[20] and if so whether that is given as readily to potential competitors. So I'm not sure this is right but I don't know why it has to end up in Le Monde. Can't you just make some clear, unambiguous policies and make amends for any past transgression without fire-breathing rhetoric, bans, resignations, etc.? I also agree that the talk about removing negative content from Gibraltar and about SEO benefits from the other guy is all very disturbing, but so far I've heard no link from this to anything Bamkin did. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Compared to what every American local government gets away with, Bamkin's "crime" doesn't sound like much - he sold Gibraltar some fancy lucite plaques and advice for a few thousand bucks, possibly benefiting from his position on WMUK to close the deal." — Nope, other than the fact that there's little doubt that he cashed in from the association, you've got it, and that's why Mr. Bamkin must sever his connections with WMUK immediately. "Every American local government" is not Wikipedia. That's what we call an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at AfD and it shouldn't and doesn't cut mustard. My friend Orange Mike correctly notes on this page that we need to keep our house cleaner than clean, and the fact that the "opposition press" includes mortal enemies of The Project should not for one second deter us from a quick housecleaning. Now. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
If Wikimedia's/Wikipedia's leadership had its house in order, there wouldn't be anything substantial for Wikipedia's critics to complain about, would there? Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Orange Mike, I will try to calm down. Sorting out what was/was-not appropriate behavior at each point in time and layer (context) will be difficult, but it is doable. A true timeline will have to be made. However the very public damage to Wikipedia's credibility is bad, and was foreseen. We, the paranoid, saw this coming. Some of us, by being paranoid, warned against paid editing period, and warned against any collaboration with PR people/orgs/purposes. Even if every single edit made was in isolation done in the purest good faith (many do appear that way, so far), the aggregation of them appears improper. This damages Wikipedia's credibility - damage so bad that WMF may have to hire a public relations agency to fix it. Gah! Doh! Oy! --Lexein (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not the sort of thing that a public relations agency can fix. PR can can only get you so far, and then you have have something real to back it up. (I don't think that Edward Bernays himself could to much to increase tourism to Syria right now, for instance.) Since it is true that we as a community not only permit but actively encourage paid reputation-management editing (e.g, WP:CO-OP etc.), we would have a hard time convincing people that it's not true and that our articles aren't therefore slanted, sometimes. There's nothing to be done about that, I suppose. It's all a natural and expected result the nature of our governance (which is very hands-off and has to be), the makeup of our community, and the natural tendency of money to abhor a vacuum. Of course many people have predicted this very forseeable turn of events (and worse to come in future, I assume), but probably not much can be done about it, so we'll just have to take these hits, I guess. Whether anything can be done about this particular detail (the corruption of WMUK) I don't know; I hope so, but it probably won't much change the direction on which the Wikipedia evolves anyway. Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I do think that Foreign Policy] assesses the situation cogently: their article is titled Governments paying for Wikipedia edits?, and they end with "I'm actually surprised we don't hear more stories like this... there are other international disputes in which interested governments would pay good money to promote their version of reality". This is true, and consider how the budget of the Gibraltar Board of Tourism is dwarfed by the propaganda budgets of (let's say) the Russian Federation and Exxon-Mobile and on and on. There's millions to be made here, my hearties -- millions, and all on the up-and-up, provided you jump through the right hoops. How long, really, can we expect that kind of money to be left just lying on the ground? Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If you got my joke, thank you, otherwise, I was attempting irony about hiring a PR agency to solve a problem brought about by "collaborative" (as Prioryman insists) PR-related, COI editing and use of DYK as a promotional tool. The damage to Wikipedia's credibility is real, and concrete "Wikipedia Paid Posts Scandal" shows a nice graph of the decline in 2007 donations from 22 Feb to 17 Mar around the Essjay scandal (if the correlation is valid, after correction for normal donation fluctuations). I should reiterate: We, the paranoid, saw this coming. Some of us, by being paranoid, warned against paid editing period, and warned against any collaboration with PR people/orgs/purposes. I glanced at WP:CO-OP; I wonder how that's working out. The way out of this is simple, swift and surgical. Shut, disavow, and salt Gibraltarpedia and any other "collaborations". It's fine that my advice was ignored: I suggested see-threat-and-prevent-and-live, but WP decided to live-suffer-and-maybe-learn. Whatever happens, WMF/WP should at least learn. The clock is running on this scandal. It may already be too late for a strong Wikimedia/Wikipedia response to make a difference to public perception (you know, all those people who might have become editors, except that the stench of corruption has turned them away...). --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Well of course Gibraltarpedia should be shut, disavowed, and salted. I'm with you on this and so are a lot of folks and I've also banged the drum on this general subject. The problem is that there's no mechanism to do this. What are you going to do, send Wikipedia:Gibraltarpedia to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? I wouldn't recommend doing that, since to succeed you must meet one of these conditions:
  • General consensus to delete it (or some other generally satisfactory solution). This means most everyone coming basically to agree with this, and that's not going to happen.
  • Lacking that, a supermajority voting to delete it (supermajorities have a kind of nebulous status here, but if you can get one big enough it carries a certain weight). That would mean at least a 67% vote in your favor, probably more, and based on my reading of this and earlier discussions, that's not going to happen.
  • Lacking that, a preponderance of argument such that any reasonable disinterested person cognizant of the matter would clearly agree with your position. Probably this requires you to advance policy-based arguments that can't be well countered with policy-based counterarguments. That's not the case here I don't think. Lacking that, you can try to make non-policy-based arguments such as the overall good of the project, common sense, WP:IAR, even morality-based arguments (though I wouldn't try that with this crowd) and so forth. This is not going to succeed. The other side can is also clever and can write and argue well, so at best a stalemate would be achieved.
  • Lacking that, a political solution such as a person closing the WP:MFD as "delete" even in the face of the lack of any of the above. This does happen occasionally, but it's demoralizing and no one likes to see it, is not a good thing to hope for, is not something that many people (including me) would support, and in this case would likely cause sterile drama and warring with little prospect of success.
So there you have it. All we can try to do is keep up the fight and try to shift the general community feeling about this sort of stuff, over time. I'm not too inclined to much energy on this for much the same reason as I'm not inclined to have my neighborhood pickup basketball team challenge the Boston Celtics: they're professionals; we're not. You're welcome to, though. Herostratus (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve Virgin

When I saw this discussion I looked a bit into one of the other parties mentioned in connection with this case. User:Steve Virgin is a former member of the WMUK board and has "business relationship" with Bamkin that covers these matters. Virgin is only clearly noted as having been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia, but his LinkedIn profile describes how about ten years ago, while working for "Corporact", he ran a "UK PR campaign for Gibraltar Tourist Board" (Gibraltar is actually misspelled on the profile). Looking over Virgin's activities on-wiki he has put forward a video of a TED conference on the Monmouthpedia talk page to use as a source. Mr. Virgin describes the meeting as being what lead to Monmouthpedia. It is about 16 minutes long, but it is essentially Virgin and Bamkin talking about the economic impact Wikipedia could have on Bristol and makes frequent mention of QR codes, PR, and SEO via Wikipedia as helping to attract business to communities.

This aspect seems significant as Virgin also created a page in his userspace that appears to be geared towards eventually taking the Monmouthpedia approach to Bristol. There is also mention on his LinkedIn page of a speaking event last year, a month after the TED event, at the Bristol Chamber of Commerce where he discussed "Wikipedia and Bristol". It seems likely this same concept was being put before them, especially since it was listed under his work with the PR agency Media Focus UK. Mind you, Virgin only left WMUK this May and started working at Media Focus months after he joined WMUK in 2009, so his work at a PR agency basically coincided with his work at WMUK until very recently and there is substantial overlap in those two careers. Given that his activities are closely connected to Bamkin's activities and this whole controversy, I feel it is pertinent to mention here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a video of a presentation by Roger and Steve, openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM

Quotes:

"Can we help put Bristol on the global map longer term, that's why we want to talk to you today." [3.25]

"Roger's going to tell you all about Derby Museum, and what we did for them." [3.40]

"We partnered Derby Museum. [...] We thought we'd pick on one small museum and give it a lot of it, national attention, even international attention, into one museum, just to see what kind of effect we could have on a museum, how we could affect its profile." [6.23]

"We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias [... English, French, Polish, Russian ...] It's giving us more hits to Derby Museum's web page, so it's actually going from our page, clicking through to their web page, it's fulfilling our mission to educate and to share information around the world, and it's raising the interest and status of the city." [12.22]

"It's a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map." [17.41]

I am not comfortable with this sales pitch – especially when it is combined with private consultancy contracts for those making it. It is not consistent with the spirit and ideals of the project I signed up to more than six years ago, and with the spirit and ideals of Wikipedia as communicated to the public.

And it is arguably an exploitation of volunteer editors for personal profit. There is a telling passage in the latter part of the presentation about how creating massive amounts of text in multiple languages would have cost a lot of money, and how, just by advertising "prizes of some books and a £50 book voucher" on Wikipedia, 100 articles were created for the project in the space of one week, at no cost.

Today, even after the brouhaha all over the European press, another Gibraltar DYK ran on the Wikipedia main page. JN466 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From an article in Slate: "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes." [21]

This is what the public thinks about this sort of thing.

Here is an article in The Register about it. JN466 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Much respect though I have for Orlowski, I don't see him as being the voice of what the public is thinking. Instead, I rather think of him as being the voice of what Orlowski is thinking. He'd be a lot more persuasive if he wrote with a smidgeon more accuracy. "Topics rarely appear more than once" on DYK? Gosh, I wonder what all that fuss about the University of Michigan's basketball team was last year, then? Not to mention battleships and mushrooms and British churches and Olympic/Paralympic athletes and British field fortications of the second world war and and and... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I read the Slate article. It is ill-informed and ill-written. And remember all that fuss two or three years ago about bilateral relations between countries being used for DYK? I am sure that there were any number of topics which had more than 17 DYKs over the course of three months, if you define topic less narrowly than the author did. And I favor paid editing, and feel that it is far less destructive than editing egged on by religious or nationalistic fervor. The I-P editors don't get a shekel (or dinar) for their work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
How can you be sure? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
What need is there to pay ideological activists to be advocates on Wikipedia when they're happy to do that for free? Prioryman (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not directly, but some may have material concerns at stake. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the big deal?

It happened before: “Wales was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad, but when it came to handing in receipts, he could be somewhat careless. At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit. Not a bad sum, considering that many of those trips had fat honoraria, which Jimbeau kept for himself.” It will happen again.--108.60.139.130 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, Danny was never able to provide any evidence or anything else to lend credibility to his accusations. --Tango (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If the accusations were not true, Danny would have been banned from wikipedia but he's still editing. The chosen few, the elite of Wikipedia have been using this nonprofit site for their own profit since the beginning. For instance, remember Jehochman, using WP pages to game Google? " More respectable outfits call themselves "search engine optimization" consultancies, and Jehochman runs one of those, Hochman Consultants which is linked from his wikipedia user page. On Hochman Consultants' "Search Engine Optimization" page, the trademark Wikipedia logo is prominently featured. As an admin, Jehochman should know not to do that! ". I could go on and on...--108.60.139.170 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't respond to this, but if we would ban everyone who makes baseless accusations on the web against people on here, we'd sure have a whole lot less people editing this talk page. "He's not banned, so it must be true!" is the most hilarious claim I have read on here in quite a while. :) --Conti| 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If this accusation is baseles, it is a very serious baseles accusation. If my former emploee said about me something like this: "I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense", I would have demanded this baseles accusation ro be taken off the NET imediatly. After all DailyTech is not a tabloid site and not a gossip site.--108.60.139.170 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we all know how well it works when we demand information to be taken from the net, don't we? --Conti| 17:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Why? Demands would just add fuel to the fire. Better to ignore it if you can. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Did You Know... that there is MORE Gibraltar spam on DYK today?

Time for AN/I to take action with some topic bans, obviously. Template problem tags are also being pulled from the Gibraltarpedia article by WMUK folk, funny how that works. This is starting to reek. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's response

Of note, since nobody seems to have mentioned it here; User:Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, has posted the following on her user talk page:

Hi folks. (Responding to this section, and the one above.) I don't have anything to say about this right now: I'm talking with Jon Davies by e-mail. If I have something to say after he and I have talked, I'll come back and say it here then. It looks like this could have been better handled from a perception standpoint via faster and more complete disclosure, but I have heard and seen nothing that makes me believe anything seriously untoward has happened here. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the last sentence in particular. Can we put this nontroversy to bed now and get on with more productive things? Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

" could have been better handled from a perception standpoint via faster and more complete disclosure " - Prioryman, can you tell us who's paying for your trip to Gibralter, and why you censored any discussion of it from your userpage? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Removing an unanswered a question isn't the same as censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
But do note that the excellent question remains unanswered. YouReallyCan asked for a declaration of financial connections during the recent Fae/WMUK controversy and Prioryman launched a (successful) RFC that got YRC banned off for unrelated matters within an hour. That's a true fact. That query went unanswered as well, for the record. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Erik Möller's response

Of note, since nobody seems to have mentioned it here; Erik Möller, the Deputy Director and Vice President of Engineering and Product Development of the Wikimedia Foundation, posted his views on the Wikimedia-l mailing list; they are worth reading in full, but included this passage:

The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA is clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit ought to be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives, not to promote separate business goals.

Note the last sentence in particular. Can we please acknowledge that there has been a problem here, and learn from it? Erik's post ends, "if this is not fully and thoroughly addressed there's a risk that it will continue to reflect poorly on Wikimedia." It should be clear that this sort of thing should never happen again. JN466 10:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the ethics here, would you say that no one who manages to get on the board of a WMXX organization should be allowed to use it in a CV? Or should he have to resign first? Or that it's OK to use it on a CV but not in an advertising pitch for your services? Wnt (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. (As a general rule, and using common sense. You can use it, if you wish, to pitch your services as a flower arranger or auto mechanic or book editor etc.. Not as someone who is going to interface with Wikipedia in any way. As with most all human endeavors, there are angels-on-a-pin complexities and hard cases, and reasonable people of good faith can discuss these.) Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Read the Nolan requirements – they are part of what all WMUK trustees had to sign up to:

In addition to the duties and liabilities of the Trustees the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life (1994) identified personal standards of conduct for directors, based on seven principles.

Trustees of Wikimedia UK should act with:

  • Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.
  • Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.
  • Objectivity: In carrying out their role, including making appointments (staff or trustee appointments) awarding contracts, recommending individuals for rewards and benefits or transacting other business the Trustees should ensure that decisions are made solely on merit.
  • Accountability: The Trustees have a duty to comply with the law on all occasions, in accordance with the trust placed in them and in such a way as to preserve public confidence in Wikimedia, and are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public, funders and service users. They must submit themselves to what scrutiny is appropriate to their role.
  • Openness: The Trustees must ensure that confidential material, including material about individuals is handled in accordance with due care and should be as open as possible about their decisions and action that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands.
  • Honesty: The Trustees have a duty to declare any interests relating to their trustee role and to take steps to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Where private interests of a trustee conflict with their trustee duties they must resolve the conflict in favour of their trustee role. They must make relevant declarations of interest in the different circumstances and roles they play both within and outside Wikimedia.
  • Leadership: The Trustees should promote and support the principles of leadership by example. They must respect the role of the Chief Executive.

You can figure the rest out from there, I hope. You can do what you like, but not while you are a trustee and subject to those requirements. --JN466 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for pre-approval mechanism for projects of this kind

See WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Vaguely related to this

An editor is/was soliciting donations on his user page for past work. See WP:AN#Solicitation of donations. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

J.W., FYI, reputation pros have figured it out. I watched how they evolved from early crude attempts to become Wikipedians indistinguishable from any other. This is actually good for the project because, in order to do this, they have to contribute quite a bit. Then, once they have the username(s) ramped up, they move in on their clients articles and smoothly get things done. There is no way you can ever distinguish them from someone who is simply a fan and wants this person they respect to get a fair shake and not have the contents of the available WP:RSes faithfully summarized into their articles according to standard operating procedure, and so long as it's just little ol' me against my neighborhood cult full of powerful, connected people, I quit and go back to editing articles about dogs and such. Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth and Broyard for the last time (maybe)

It looks like Anatole Broyard's daughter, Bliss Broyard, has made a response to the whole situation, essentially calling Roth out. You can read about that here. I think her point #2 is especially poignant, because it's what a lot of us have been saying for the longest time. SilverserenC 06:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The poorly worded e-mail correspondence with Roth by "an administrator" has tended to obscure the fact that prior to September 2012, Roth had never commented publicly on this matter, and many reputable critics had assumed that the character was based on Broyard.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It's also the question that anyone who claims to represent, or be, a noted author should be used to having to prove it, especially by Mr. Roth's age.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
While I tend to agree with all of this and am as slightly annoyed as anyone that we appear to have been blamed even though our article was accurate and respectful at all times, and Mr. Roth was treated with dignity and respect at all times... it's always in my nature to think about how we might do better in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that an article that accurately reports that someone made an inaccurate statement, in a way which would lead an average person to believe the inaccurate statement, is in common parlance "inaccurate", even if it satisfies Wikipedia definitions of accuracy.
I would accept the argument that we were inaccurate because there was no way we could have known better at the time, and the best information available was inaccurate, but I wouldn't mince words; Wikipedia was inaccurate, based on inaccurate sources. The fact that we didn't state it to be true in our own voice, and only reported that it was said by someone else, is a technicality that doesn't change the basic nature of what happened. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources were never inaccurate, they were stating an opinion that the reviewers held. And we were just stating that it was their opinion here, while noting that the author said that it was otherwise. SilverserenC 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
That is how I see it. Mr. Roth took up an issue that he should have taken up with the reviewers with us instead, for reporting accurately what the reviewers said. Unfortunately, we lacked the ability to read his mind, leaving aside the question of whether his mind is a reliable source :) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Seren: you're basically just repeating the point I was disputing. You seem to have this idea that because we quoted other people and their statements were described as opinions, they weren't inaccurate. This is another example of privileging Wiki-norms over real-world norms. It doesn't matter that the statements weren't inaccurate by Wikipedia rules; someone who read them would come away believing untrue things, and that makes them inaccurate in a real-world sense without regard to technicalities such as "we were just stating it was someone else's opinion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No. In the absence of a definitive statement from the author as to his intent, we properly stated people's opinions about what he intended. Mr. Roth has now weighed in as to what he meant, and we report that he has said that. I do not see that we screwed up in any way. Possibly the communication was not all it could be, but that goes on both sides. Why would they make the change here, rather than just talking to scholars who study Roth's works? I think there's more to this than meets the eye, but we will probably never know for sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Move article to sister project Rumorpedia: Perhaps we could have an entire sister project in "Category:Wikipedia humor" so that a new Rumorpedia could host articles which play wp:Mindreader and then protest, "Just joking that we know an author's thoughts better than him". The obsession to claim the unstated inspiration of some other author, or any living person's private thoughts, really risks that they might want the article, some day, to be truthful instead. Meanwhile, other people will claim that person is not to be trusted about recalling their own thoughts. Many of us (and you Jimbo) have known these dangers for years, but we need to codify more about "unprovable claims" (or rumors), so that people will know when to exclude what critics speculate was the unstated background about anything. A person cannot prove what they were thinking years ago, only show notes of what they wrote, not thought. Speculative text, about a person's thoughts, needs to be avoided in articles. Apparently, no matter how much advice is given here, it is not having a broad enough impact (although I see the phrase, "verifiability, not truth" has finally become footnoted in WP:V). We need to turn advice into more written guidelines. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
We weren't reporting anyone's alleged thoughts, we were writing about the exact opinions of published reviewers. SilverserenC 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Including close connections: Yes, I see the clear difference: it was not reporting a rumor, but rather reporting opinions which supported the rumor, so we need to address that case, as well, for people who are confused by the difference. This situation is like concluding that calling a person's opinion "childish" or "infantile" or "cowardly" is not a personal attack, but instead, purely an attack on the opinion only, rather than a case of directly implied argumentum ad hominem. Hence, further explanation is needed to clarify the close connections as in "fruit of the poisonous tree". Thank you for raising that issue. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
No, no rumor about it. Wikipedia reported what the critics said and then was gracious enough to defer to Roth's rude public protest. I'd like to know the details about the supposed email with an administrator. Yopienso (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Yopienso. There was nothing wrong with the article; it stated the opinions of others with inline attribution. Mr. Roth must have known that the reviewers, learned scholars, were making an interpretation he did not intend, so why is he picking on us? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, for one, when he asked for that information to be removed, the result was that the section on Broyard was vastly increased. It was undue to begin with, in the lead of what was a short article then, and then became even bigger. And you do not need secondary sources to omit something that the author tells you was erroneous speculation. The whole thing could have been handled a lot more smartly than by quoting Wikipedia rules at the man. For example, a rewording could have been negotiated, putting the information in a less prominent place, and wording it something like "Even though Roth's character was not in fact inspired by Anatole Broyard, many reviewers drew parallels ..." JN466 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, The Devil's Advocate pointed out a while ago that the wording Roth quoted as objectionable, “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard”, actually came from his Wikipedia biography, where it was not counterbalanced by Roth's own statement. It was never in the article on The Human Stain; Roth was mistaken on that point. JN466 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people get upset when many people do not understand that some statement is utterly false: Well, from what has been stated, earlier, then obviously, several people kept telling the author that there was nothing wrong with the article, and that his objections about the information being totally false were of little concern to Wikipedia editors. Such can happen with people who care about truth in writing text. Some people like to drink beer, some people really like to play football for years, and some people really, really want encyclopedias to contain true information. The point in this case, is to quickly realize when someone wants an article about them to contain true information, then try to make them think that the truth is important in Wikipedia as well, even if it seems like there is nothing wrong with repeating tons of false or incorrect information. All that false stuff tends to upset them a lot. There are whole sectors of modern society which place a high value on truth, such as scientists or many celebrities, just as color-blind people might prefer other colors, and so long as we are aware of that, and respond accordingly, then there will be less resentment. The general concept is to try to match what real people state as important (or notable), and if the truth matters to them, then act quickly along those lines, even if the lies were written by famous reviewers. Does that help to clarify the issues? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikid, can you please stop making lies? The reviewers were stating their opinions on the character. An opinion is inherently subjective and, thus, cannot be a lie. SilverserenC 07:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The article repeated only what reputable literary critics had said. This was not a case where something factually wrong and potentially libellous had been added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Stating that Roth based a character on Broyard when he didn't is factually wrong.
Stating that it's someone's opinion that Roth based a character on Broyard, in a way which makes readers believe that opinion, is still wrong in the way that ultimately matters.
You are trying to say there was nothing factually wrong because the statements came from other people and were reported as opinions. Wikipedia rules do not count such things as being factually wrong. The real world does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So long as Wikipedia says that reviewers said that XXXX, our article cannot be wrong no matter what the author says. And as I commented about this the last time, it is conceivable that an author's comments about his character's inspiration could be inaccurate for various plausible reasons. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Bliss Broyard seems to be bringing that up as well, since she explained quite a few things that Roth knew about her father before he ever started writing the book. Roth could have just not realized that at least part of the details he included in the book about his Silk character were being based on past memories of Broyard and not just on Tumin. SilverserenC 01:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
When a primary source says A and a large number of secondary reliable sources say B, Wikipedians will tend to go with B, because of the history of WP:NPOV issues when people edit articles in which they have a direct personal interest. The correspondence with Philip Roth should have been handled better, but this was not the Seigenthaler incident Part 2, because as others have pointed out, literary critics are entitled to their opinions, and Wikipedia is entitled to report them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the media is presenting this as Roth trying to get "wrong information" removed, and being being told his word isn't good enough. Not that we can do much about it, if we objected, he'd write a book about it or something. Of course, what happens on Wikipedia often resembles improbable fiction, so he may have a head start!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems there is also a bit (or more) of topic and discipline unfamiliarity. Does it matter if David Copperfield or Pip are semi-autobiographical; or that little Nell has parallels to Dickens's sister-in-law? Or that Dickens childhood humiliation of working in a bootblack factory to support his father and family while in debtors' prison -- which he told almost no-one (one, maybe two people) about -- may show-up in his characters, themes, and setting? The people who study, write about, and attempt to understand the art, or the artist apparently think so. Put that against editors' random thoughts, and you have the spectacle of editors making bold condemnations of multiple sources, which condemnations seem unsubtle, as well as unusable. Alanscottwae all meelker (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Suppose that Charles Dickens sent an e-mail to Wikipedia and denied that Ikey Solomon was the basis of the character Fagin. This has been widely supposed by literary critics, so should Wikipedia remove all mention of it?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If Charles Dickens did this, and if there was no serious doubt that it actually was Charles Dickens saying so, then (assuming that the criticism is notable) Wikipedia should mention that critics made the statements, but Wikipedia should avoid presenting the statements in a manner which implies to the reader that they are correct. If there is no published source for Dickens saying so, then the Wikipedia article should refrain from describing what Dickens says, but should continue to use what Dickens says when making editorial decisions.
This is another case of "verifiability, not truth": It is Wikipedia's responsibility to not publish falsehoods. If there is no source for a true statement, the true statement cannot itself be published in Wikipedia, but it can and should be used by Wikipedians as part of the editing process. Once Dickens says that the critics are wrong about Dickens, the critics' statements become verifiable-but-false and Wikipedia must take care that the readers don't think of them as true. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The same problem would occur if William Shakespeare sent an e-mail to Wikipedia and denied that his plays were based on Holinshed's Chronicles. All in all, it is just as well that Shakespeare and Dickens cannot read their Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If Shakespeare had said things that were contradicted by Shakespeare scholars and there were reliable sources, not given undue weight, which explain that critics believe that Shakespeare lied about Shakespeare, then yes, you can prefer the critics. But that's an extreme situation and shouldn't be the default. So far, no critic has said "I'm aware that Roth claims it wasn't Broyard, but I think it's Broyard anyway and here's why." Critics contradict Roth because they don't have the information, not because they looked at the information and decided to reject it. If scholarly consensus develops which says that Roth lied or was mistaken about himself, then we can use it. But we shouldn't use it in any old conflict and there needs to be a strong presumption against it. 208.65.89.254 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No, and I doubt any critic will do so, at least in Roth's lifetime. But I'm strongly leaning towards the view that Roth picked this fight, for reasons that we cannot know. Why would the first move the biographer make be to change the Wikipedia article? What good does that do? Unless you are reasonably sure it will be reverted and you can then proceed to object and wind up getting the maximum publicity ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point and a rather concerning one at that. SilverserenC 23:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons why I made this section, because, while not being a critic per se, Bliss is now saying that Roth is mis-remembering or not realizing the connections he made in his Silk character to her father and their past interactions. SilverserenC 23:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
1) Bliss isn't a reliable source, being a non-scholar with a personal stake in the matter but no special insight into Roth's mind.
2) Using Bliss would be undue weight.
We should not have a section in our article calling someone a liar just because the person calling him a liar happens to be in the news at the moment.
Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is fine as it stands now. All assertions are well sourced. Nobody's calling anybody a liar. If Roth is reliable on his own motives, Bliss is reliable on her own experiences. Roth let many high-brow reviews stand for years without public dispute. (Comment, maybe; dispute, no.) In 2008 he denied Coleman Silk was based on anyone, but now he says the character is based on Tumin. That's fine (allowing for a Clintonesque "It depends what you mean by 'based on'"), and WP can report both assertions. Omitting Bliss would be undue weight, since she has both written about her father's "passing," (note editorial comment on that article wrt Roth) and has publicly responded to Roth's letter. Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
While Roth's 2008 comment seems to say that the character wasn't based on anyone, it's also true that he specifically denied the character was based on Broyard back in 2008. You cannot take a 2008 reference which says that the character's not based on Broyard, and a 2012 reference which also says the character is not based on Broyard, and conclude that because the two references contradict on a different point, it's now okay to imply the character is based on Broyard just because he didn't "dispute" it. He doesn't need to "dispute" it; he's already denied it, and we shouldn't expect him to publicly engage with critics making baseless speculation just so that we can treat him as having "disputed" the baseless speculation.
Furthermore, this is a catch-22. You are claiming that the critics who contradict him are reliable sources because he didn't publicly "dispute" them. But you've also claimed that Bliss needs to be included because she was in a public dispute with him. Presumably this extends to being in a public dispute in either direction. Then, engaging critics justifies including them (because failing to include a critic he has engaged with is undue weight), and refusing to engage them also justifies including them (because he hasn't "disputed" them).
It's also bizarre to include a single off-the-cuff statement by Roth from an interview from 2008 to imply that he contradicted himself. People don't talk like robots; in the context of Broyard he could have meant "I didn't based the character on anyone who was passing for white", rather than literally meaning that the character was not based off of anyone in any way whatsoever. This isn't Clintonesque; everyone does it.
And it's still undue weight to include Bliss. Yes, she has written on the subject. Lots of people have written on the subject. She has no special insight into Roth's mind and with respect to Roth the fact that she has written things just makes her one of many critics, no more special than the others. The article is about Roth, not Broyard; the fact that she has a personal relationship with Broyard is bad here--it's a conflict of interest, since she presumably wants her father to be remembered. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I complained about you there.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there is something interesting and constructive you could be doing with your life right now. I recommend that you'll be happier if you do that instead!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that there is some interesting and constructive you could be doing with your life right now instead of promoting original research here.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You and Silverseren are a group of 2 on this issue; get over yourself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)