User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 227

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Oh no, not this shit again

The moratorium on move discussions for Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has expired. To absolutely nobody's surprise whatsoever, the parenthesis-obsessives have once again proposed moving the article, and all the many-times-rejected proposed titles are being trotted out again. Yes, they genuinely are proposing Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) again. I have not the words. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a WP:STICK case, a textbook example I think. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! Reminds me why I stopped closing RM discussions. Favonian (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If it closes as no consensus to move, I think we need to come up with a creative way forward, starting with a one year moratorium and then requiring that any future RM proposer first has to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest, with a herring. I really am sick of this. They would apparently prefer an obviously belittling parenthetical title to the current article name, just because parentheses. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to with parentheses. It's not our fault that this community has long favored parenthetic disambiguation when WP:NATURALDIS is unavailable. The problem is that the name we use in the title is not her name. While she used "Jane" as a middle name prior to marrying Brown, there is no evidence she or anyone has ever used it to refer to her as Sarah Jane Brown, EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA, and a few obscure websites that plagiarize from our material and our now used as references for the claim that that name is her name! It's a cluster and it's getting worse because people like you have been misreading the situation for years and just not getting it. There are many options on the table - this a great opportunity to finally fix this problem. Please help? --В²C ☎ 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure it's not her name. And we're the only ones who use it. She totally isn't registered with that name as a director of the office of Gordon and Sarah Brown Ltd. Oh. Seems on reflection that there is no "problem" to fix. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The appropriate place to express your opinion about RM proposals, at least while they are open, is on the Talk page of the relevant article. To do otherwise smacks of WP:CANVASSING. A neutrally phrased call for attention might be more appropriate. I suggest saving the various accusations for after the move discussion takes place (or at least somewhere that's less of a general discussion forum). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're so aggressive about this, given that you advertised the new discussion to previous participants and via WP:BLPN and WP:CENT. Oh, wait, you didn't: someone else did, days later. On the plus side, you did vigorously resist toning down of a non-neutral summary box at the top of the debate. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest saving the various accusations for after the move discussion takes place (or at least somewhere that's less of a general discussion forum). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you possess a mirror? Guy (Help!) 20:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ELI5: Is there really no term for a "First Lady" in Britain? Wnt (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, because the Prime Minister is not head of state so the PM's spouse has no official position. The "first lady" of the UK, actually a first husband of course, is Prince Philip. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello from Cuba

Hi Jimmy, It's me, the Cuban editor. I would like to contact you on private if possible, but I'm not sure the email you gave me still works. Thanks a lot in advance. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 16:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just sent you a message with my best email address.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied last night to the email address you gave me. Best regards. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions to ask

Hello, Jimmy! I have two questions to ask:

I have an idea about the edits and creations. Sometimes, you just can't ensure the quality of your edit, so you are a little afraid to do the edit or creation. But you can't just cancel the edit, for you may do something good. Aside from the reviews, which can only be received after edits, can there be a function "proposed edit(s)"?
I noticed that there are many villages or small towns in Wikipedia, and I know many small town here, should I put them into Wikipedia?

Best regards. --Nyholtredehn(talk) 00:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jimbo would answer this way, but I'll suggest

make an edit suggestion on the talk page, or if there is not much interest in the article ask a question or make a suggestion at a related WikiProject.
There are a whole lot of small towns and villages on enWiki, e.g. all 2,560 official municipalities in Pennsylvania have articles and there are also census-designated places, unincorporated communities, and even ghost towns. The rest of the US is similarly covered by Wikipedia. I believe the UK, France and Germany and most other western European countries are pretty well covered also. Poland, Serbia and other countries have lots of real small places covered. Please add more small places if they are official municipalities, have their populations recorded, and you have something to say about them. And take some photos too! You might try to look at the Wiki language version in the place's home language, get some references and bring the article over to enWiki. The more the merrier (as long as they have references), Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. By the way, I read the page and knew that Jimbo won't answer, but as I don't know who will amswer, I wrote "Jimmy" there. ---Nyholtredehn(talk)01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also recommend that you propose on the talk page. If no one answers in a day or two, then make your edit. I think articles about small towns anywhere would be welcomed, especially if there are multiple really good sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Spam

Hi, not sure if you got my email or if it went to spam like the other time. Thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I got it. I was with my family for the weekend so I'm catching up. I'm also attending an event the first half of this week before flying back home to London, so you may not hear back until later in the week!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no problem. I just wanted to make sure you'd got the email. I thought Sam had said a few years ago that she was moving on, but I couldn't remember, that's why I mentioned it. Catch up when you have a break. Thanks for your time. :) Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Hey, Jimmy! Here's some snacks to tide you over for a bit. I've never had falafel, but I assume it's delicious. —Frosty Beep 20:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The TWA Error

Hello, Jimmy (or whoever is answering)! I found an error occuring when this page is trying to display the user status. Please go and check it. ----Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^{(Discussion!)} 07:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about this really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nyholtredehn: Looking into this I found that it was this edit that caused the error you saw on the page to which you refer. It must've been a test or something, considering the user is now blocked as a vandalism-only account. –72 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems all right now, thanks. --Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 23:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

An idea about a new feature

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91902

Hello, Jimmy and talk page stalkers. I found a placee that might need a new feature. Sometimes, when I open my broser, I forget the page that I need to go to. When I'm going to read something interesting on Wikipedia that I've read about, I often forget what it is. But, as you can add a bookmark even when reading paper encyclopedia, I'm thinking about, will it be useful if there's a Wikipedia bookmark function for both IP users and registered users? --Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 00:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like phab:T91902, however it is "stalled" right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC::

Well, I don't know that. Thanks, anyway. --Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 01:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [1]
Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [2]
The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [3]
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Anomaly in Very Active Editor stats

WMF has changed their presentation of site statistics. For the key metric of Very Active Editors at En-WP (100+ edits per month) compare: OLD VERSION to NEW VERSION.

There is something going on with the new data set however. For example, the old series for November vs. November for the years 2014 to 2017 is: 2972 — 3377 — 3278 — 3457. The new series for the same exact months is: 4622 — 4913 — 4969 — 4925.

Assuming that 100 edits remains 100 edits, there is something squirrelly with the new data series. Is there an explanation? Carrite (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

[4] may be more likely to know than Jimbo and his talk page stalkers. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If I had to take a stab at it in terms of common explanations for this sort of edit discrepancy, it's possible one includes deleted edits and the other does not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that the definition of "100 edits" has changed in some manner such as this. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the new stats include edits to redirect pages whereas the old stats did not.[5],[6] If I am reading things correctly.--John Cline (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Could counting edits to redirect pages account for a 50% increase in the number of active editors? Who edits redirect pages anyway? Are there redirect page edit wars? Or even controversial redirect pages? There must be some of this, but it can't be that high. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Redirect is quite active with categorizing redirects and the backlog is nearly endless. I don't know if it could account for the spike entirely, but it would certainly be measurable, I believe.--John Cline (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Counting +1,500 frequent editors is huge

There is an immense problem in counting frequent editors (>100 edits/month) and totally over +1,500 more users per month, such as Nov 2014: 4622-2972 = 1,650 more frequent editors. It's not like a %50 increase over 10 users to become 15 users, but rather over +1,500 more people counted for frequent edits. There is some massive issue, such as counting edit-previews as an extra edit due to a glitch in scanning the page transactions. These 45%-55% higher counts need to be discussed at wp:TECHPUMP and ask some of the developers to help pinpoint the count problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's something very major that has changed in the definition of "100 edits." I'm puzzled. Pinging Whatamidoing (WMF)... Carrite (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that User:Milimetric (WMF) will know what's going on with that project. In general, though, if you have quesions about analytics, the IP's advice about sending a note to the analyics mailing list is probably sound. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The old metric was only based on edits to article space, the new description doesn't mention that limitation. So I suspect the new metric is across all namespaces, and therefore will bring in a swathe of not quite so active editors. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What would be necessary to measure editors by bytes served per day of their insertions? And would you weight the measure by the position of the inserted characters in the intro or article body? 71.218.1.84 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks for getting back. I think it best to keep discussion in one place and this seems like a good one for passing along information to the community. I hope Milimetric (WMF) will drop by for a moment. I'll ask one question in advance: is it possible to continue to use the old definition of "100 edits" as a parallel series? That is, continue to update the old version 1.0 statistics tables. It is a really unfortunate thing to kill such a fine data set as you have going by altering a fundamental definition like that... Carrite (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Follow up question: Why was the change in the definition of "100 edits" made? The numbers escalate the count of core En=WP volunteers appreciably, but to what end? The new methodology seems to muddy the waters somehow, it seems harder to see trends. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait, we still do not know what is being counted, so beware the mounting assumptions, because in the past, the miscounts were actually log-count errors, rather than counting other edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Warren Buffett investment lessons and our endowment fund

Jimmy,

Berkshire Hathaway has published its annual letter to its shareholders. I'm particularly interested in in pp 11-14 about a "million dollar bet" Warren Buffett made against a hedge fund advisory company. The bet, made in 2007, was simple, the advisor picked 5 "funds of hedge funds", WB picked the S&P 500 - which would have a higher return over 10 years? Buffett won spectacularly - the S&P had a total return of 125.8% (8.5% annualized). The funds of funds had total returns between 2.8% and 87.7% (0.3% - 6.5% annualized). Their average total return (my calculation) was 36.3%, almost 90% below the S&P.

I'm usually very skeptical of folks who sell books or advice named "Invest like Warren Buffett", but I'm not selling anything and WB is giving the advice. It's also not his usual way of investing, though I believe it informs his overall investment strategy - the S&P 500 is just his usual standard of comparison - one that he consistently (but not always) beats.

My advice is, if our endowment fund has a 10 year horizon, that we go for that average 90% difference by passively investing in the S&P 500 (or similar international index). This isn't some wild, crazy scheme - I'd guess they even taught something like this in the IU PhD finance program!

A second point that WB mentions is that *at times* bonds are a "risky" (his term) investment. I'd just say super-low return with no upside, made a bit risky by inflation. The endowment probably shouldn't be investing in bonds either.

Hope this helps!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. This is one of the oldest and most robust findings in financial economics - that the evidence for professional managers of portfolios of investments being better than a buy and hold strategy on a broad index is very slim for the most part.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What is going on at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Endowment#Benchmarking? Why do you want to benchmark against an arbitrary asset allocation instead of against legitimately top performing funds that only approximately follow index funds' strict allocation?[7][8] The strict rebalancing requirements of index funds allow high frequency traders to skim billions. 75.166.124.242 (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. IMHO the endowment is important enough that there should be lots of discussion on it. As I understand the question it is "Why do you want to benchmark against an arbitrary asset allocation instead of against legitimately top performing funds that only approximately follow index funds' strict allocation?"

We need to compare endowment returns in the long run against other alternatives that were actually investable, in order to see whether our portfolio managers are actually getting reasonable returns (compared to the strategy they profess to follow) and compared to other strategies we might want to switch to. The benchmarks should be portfolio returns on something that could actually be invested in - and most - like the S&P 500 - can be effectively bought and sold pretty easily with low transaction costs. In the 2 papers you pointed out, which I've only skimmed so far, can you point out the investable alternatives?

Using a standard benchmark (or asset allocation, i.e. a weighted set of benchmarks) as your investable alternative not only solves the comparison problem, but gives you an investment strategy. An asset allocation like "65% global equities, 25% investment-grade US bonds, and 10% Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”)" seems generally reasonable. We'll end up doing better in the long run than the large majority of endowments, taking on only average or lower than average risk.

Your question on the losses caused by "The strict rebalancing requirements of index funds" should be looked at. But the estimate given in the link to Algorithmic trading of 28 basis points (0.28%) looks 3 or 4 times too high - there is not really that much rebalancing that needs to be done e.g. on an S&P 500 portfolio. And then the old question of "what's the alternative?" should be looked at. Even if getting away from strict passive management costs only 50 bp per year, it wouldn't be worth it to avoid a 28 bp loss per year.

My major concern about the endowment's asset allocation is all that debt. 25% US bonds and 10% in REITs (which probably still act more like debt than equities). Debt markets are actually pretty risky in nominal terms (the dollar figures that will actually be reported) if you are forced to sell the bonds early, and they are definitely risky in purchasing power terms ("real returns") even if you hold the bonds to maturity, because we don't know what inflation will be. And over the last 10 years they've gotten abysmally low returns, with no chance of an upside. (Buffett's point above). You give up so much in returns vs stocks that it doesn't matter that the measured risk (standard deviation of returns) is so much higher for stocks: stocks will almost always come out ahead for a long holding period. So my advice is to ditch the bonds and REITs, just invest 100% in stocks. That's free advice and worth every penny. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How much have the five largest institutional endowment mutual funds returned? Relative to the five largest commercial index funds in the same period? Over the past 50 years? Do the sustainability screens include shifting taxes to the top alone, supporting universal health care, free college education, carbon negative structural lumber synthesized with carbonate dialyzed from seawater, and human rights? 71.218.1.84 (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If the question is "How much have the five largest institutional endowments returned?", I'll try to find out, but they are not an investable alternative. We can't put our money into the Yale or Harvard endowments. Perhaps we could mimic their investment strategy, but if we have only, say, $100 million in our endowment some of their strategies would not be available to us.

If the question is about "institutional endowment mutual funds", I don't know exactly what these are, could you be more specific?

As far as socially conscious investment strategies, I support the sustainability paragraph built in to our endowment strategy, but ....

I'm not sure how it will be implemented, and
Every limitation on our investment strategy implies a lower expected return, so we need to be careful what limitations we commit ourselves to.
Not all Wikipedians support "shifting taxes to the top alone, supporting universal health care, free college education, carbon negative structural lumber synthesized with carbonate dialyzed from seawater, and human rights." In general these sound good, but specific choices would have to be made (which will cost us in expected return) and many editors might not support even a pretty simple limitation like, e.g., no investing in breweries. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Also please consider implications. If you support divestment from breweries, is that the same as supporting prohibition? Is encouraging society to be comfortable with prohibitions fueling the school-to-prisons pipeline in areas where less harmful substances are regulated as if they were worse than alcohol? I would certainly screen against tobacco, though. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

IMHO socially conscious investing has nothing to do with legal prohibition. The 1st is an individual's ethical decision - it may be hard to apply to a group of people who voluntarily ascosiate, but we can try. Prohibition is a legal concept applied by society as a whole and we should be careful about prohibiting too many things, especially economic activities.

I used breweries as an example only because so many people would disagree on this, some would think any alcohol producer should not get investment (including vineyards), others might say only liquor producers. Similarly, some people might want to exclude tobacco producers, others marijuana, etc. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Institutional endowment mutual funds may be open to outside investors, and I think the five largest are all commercial, from companies like Vanguard (most of whom probably don't even screen against fossil fuel use) and are managed similarly to index funds except in a way that their trades are much more difficult to predict instead of following rebalancing rules.

What is the evidence that limitations on investment strategies implies lower expected returns? If we haven't been screening against companies which weren't ofsetting their energy use with renewables, we are less likely to be invested in companies benefitting from the lower cost of wind and solar power. If we skimp on human rights or good labor practices, we probably will get what we pay for. We don't screen to try to make more extrinsic profit, but to make both intrinsic and extrinsic gains, right? If there is any evidence that even 10% of wikimedians don't agree with the common-sense, appropriate screens I've recommended, then please survey reliably to make sure. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of ethical restrictions on our investment portfolio, I'm all for it while at the same time noting that it's a notoriously difficult area. If we ask ourselves what the vast majority of Wikimedians are probably concerned about, I think we'd arrive at restrictions relating to companies who have campaigned for changes to copyright law or Internet governance laws that would negatively impact us. That would be a relatively unusual restriction not likely to be found in any off-the-market indexed funds.

I'm also taking into account that at least some funds that are forced by their charter to exactly track indexes might end up with an excessive need to buy and sell stocks for no really great reason. That's not something I had really looked into before.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimbo! 71.218.1.84 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the Dimensional Fund Advisors website. They have pretty low fees available, only for institutional investors - which probably includes our endowment. Their investment policy looks flexible enough to avoid the rebalancing cost problem. Jimmy probably knows of Rex Sinquefield or David G. Booth.

As far as ethical limitations on investments, the ethical argument is very clear - if you wouldn't want to make money by doing something yourself (e.g. own a slave), you shouldn't invest in a firm that does the same thing, since it would have the same consequences. You should expect to lose money (or at least not make money) by putting this limitation on yourself. There are at least 2 explanations for this.

If you expect to make very good money from investing in "doing good", and have the same information about it as everybody else, the nasty folks who just want to make money will also make the same investment, driving the expected return down to "just normal". But of course, you weren't doing it for the money anyway. It doesn't work the other way around though - if the expected return is lower than normal, those nasty profit-maximizing investors will let you take as much of the investment as you want.
Mathematical logic. If you are trying to maximize a quantitative variable (like expected return) the adding of a condition limiting the amount you can invest in any security will never increase the maximum result. Quick example. Pick an all-star American football team consisting only of players from Philadelphia. It should be a pretty good team despite the limitation "only from Philly." But decrease the limitation say - only from Pennsylvania - you can't get a worse all-star team, and would likely get a better one. If you further decrease the limitation to "only from East Coast states" you'll almost certainly get a better all-star team (not worse in any case) . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're factoring in externalities. Suppose the Foundation Endowment team considered, e.g., [9] and [10], deciding that the Foundation should only invest in companies which join in supporting shifting the tax burden to the richest, and eliminating taxes entirely for the poor, working, and middle classes. Presumably the next step would be a survey to the Fortune 5000 asking them whether they are suitable candidates for investment under this criteria and the others, and asking them to publish the documentation whereby discerning investors would be able to prove that they meet the criteria or explain why they don't. Can you see how that might have an external effect increasing the actual value of what otherwise could be, let's say for the sake of argument, identical nominal returns with and without the screening? 71.218.1.84 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The 2 reasons I gave above are only simplified parts of the usual models. The 1st is just an informal statement of economic equilibrium as it is usually applied to financial markets, the 2nd just an informally stated math theorem. All models can be changed or added to and come up with different results, and every model should be empirically confirmed.

We could add in differences in information - but I don't think Wikipedians would necessarily have better info than the rest of the market. There might be something similar about non-socially conscious investors being biased to short-term results, but that sounds like wishful thinking to me "We can get better returns because we're not so greedy!"
I think you're driving at something like - we can make a political difference because people look up to Wikipedia. Maybe, Wikipedia being an example to the world works ok for how to make an encyclopedia, but we're not noted for our political influence and many editors don't want us to have any.
I haven't seen any empirical papers on social investing for a dozen years, and even then they were mostly from companies selling there social investing management services. I'll just say I wasn't impressed. Others may have seen better quality, or more recent papers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

An investment in ordinary index funds is a de facto policy endorsement of the status quo. There's no way to decide where to invest without making political decisions, so there is no way to satisfy those who want investments to be free from political influence, just like the idea of removing bias entirely is sheer folly (which is why WP:NPOV instructs to balance the most popular biases instead.) If you outsource your political preferences they probably won't very closely reflect what you really want. Social investing isn't supposed to increase extrinsic returns (and it doesn't: "insignificant abnormal stock returns for SRI"[11] because the market often if not usually prices in the social responsibility effect on returns) it's supposed to provide intrinsic benefits, so approaching it with an eye to further maximization of returns is pointless. Here is the most recent MEDRS-grade review on the topic, and here is a more recent review which I expect will supersede the former in a few more years. Here is some recent primary research emphasizing the point that if you ignore externalities in investment strategies, you are likely to invest entirely against your actual preferences. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Best sources on free college?

As a practical matter, when deciding questions about free college, is it better to have MEDRS-class sources such as [14] and [15], government documents like [16], popular treatments like [17], or secondary sources like [18]? 71.218.1.84 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A better question might be: Of all the possible ways the Foundation could screen investments, is the extent to which companies work towards free education most closely aligned with the Mission? 71.218.1.84 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Another brilliant 'how to avoid community scrutiny about your COI' guide

Yuck. Doesn't stop, dunnit? !dave 08:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a little discussion about this article at WPO. Some disagreement about whether New Page Patrol is more apt to catch a slow, steady build of a problematic page (as advocated by the author of this piece) or a large dump of a polished article (which others believed to be the case). In any event, this isn't new stuff for any of the bad actors. It does make me wonder whether the "autoconfirmed" flag is too easy to obtain. Might a requirement of, say, 50 edits for the flag slow down some of these shenanigans? Carrite (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone with tools access provided a list of articles created by SPAs and moved out of mainspace by the SPA after getting autoconfirmed by editing the draft. Amazingly, every one was crappy. I know, right? Guy (Help!) 16:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL ends soon, which is unfortunate, but I do wonder if we can stop the 'ten-useless-edits-then-make-a-spammy-page' by upping the ante on autoconfirmed. The results of the research will be obvious: inexperienced users do incorrect and/or suspect things, unless they've been doing some prior reading of our policies and guidelines, and that's still not enough. News flash: pyromaniacs at greater risk of burns! (credit) !dave 19:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What happens with ACTRIAL after the trial is over? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Raise autoconfirmed as 300 edits

If the autoconfirmed level were raised from 10 to 300 edits, then it would be much easier to detect patterns of suspicious "useless" edits among the 300 initial edits, rather than just 10. Also the patterns among 300 edits could reveal sock-puppet or copycat users by looking for similar edits among those first 300. Many people would tire quickly when disguising their behaviour during 300 edits. By comparison, it would take less than 9 edits to create/polish a promotional article, with only those 9 edits to define telltale patterns of behaviour. Computers can be valuable tools, when coupled with statistical analysis of repeated episodes of computer usage. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:VPP. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, 300? I think 100 is enough, and that is pushing it even. Idea of the day: keep 4d/10edit limit for editing semi'd pages, but move to something higher for article creation (20d/50edits)? !dave 08:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of raising the Autoconfirmed limit to at least 100 but as long as IP editing is allowed there isn't much point. I really think we need to take a hard look at eliminating IP editing. That would make a big difference in vandalism and cruft articles being created through the AFC process. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That WP:PERENNIAL proposal is inapplicable to article creation on the English Wikipedia. 71.218.1.84 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

300 is overdoing it, but the current 10 is too low. There are many cases where a persistent vandal has jumped over the current autoconfirmed hurdle of 10 edits too easily. See also Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure it's been brought up before, but I doubt it would be the detriment it's made out to be and it would go a long way to reducing vandalism and disruptive behavior. That in conjunction with raising the autoconfirmed to say, 100 would allow admins and other vandal fighters to spend more time on other things because the vandalism would be greatly reduced.2601:5CC:100:697A:B1A7:83F7:D225:CBE6 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively require Pagemover or extended-confirmed to move pages into main space from any other namespace. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that would surely be that it would make autoconfirmed as powerful a righ as pagemover itself—which is powerful enough that only 209 non-admins possess the right... ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it would make extended-confirmed and pagemovers (which probably overlaps with the former) able to accept drafts. Extended, not auto. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks JzG-of course, I was confusing my confirmed statii :) however my original point stands. There are currently 39265 WP:XCON members who would be suddenly getting the rights that currently 209 have. How would that sligh align? —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

10 is too low, 300 is too high. I would strongly prefer 100. Besides being a reasonable number for the purpose of making it easier to detect patterns of suspicious "useless" edits, it has the advantage of being the square of the number of digits on two of the four limbs of a fairly recent species that lives on a minor planet on the outskirts of a galaxy with well over one hundred billion stars that is one of well over one hundred billion galaxies. Related: should we raise the "accounts that are more than four days old" limit, keeping in mind the importance of this being an even number of rotations of the above-described minor planet? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm opposed. This is still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". ACTRIAL is sufficient to keep the NPP feed manageable; even now AFC ends up with almost all the garbage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Re ACTRIAL, it really needs expanding to more namespaces. I encountered just now a (non-confirmed) vandal. Before Mz7 blocked them, they had created half a dozen vandalism articles in WP space. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm with just about everybody else, 100 sounds good. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see this treated in a data-driven A/B testing fashion rather than our general feelings about what the right number is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite right, and I hope we can make it something to look at in ACTRIAL's wake, supported by the research performed for that. !dave 13:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the trial should continue, and a different requirement for edits should be tried. The 10 required edits in the first trial seem to be much too low - it can be done in ten minutes! Rather than go to 20 edits required for the next trial, we should use a number that has at least some chance of being too high, so we can quickly find a reasonable range for the required number of edits. 100 may be too high or too low, but it will certainly result in a quicker result than inching forward. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no way of doing A/B testing here as all users use the same site - it would be great if we could... but we can't. Whatever we set the limit at, UPEs will find a way around it, as has been apparent during ACTRIAL. It would be better to close the loopholes around ACTRIAL first of all, essentially what Guy said above. SmartSE (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Independent of ACTRIAL, increasing the requirements for moving pages into mainspace would make analysis and detection somewhat easier. Not enough to solve the problem, but enough to decrease the number of possibilities that need watching for. It's a relatively non-controversial change that could make a difference. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems like raising the number of edits, while it would certainly help keep some unconstructive editors from being able to accept drafts that shouldn't be accepted, wouldn't help that much, since dedicated users could always keep editing on their draft to hit the new number. Instead, I think we should make it necessary for editors to have made the minimum number of edits outside the draft namespace in order to become autoconfirmed, which would prevent the situation like those JzG described ("...articles created by SPAs and moved out of mainspace by the SPA after getting autoconfirmed by editing the draft"). It might also help to make it so that someone other than the draft creator has to move it into mainspace. Frankly I don't know why we let you move your own draft into mainspace--doesn't that defeat the purpose of submitting drafts? Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. I wonder if we can continue it on WT:User access levels or somewhere else and place a notice on centralised discussion to attract more opinion. Let's move this forward and not let it get buried, as that happens far too often on Jimbotalk. !dave 08:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is good to revisit this, especially as we now have extended confirmed and we can think of moving features between the two statuses. But there are a couple of problems if we lift the auto confirmed threshold. The first is capcha on adding links, this doesn't particularly bother vandals many of whom don't add links, but it is a barrier to spammers, and also to the best of our new editors. Personally I'd like to see this modified to accept a few dozen sites that are usually considered reliable sources, and only require capcha for websites not on that list, make such a change and I would be more relaxed about raising the autoconfirmed threshold, but without it we make one of our biggest deterrents to new editors even worse. Then there is the edit throttle on the number of edits per IP address per minute from IP editors and unconfirmed editors OK most people involved in outreach know not to say "all hit save now " to a bunch of newbies at an outreach editathon, but it is still a complete pain and a problem for those who run editathons. Raising the autoconfirmed threshold would make things worse and undermine the workaround of encouraging people to create an account a few days before.

Another problem is that we don't know for certain which theory is true between "IP editing makes it easy to identify lots of new vandals and helps recruit new editors" or "Stopping IP editing would lose us lots of vandals and very few goodfaith editors". The assumption behind wikipedia's current systems is that vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise, but our readers need minimal possible barriers to tempt them into their first edit. The relative success of Wikipedia and failure of Citizendium is enough to convince some of us that Wikipedia got that right, but clearly there are some people who believe the opposite, and while I'm very much in the camp that vandals expect us to make things difficult for them but goodfaith editors don't, I'd admit it isn't 100% proven either way (and what was a truism fifteen years ago may not be true today).

The focus of the above discussion has been on the number of edits needed to become confirmed. The number of days is just as important. Currently 10 edits and 4 days is a pretty good filter that only a tiny proportion of vandalism only accounts get beyond (exceptions have been mentioned above, but it should be possible to look at the last hundred thousand blocked accounts and check this). Spammers and non neutral editors are I suspect a very different kettle of fish. but we need to consider both parameters if we review the area.

There's also the issue that we don't have as many admins as we used to, and unless we can fix RFA or persuade more people to run we have to design our systems around a declining number of admins. True the requests to move articles or edit semi protected pages could be actioned by confirmed editors, but there will be increased need to set goodfaith newbies accounts as confirmed, and that can only be done if you have checked their deleted edits, so that is an increased role for our dwindling band of admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, speaking on the RFA side of things, if the community has no process for desysopping an admin who has lost the confidence of the community and must go to Arbcom, then people will continue to set the bar exceptionally high and continue to basically preclude anyone fro getting it. Not speaking on the merits of the request, there was recently an ANI submittal to desysop Fram that was closed not on the merits of the argument but more as a procedural close because the community doesn't have the authority. I guess what I am saying here is that a lot of these problems are interlinked, you can't fix one without also addressing others because the activities in one area have 2nd and 3rd level consequences in another. Personally I would have let the community have that discussion about Fram and then if there was some consensus, then Arbcom could take action. If the community can't be trusted to desysop an admin then maybe it's time to let Arbcom select new admins as well. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of that though is that otherwise the mop might become political, since it's open to the community. However, at the same time, Arbcom doesn't tend to ignore the community either. Obviously, admins have a role that can make them unpopular at times. However, editors in good standing shouldn't have a problem with admins - although, on the other hand, they could end up in POV disputes when the admin is being an editor. It's a bit of a conundrum. What is clear is that the RfA bar has raised over the years. If I went for RfA in 2003... well, just look at some of our oldest Admins. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jlk73. RfAs back in the day were laid back affairs. When John K got the bit he'd made less than 2000 edits, all in 6 months. I know it's a lame quantifier, but that RfA would never pass today's standards. Yet, he remains with us to this day. Compare that to Midas02, who's last edits were to his failed RfA in 2016 (although that fact does make you question motive). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

At least a hundred editors have floated proposals to fix the RfA process. Pretty much everyone agrees that there is a problem, pretty much everyone agrees on what the problems are, yet no proposed solution has managed to gain even 10% consensus. Any discussion should start with a concrete way of fixing this. Otherwise the discussion is a colossal waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The mop is already political, so I wouldn't worry about that and although the Arbcom may not ignore the community, they have placed the burdon of proof extraordinarily high and the process so daunting that most don't want to waste the time (more than a month) and then paint a target on their back for retaliation later if they admin doesn't get desysopped or by their friends. As with any site, there are plenty of bad admins and my guess is the same few names would come up in any blind survey but nothing is done , so people set the bar to pass RFA super high to prevent almost anyone from getting it, which compounds the problem of not having enough admins to do things like antivandalism and the like. Just looking through the last year I can pick out at least 3 that didn't pass that would absolutely have not done any harm to Wikipedia and would have been a net positive if given the chance and there are tons of editors who won't even try and it explains why, if someone wanted to do more to help the project by being an admin why they would pack up and leave when the community showed they didn't want them to. People don't usually continue to work in environments where they cannot get promoted or continue to grow. Volunteering especially. Anyway, it's pretty hard for me to have sympathy (and I assume others as well) if the community doesn't want to fix it. 2601:5CC:100:697A:98D2:D8F0:711F:9579 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm proud to be a poster child for how easy it used to be to become an admin, that even I got it. I realized long ago that I'd never have qualified as an admin under current standards. I've also rarely used my admin tools. Other than deleting redirects to make way for uncontroversial moves, doing quick reverts (is that still an admin privilege?), and, er, occasionally looking at deleted article histories, I don't think I've used them in the last decade. I also don't think I've ever abused them, which seems like the more relevant criterion. A question, though: What are admins supposed to be for? When I got my...er...bit[?] the official stance was that being an admin was "no big deal". If you'd been around for a while, and had shown you weren't impossible to deal with, you could become an admin. It seems like people want a lot more these days to the point where it's too hard to meet the bar. I wonder if it would make sense to split up the admin tools, so you're not applying for some general thing that gives you all the tools, but for specific tools that would be helpful for whatever kinds of contributions you're making to the project? (Forgive me if I'm reinventing the wheel - I've mostly not paid much attention to Wikipedia policy stuff for a long time now) john k (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lost a lot of really good editors who were and would still be an asset if they had been given the chance. They have also promoted some supremely bad ones who make the atmosphere horrible and make people want to push the bar higher. There has to be a better and faster way to change this. I would rather make it easy to get and easy to remove than the current atmosphere of impossible to get and impossible to remove. The fact that this is a perennial topic only illustrates how dumb it is to not do something to fix it, even if that fix is to appoint a group to promote editors semi willi nilly and has the authority to demote them if they foul up, even if only temporarily. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. You only need to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter to see the issue. We're losing more admins to inactivity than we're gaining at RfA. If that trend continues, vandals are going to be non-blocked, TfA will not be updated, pages won't be protected and generally the encyclopedia will fall apart. I mean, I think NOBIGDEAL has sprung this mortal coil, but the ever increasing standards at RfA are already starving the project. It's like with many conflicts - we all agree something must be done, but disagree about what. Here's how I see it:

The community must change its attitude to RfA.
- This will only be accomplished if a significant number of well respected editors (so admins and the non-admins by choice, in the main) speak out.
Potential candidates have to view RfA differently.
- We really need to crack down on what makes RfA hostile. There's nothing to prevent far more vigorous enforcement of policies like NPA. I'd suggest that this is the first step.
Acknowledge the progress that has been made.
- Several RfA reforms have already happened. RfA isn't as bad as it used to be. But it's not enough.

Again, just my views on the subject. I've only !voted in 1 RfA so far due to their rarity, so may not be best placed to judge. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

At least a hundred editors have floated proposals to fix the RfA process. No proposed solution has managed to gain even 10% consensus. Any discussion on fixing the RfA process should start with an explanation why this time will be different. Otherwise the discussion is a colossal waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think my thoughts were largely a roadmap to that time being different. However, cracking down on RfA hostility doesn't require discussion - it would just be firmer implementation of existing policy. Not that I've seen that many personal attacks at the most recent RfAs. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(No need to ping me. I have a watchlist and know how to use it.)'

Alas, there is over a 90%+ consensus against cracking down on RfA hostility more than we are doing now. There is also 90%+ consensus that cracking down on RfA hostility more than we are doing now will not fix the problem. Same for more vigorous enforcement of policies like NPA. If you doubt this, post an RfC on it and watch it go down in flames.

Your other two suggestions (a significant number of well respected editors must speak out and potential candidates have to view RfA differently) do not contain any way of making those things happen. If you come up with a way, there will be a 90%+ consensus against doing it.

Mind you, I think your suggestions are really good. They are, however indistinguishable from the long string of previous ideas that failed to achieve even a 10% consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Rally more support to approve more admins to control COI editors

I think an easy tactic to get more admins is to rally more "Support" !votes all-year for wp:RfA. Plus work to nominate more candidates, and warn them to expect rejection on the first try, as the plan to approve more than one new admin in 2 months of 2018 (pitiful). Even though the RfA process has been difficult (and often extremely insulting to editors with +20,000 edits), if more users responded with support-as-good-enough replies, then more admins could be passed. As noted above, it is sad to see Midas02 stop editing in 2016 upon RfA rejection, after making ~33,000 diligent edits averaged 15 per day for over 3 years. Earnestly warn candidates how they typically must apply for RfA twice, and shake off the immediate atrocious insults (from users who imagine "RfA" means "Request for Abuse"). When more admins succeed, then contact those new admins to encourage more work in detecting or reverting COI editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia?

What do y'all think of it? Will it succeed? Would you edit there? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They're reusing lots of Wikipedia content -- for example, compare our global warming to their global warming. So in a sense if you're editing here, you're editing there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

They're for-profit. That kills it for me right there. If I'm going to do free work, I'd rather at least do it for a charity that has, thus far, maintained their promise to remain ad-free. And realistically, it's just a mirror of Wikipedia, so anything I do here will probably make its way over there anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know it was for-profit. Under those circumstance I'd be glad to edit there, provided they're willing to pay my usual hourly consulting rate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

3D in color?

Jimbo, how do you feel about supporting a technically non-standard STL color extension? I love that progress is being made for 3-D models, but human representations, for example, seem creepy without color, and most of Commons' current set of STL files could clearly benefit from color. Many of them are artistic sculptures or other works which arguably are not represented faithfully to the artists' intent without color. Think of the advantages to anatomy students, for another example, or the engineering components such as resistors that are defined by their color markings. The Foundation supports backward-compatible extensions to standards already (e.g., wikitext is arguably a backward-compatible extension of unicode.) 71.218.1.84 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Some cool images

I was just shown these new images generated by a team at MIT Media Lab. I'm just sharing here to bring wider attention to them!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I remember coming upon File:Bar_Chart_of_Citizenship_in_Alameda_County,_CA_(2015).svg among them and mostly thinking that it wasn't that useful of a bar chart.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen these before. There are about 4 different type, with graphs for states and counties. With about 1400 graphs they've got a ways to go before covering all the counties. I agree with Galobtter that the Citizenship graphs have limited use, but I really like the Employment by Occupations graphs - they essentially tell you where the money comes from in the county or state. Here's a sampling.

Employment by occupation in Lake County. Il
Race & Ethnicity in Will County, Il
Non-English Speakers in Oakland County, Mi
Citizenship in Bronx County, NY

IMHO the employment by occupation graphs should be interesting in most counties. Race & Ethnicity might be pretty standard within large regions so might not be so interesting. Non-English Speakers should be interesting in major metro areas. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I checked their "about" page and could not see anything about CC licenses, nor Wikipedia, nor datasets for Wikipedia, nor tools for easy chart creation for Wikipedia. http://www.datawheel.us/about

The poster of the charts is posting a lot of them:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&limit=500&user=dave-landry-datawheel&dir=prev&offset=20180112213555

I invited him here by contacting him at his talk page: commons:User talk:Dave-landry-datawheel

Anybody with more chart tools and how-to info, please link to it from here: Commons:Chart and graph resources.

And please write up some chart how-to info on a commons page. More pages like this: Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files --Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is fortunate to have a concise summary of our graph guidelines and templates at page "wp:Graphs and charts" which is already linked in that overview page at Commons. In particular, years ago I had fixed Template:Brick_chart, which is very easy to show several percentages in any order, and allow for re-ordered percentages when refined in later edits to a page. Using {brick chart} is much easier than editing a graphic image if the data is updated weeks or months later (just be sure the total bricks still add to 100% or very close). -Wikid77 (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm the source of these images, and one of the lead developers on Data USA. I put together some scripts that modify the SVG present on the site and save them down as valid Wikimedia SVG. This first batch was to gauge interest and see what you all think is most appropriate for the pages. I'm hearing that things like the occupation Tree Map are most interesting? I can run the scraper on any subset that the community things is valuable! -Dave Landry (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dave-landry-datawheel and Kaldari: Thanks for uploading these files. I'm most interested in how the project works as a whole. Questions such as:

Does the GNU Affero General Public License on the website mean that anyone can download graphs and put them on Commons? See, e.g. all the graphs at datausa Kern County, CA
Or should we just make requests for specific graphs (to you?) and wait for them to be uploaded with the CC0 license?
We can download the data that the graphs are based on from Datausa and use it for whatever purposes we want - is that correct?
Can we use text directly from the Datausa site under the license? (with attribution of course)
Is there a way to use the graphics software on our own data?

Wikipedia users can be very creative and also very demanding (of you and each other). So somebody will likely end up doing something with the data or the graphs that you never thought of. So what are the limits from your side? I can also imagine that admins - say at Commons - might want to look at the licensing in detail, and might even tell an editor something like "well you can't upload your self-made files unless the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Can anybody from any side give guidance on how the licenses work? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Although you could in theory upload SVGs directly from the DataUSA site, there are a few reasons why that's not a great idea:

Those SVGs are designed to be used interactively and some of the components (keys that only show labels on hover, year selectors, etc.) are useless without the DataUSA JavaScript code. The SVGs that Dave is uploading don't have this problem.
The font specified in the DataUSA SVGs is an obscure proprietary font loaded as a webfont on the DataUSA site. The SVGs that dave is uploading specify free-license fonts that we have on our scaling servers (that generate the PNG thumbnails).
The charts on DataUSA have their keys embedded in the charts, which isn't best practice for Wikipedia. The charts that Dave is uploading have their keys in the descriptions (which can usually be easily copied to captions).
Various other tweaks have been made to make the graphics more appropriate for Wikipedia, for example, using the same map projection that Wikipedia typically uses.

For these reasons I think it would be better to tell Dave what graphics the community is interested in and he can generate and upload them using the scripts that he's built. He still needs to send on OTRS email for the CC licensing (or maybe there's one awaiting processing), but I think that's the only outstanding issue. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder if these graphs are needed as svg images. These graphs can be done using mw:Extension:Graph. For example:

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

If needed, the graphs can certainly be tweaked to be more similar to the ones above. The code is a little complicated:

{{Graph:Chart|width = 400|type=rect|yAxisFormat = %|xAxisTitle = RACE OR ETHNICITY|yAxisTitle = SHARE|y = 0.65, 0.17, 0.12, 0.05, 0.025, 0.0001, 0.00005, 0.00003|xType = string|x = White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Multiracial, Native, Other, Islander}}

but certainly can be simplified with a template, of say {{demographic data|race or ethnicity = 0.65, 0.17, 0.12, 0.05, 0.025, 0.0001, 0.00005, 0.00003}}. Or even have the data stored in a table and have it be {{demographic data|Will County, Illinois}}, and have the template look up the data. There are many advantages to doing it in template form: different language wikipedias can use the charts by copying the template and just tweaking their version of the template to use their translations for the words, instead of editing an svg. Data can be updated relatively simply by a bot; any changes to the format, look, etc are also simple changes to the template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point, all of the data on the DataUSA website is downloadable and freely usable. I think almost all of it comes from the ACS dataset that is originally produced by the U.S. Census Bureau (so it's hostable on Commons). Anyone that wants to can create charts from this data using the Graph markup. We decided to use SVGs for this particular project since they already had a script for generating SVGs and also to maximize the reusability of the charts outside of Wikimedia projects. Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Drama free?

This page is actually drama free for a change and Jimbo can finally have some peace? Yay.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

He may go for a walk and take lunch :-) Cheers --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

aaaand...not 24 hours later..see the below Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

YouTube to use "a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia" to expose conspiracy theories

News item from SXSW - see, e.g. YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about conspiracies. I'm interested in how this would work, or how we might make it work, and how it might change Wikipedia. I haven't done a real search yet for where this info might come from, but the best I see is List of conspiracy theories, which has about 60 CTs. Many of these are quite old, or contain several theories thrown together (so they may be indistinct).

Category:Conspiracy theories and its subcategories might have 300 pages. One possible new conspiracy theory that I'll put forward: internet execs get together to figure out a response to being blamed for the rise of fake news and other anti-social internet phenomena. "Let's just say that Wikipedia can fix it!" and "maybe they'll get blamed for everything." That's just wild speculation of course. but I always wanted to invent my own conspiracy theory. Maybe I'll make a video about it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones sounds like fun....let me know what you come up with ...will try to debunk it ...lol--Moxy (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean that I need to have evidence?! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No. You only need to write a Wikipedia article about it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to ED @Katherine (WMF): who wrote this series of tweets. No, she did not endorse my new conspiracy theory. But what she wrote is even more useful. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's the Daily Stormer version, here's Coast to Coast AM. I dare say the news travels fast. Think of it... overnight, millions of conspiracy theory true believers will be invited to follow informative links to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, whose text at the moment seem in opposition to their point of view. What could possibly go wrong? P.S.: Wired uses chemtrails as a classic "conspiracy theory". Note however that our enlightened overlords know that high sulfur jet fuel that causes the contrails to become strikingly visible with its sulfur dioxide emission has an anti global warming effect (six months) at the cost of a mere 1000-4000 lives annually. [19][20] Obviously people need to be protected from their tendency to consider such ideas impartially. Wnt (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Coming War on General Computation, by Cory Doctorow

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this is a major threat. I was ranting on about it in 1999, for all the good it did. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Now best known as the "App Store". You effectively can't run an unvetted program on the majority of computers worldwide. — JFG ^talk 09:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just Apple. See Amazon Appstore; "The [Kindle Fire] tablet, designed for media consumption in the Amazon ecosystem, relies solely on the Amazon Appstore for its marketplace".

Also see John Deere#Use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to prevent user repairs. and Researchers Could Have Uncovered Volkswagen’s Emissions Cheat If Not Hindered by the DMCA --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most computers worldwide run Linux and it's easy to write or run whatever strikes your fancy and whatever you can download from thousands of open software repositories. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most personal computers worldwide can run Linux. The total number of computers are far larger, and includes modern cars, TVs, tractors, all the equipment they hook you up to in the hospital, military aircraft, etc. And most of them are running software that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal for you to examine, modify, or replace. Even on your PC, unless you are running old hardware it is likely that you boot through UEFI, which restricts your computer so that it runs only signed operating systems. It would be a simple matter for repressive governments to withhold signatures from OSes unless they have covert surveillance included, so you could find that if you buy a PC anywhere in your country the UEFI bootloader for your country will not allow you to load and run an OS that is not approved by your government. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Microsoft has announced a relaxation of its 'Secure Boot' guidelines for OEMs, allowing companies to sell computers pre-loaded with Windows 10 that will refuse to boot any non-Microsoft OS."[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Microsoft and several PC vendors have teamed up to ensure that only operating systems bearing Microsoft's cryptographic signature will be able to boot on their hardware, meaning that unless Microsoft has blessed your favorite flavor of GNU/Linux or BSD, you won't be able to just install it on your machine, or boot to it from a USB stick or CD to try it out. [...] Fedora has opted to solve this problem by paying to receive Microsoft's blessing, so that UEFI-locked computers will boot Fedora without requiring any special steps."[22]

Also see: Cory Doctorow: What’s Inside the Box --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call everything with a processor a "computer". Measured by capacity, most systems run linux. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

...Until the Chinese government decides that they can't. Regarding capacity, my Subaru has more processing power than most laptop computers. Oddly enough, many televisions and wifi routers run Linux. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So apparently YouTube is gonna be linking here soon...

You've probably heard about this already, but just in case (and because I think a discussion should be started here regardless)... "Earlier this week at South by Southwest, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced that the video site will use excerpts from Wikipedia to counteract videos promoting conspiracy theories." Is this good news for us? I know the Foundation put out a slightly positive statement about it and I wanted to know what Jimbo and the myriad other watchers of this page thought. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to tag the talk pages of the articles YouTube references and add them to a new category? I predict a flood of YouTube commentators showing up to "fix" the Wikipedia pages that get referenced by YouTube. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suspect our rampant use of templates deters many POV-warriors from slanting more pages. Even the common infobox templates might scare some users from "fixing" pages linked from YouTube. However, many pages are infested by numerous templates, beyond paragraphs crammed with a dozen tedious wp:CS1 cite templates ("publisher=" & "archivedate="??), so those pages seem written in "wp:templatespeak" as wikitext almost unintelligible to new users.
The numerous templates can be an unfortunate barrier to major updates, but also a protective layer which deters drive-by slanting of text. If users don't have time or patience to learn peculiar templates, then they almost certainly lack patience to fully research and link sources to properly update text. That's why we see many clever insights suggested on talk-pages but not tediously woven into live articles. Updating pages is fairly difficult. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See archive 227 Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What YouTube really needs is somebody to comment on new conspiracy theories, e.g. that students from Douglas HS who were interviewed on TV were supposedly anti-gun activists paid by George Soros. I don't know how long those YouTube videos were trending, but I'd guess for about as long as the time it would take us to get a reasonable article on it. Sure we've got articles on the supposed moon landing hoax, but would that really matter to the few YouTube viewers who might be taken in by a 50 year old hoax? The mechanics of us responding to new hoaxes in anything like real time don't look promising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Variation of WP policy across the various language editions" question at the Teahouse

Hi there Jimbo, I'm not really sure where to ask this. A user recently asked a rather interesting question at WP:Teahouse about the early days of Wikipedia. (Rewording a bit) They asked if there are common/base policies that all language Wikis must follow and to what extent. I stated that the individual wikis have control over their policies and guidelines, but am not sure if that is entirely the correct answer, and Kudpung suggested that I ask you here. (Special:Diff/830996770 section heading "Variation of WP policy across the various language editions"). I would email the WMF itself, but the info@ address is community driven and the press address is strictly for the media.

All the best and thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll guess that NPOV is set across all Wikipedias; Copyright policy is very similar, except for provisions of fair use, and Paid editing disclosure has a set of minimum requirements, unless a project specifically opts out. These all come from WMF pronouncements. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles predates even the Five pillars. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The founding principles as listed on Meta are also relevant. Graham87 10:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There are certain WMF Resolutions that all projects must observe. Through them, some principles like BLP are essentially universal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

My observations of various other wikipedias is that one of the big divides is between those like English which support multiple spelling versions of the same language and ones that adopt one approved version of their language. Other divides are cultural or maybe even random, so on English we don't assume you must be dead unless you would otherwise be the oldest person alive today. Others like, I think French, take a more pragmatic view of sports people who retired 80 years ago at the age of thirty. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is enforcement even across all Wikipedias? From what I'e seen, it isn't. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

OP of originating thread here. Thx for the responses. WP:NPOV cited in WP:SOP Principle 1 is an 'English WP policy’. Was the intention to have a separate NPOV policy for each WP language edition? What governs consistency across those policies? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on permanent implementation of ACTRIAL

I meant to post this here this morning, as it has been discussed here before, but forgot. Apologies. There is currently a request for comment at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation about whether or not autoconfirmed status should be required to create an article in the main space. This is a follow up to the recently ended autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets

An article about Wikipedia's struggles from the SPLC: [23]. That's been mentioned in a couple of places but might be of interest here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Maunus has always been balanced, seeing everybody's viewpoint. When Doug Weller and KillerChihuahua were accused of being sockpuppets in early 2013, it was quite funny, like the theatre of the absurd. (You probably remember it.) But not most of the time. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

...because according to the SPLC, far-left editors, vandals and sock puppets don't exist. I will just leave this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Otherstuffexists", much?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Guy, that article says that the SPLC frequently covers left-wing/antifa violence and condemns it, so I don't think it supports whatever false equivalence you were trying to create. Love or hate the SPLC, I think we can agree that racist pseudoscience should probably not be welcome here. (Sorry; yes, Guy, people who punch Nazis are also a problem, and let's never ever forget that).

John, thanks for posting; and we should all give Doug Weller and Maunus a pat on the back and buy them free drinks for their good work. Here's an idea: let's all take 10% of the time we spend finding reasons to give tendentious editors a fifteenth "last chance", and apply it to helping people like Doug and Maunus out instead. MastCell ^Talk 07:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You need a pair of reading glasses MastCell. Cohen says that they condemn antifa violence, not The Washington Times. The Washington Times hasn't taken a stance on either side. Most of the article is quotes, and one of the few things written in the authors own voice is: You can find conservative policy centers like the Family Research Council on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” but not the violent left-wing extremist group antifa. Certainly does not say what you are suggesting it does. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps because "antifa" is neither "a group" nor a "hate organization" under the definition given to those terms by SLPC?[24] (which you may or maynot agree with, of course but that is just like your opinion man) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What opinion? I haven't provided one. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused you with Guy Macon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I’ve actually already got a pair of reading glasses, although I don’t like to wear them because I think they make me look old. Let’s stipulate that you think I’m wrong about the ‘’Washington Times’’ piece, and that I think anyone who spends more than a few seconds thinking about that newspaper is a fool. Are you on board with the rest of what I said? You know, the stuff about not promoting racist pseudoscience, and about supporting editors who help maintain the integrity of the project? MastCell ^Talk 09:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, I meant figuratively. I addressed the issue I had with what you said. I'm obviously not going to sit here and defend the propagation of racist pseudoscience... I'm against it. I don't like the SPLC either, they have a history of labeling people as extremists who are undeserving of any such label. E.g. Maajid Nawaz. The guy who participated in a debate against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray defending Islam as a religion of peace. Yes, that's the guy we should be freaking out about. Rubbish. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC piece is deeply researched, addresses an important project-level issue, and contains interesting insights from two experienced editors (Doug and Maunus; there are few people who have done more to uphold the project's integrity and to keep us from turning into a vehicle for racist pseudoscience). So far in this sub-thread above, I see absolutely zero effort to engage, either positively or negatively, with the substance of the piece itself. (Yet people are willing to expend the effort to lodge a bunch of unrelated complaints about the SPLC). No matter how low I set my expectations for thoughtful dialog on this page, they are always disappointed. MastCell ^Talk 15:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Why'd you ask then? I've answered your question and commented about the SPLC as an entity. I am not inclined, let alone obligated, to meet your expectations. I read the article. It didn't strike a chord. It got the policy aspects right (as I recall at least), and the highlight was their simple explanation of civil POV pushing and how it causes problems. Otherwise, it dealt with the issues superficially and only to limited applicability of their interest area. This isn't a problem in itself, but it saw the outcrop and not the mountain. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of interesting articles about WP, here's one from Haaretz: Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Wikipedia' Is Literally Rewriting History Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article which illustrates the tension between NPOV/BLP and FRINGE. We see this in articles on quacks and antivaxers, too. Some of the issues are hard to fix. Fringe figures tend to attract little mainstream coverage, and sometimes historical figures have contemporaneous coverage that falls well short of modern standards on race and other issues. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia site (see List of Wikipedias), or is it a website somewhere which happens to be a wiki, like Conservapedia? (I have to repeat that question from WP:FTN because this is a well-watched page.) Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq, the later: http://www.hamichlol.org.il/ There's still a lot about WP in the article, they used a lot of hebrew-WP content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This article in the Washington Post appeared today [25] and merits investigation. It appears that 1924 Democratic National Convention has been used for a bit of gaslighting. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We should thank the SPLC and our two editors who commented there for a very good article. I suppose that many Americans might think that our editorship in general leans a bit to the left, but I think that's because we have many UK and other European editors here who are in-line with their countries general political views. Seeing the effect of an organized right-wing group on WP shows up one of our usual problems though, an organized group which targets particular articles can have an undue influence on that article, often evading our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that. Given the strong positive correlation between educational attainment and adherence to "consistently or mostly liberal" views even in the U.S., it's probably inevitable that a project like this will skew a bit to the left. Nevertheless, we have no shortage of very tenacious conservative / right wing editors. My impression is it mostly balances out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The interesting trend in those graphs is that from 1994 to 2015, the US college and postgraduate population who hold mixed views has roughly halved. 45% to 27% for college graduates, and 38% to 22% postgraduates. Consistently conservative views haven't changed much at college (9% to 11%) while consistently liberal views have almost quintupled (5% to 24%). Republicans also appear to be more consistent in their beliefs regardless of education. E.g. for the question of "Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient" republicans actually get slightly more entrenched in that belief (73 to 78%) as their education improves, while democrats plummet (48% to 25%). There's only two questions where democrats and republicans drift in the same direction as education improves: immigration (surprisingly) and homosexuality. No surprise then that the ideological gap is widening. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am apolitical -- neither conservative or liberal -- on the theory that the ability of politicians, political parties, and special interest groups to deceive all of us greatly exceeds our ability to detect deception. Nonetheless, I object to the oft-repeated view that mostly one political side is represented among Wikipedia vandals, sockpuppets, POV pushers, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I should note that the Southern Poverty Law Center has come up as the source of unfortunate rhetoric itself. For example, after a violent attack, professor Allison Stranger blamed (in part) the SPLC for misrepresenting the speaker she invited:

...some of my own students and advisees — concluded that Charles Murray was an anti-gay white nationalist from what they were hearing from one another, and what they read on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. Never mind that Dr. Murray supports same-sex marriage and is a member of the courageous “never Trump” wing of the Republican Party.

Now to be clear - as I would also say about some racist groups - the SPLC is not responsible for what thuggish students do that believe them. An anti-gay white nationalist also has the right not to be assaulted. But the disconnect between those who assume they have to be all good and those who have been on their bad side will inevitably amplify the degree of polarization in our society beyond even the extreme point that is inevitable when some people are against discrimination and others are batshit crazy. We must not give anybody, SPLC included, a badge and a gun and a remit to impose 'corrective' bias on Wikipedia. One by one, as free and individual editors, we must challenge and seek the truth as equals. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the individual is responsible for making his own conclusions and nobody should be considered to be always right in their criticisms of Wikipedia. OTOH, everybody is free to criticize Wikipedia, and if we approach criticism in a positive way, we'll benefit from it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Maunus is a fine editor and I've seen him being reasonable editing the intelligence articles (unlike WeijiBaikeBianji), but I really doubt "race and intelligence" is among the most important things for any far-right group now. That's so early 2000s. Most of the involved academics are dead. Besides, the whole intelligence topic has a lot deeper nature vs. nurture fight behind it, and while some of this intelligence research has pretty clear far-right undertones, there are academic activists (mostly anthropologists) who consider pretty much all intelligence research as questionably racist, too. This SPLC article also implies there is something inherently wrong in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence - why? They shouldn't use the "fight against the far-right" as a pretext for pushing their own views in the general topic. Anyway, "civil POV pushing" is just an essay and we all have our point-of-view. If, say, a person is contributing negative/critical information from reliable sources about immigration despite the fact it could "play into the far-right narrative", that's completely acceptable and welcome in Wikipedia. The only problem is balance, and we don't have enough editors in most topic areas anymore to guard this balance. --Pudeo (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Among the problems with that statement is that its claim to representing the mainstream view was tenuous, and that it basically sought to establish it as a mainstream fact that the lower test scores for black americans are likely to be caused largely by genetic reasons - which was a highly controversial then, and which is still not a mainstream view at all. It basically sought to high-jack the psychological mainstream for the hereditarian viewpoint.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why specify an example that plays into the far-right narrative? Was it simply because that's what the SPLC did, because that's what the biased title of this comment section implies, or is there an implication that there are somehow fewer examples of someone playing into the far-left narrative? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the far right are the ones currently destroying society throughout the developed world? Just guessing. Let's not fall prey to whataboutism. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding me Guy? Have you set foot in Europe in the past year? I walked past armed soldiers (not police) in France; my bus (and every other bus tbf) was stopped and searched in Germany; border police gave me suspicious looks in Croatia, despite my Croatian heritage, because of where I was coming from (hint, hint). They weren't looking for Richard Spencer, or David Duke. Most of the "developed world" has bigger problems than sad American muppets parading with tiki torches yelling "the Jews will not replace us". Let alone that which is developing. The only place I visited where nobody seemed to be concerned was Bosnia (refer to that "hint, hint" provided previously). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No point arguing. He is blind to the left-wing elements that are also currently destroying society throughout the developed world. Of course we also have the religious elements that are currently destroying society throughout the developed world, and I am sure that we have editors who are blind to that as well. Those who argue that the left can do no wrong are just as stupid as those who argue that the right can do no wrong and those who argue that members of their race/religion/ethnicity can do no wrong. Anyone with a working brain can see that we have a wide variety of POV pushers here on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

One advantage of being older is that things that appear to be new to younger people can be recognized as not being new. "The real struggle is not between the right and the left [...] but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum have a monopoly on either of those qualities." That's a quote of me, if the Internet is to be trusted, in 2007, so more than 10 years ago. It was ever thus, and I think ever shall be. What I think is important for us at Wikipedia is to turn away from the battleground mentality about the right versus the left that you can find so easily everywhere. Wikipedia is not, or should not be, a battleground. My dream for Wikipedia is that we can work with people with whom we disagree about this or that, but about whom we retain high regard due to our confidence that "disagreeing with me" is not proof positive of idiocy or bad intent. Heck, sometimes I might be wrong and learn something myself. And even if I don't, I'm far more able to persuade others by not adopting a battleground attitude but by simply and plainly explaining myself and pointing to evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There is the ideal wikipedia which is a beautiful space where ideas can be rationally argued, and there is the actual really existing wikipedia which is partly that beautiful space but also in fact a battleground where people with political agendas try to control the prepresentation of the world, and sometimes succeed because there are more of them. It would be great if you could also address the concrete issue of organized POV-pushing and the way that it makes it very hard to achieve the ideal of an objective, neutral and representative coverage of some areas of knowledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, I wrote some beautiful words (trust me, Shakespearean!) that resolved this issue perfectly for all time to come. Lost to bad wifi. So I rewrote, this time some plodding sentences sensibly addressing the topic in an incomplete and unsatisfactory way. Lost to bad wifi. Now, I'm just going to give up and try to answer another day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Manuscripts don't burn

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Red flags fly - 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 - especially when our readers feel persecuted by what they're reading in a WP political article. Several years ago, The NYTimes published the following statement...When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations. Criticism helps pave the way to positive change. It doesn't matter which politician or political party is denigrated in WikiVoice in the name of NPOV, especially when it's based on a logical fallacy. It reflects badly on the project, not the editors who included the weighty, noncompliant material. It's one thing to publish a well-balanced, properly weighted NPOV article for public dissemination but when the material comprising the article is cherrypicked garbage that supports a one-sided POV, it's just plain wrong. Some of the issues stem from the keywords we use in our Google searches which tend to produce results that accommodate our respective POVs. Try using the keywords that represent the opposite of what you hope to find and notice the difference. If we continue on the road to relentless BLP Coatracks and attack pages for political public figures (typically conservatives), we'll lose our bragging rights to neutrality. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One need only to read the snide comments, hostile personal opinions openly stated and hostile efforts to do nothing but openly coordinate and filibuster via "consensus" a menagerie of bad news issues on the Donald Trump page, to see that this website is nothing close to being under siege by conservatives. It would be preposterous to read the overt hatred and loathsomeness displayed there about that subject and then expect the article itself to be anything close to following NPOV and especially the undue weight clause of that policy. There is nearly no sense of moderation and almost all direction seems to be an overt effort to malign this person coordinated openly right there on the talkpage. I once fought a long battle over a collective of George W Bush hating editors hell bent on adding the ridiculous notion that Bush was a "dry drunk"...meaning, a former alcoholic that had not undergone a respected alcohol treatment program. The notion of this fantasy was perpetrated by a couple of books written by psychiatrists that I had to spend a month demonstrating that they had deep seated dislike themselves for Bush and that they had violated their own credo since they themselves had only analyzed this matter from afar, not by way of any normative psychoanalytical method. Eventually, even some of those supporting the inclusion of this "garbage" also opted to not do so. We see the same now on the Trump article...only I think this has gotten far worse. The last time I saw an American political figure treated in what I felt was a fair manner was when I participated in the FAC review for the Hillary Clinton article. The Hillary Clinton article provided at that time a well balanced treatise on the subject and I supported the promotion of that article to featured level which was accomplished before her last Presidential bid. I've read over countless talk archives on the Trump article and comparing them to the Hillary Clinton article, I see nothing remotely approximating the level of hatred displayed. I get it...many are angry or hate Trump, but if that's the case, avoid editing the article. How on earth can someone filled with so much hatred possibly edit such a BLP neutrally? I mean, they hate Trump so much I wonder if the Secret Service isn't monitoring the page to see if anyone is stupid enough to make a death threat. If the conservatives were all trying to bring down this website, where were they when the Clinton article was at FAC? Conservatives trying to destroy this website is a preposterous myth backed by but a few mentions in that linked page above and spoofed to their target audience to incite further support for their own missions.--MONGO 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy it. I have looked at the same talk page archives and I can clearly see both Anti-Trump NPOV and anti-Clinton NPOV. If you only see NPOV from one side please consider the many editors who only see NPOV from the other side and the fact that they are just as convinced that they are unbiased as you are. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC).

My participation in the Clinton article was a mere few copyedits and comments on the FAC itself. My participation on the Trump article is near zero. I avoid more than a very token participation in such articles because I know I have a bias. I even went to the Clinton FAC and expected there to be a whitewashing of known controversies but there was not. That article was balanced, the Trump article is a piece of garbage. The conservative hordes so preposterously assumed to exist could have sure done a lot to filibuster against the Clinton article from being promoted and yet, this alleged deep concern never arose. At no point do I see the same overt efforts to impune the character of Clinton carried out to the point of NPOV violations as is being done at the Trump article right now. A coordinated and explicit effort to impune the character of this person by a collective of Trump loathing zealots, who openly refer to Trumps Presidency as "his reign" who openly state their dislike of the subject and then do all they can to dig up as much shit as possible. Maybe they would be happier working at a news source but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place to take a giant shit on our BLPs.--MONGO 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be helpful to give readers the context for that "NYTimes" quote, Atsme - it's not from a news article or a staff editorial, but rather from an op-ed written by the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, who was extremely mad online that this site (and thousands of others across the Internet) helped stop a massively-destructive and deleterious pair of bills which would have devastated online content providers (such as this one) and weakened free expression on the Internet. If you're holding up the CEO of RIAA as a shining example for us to follow, you should not be surprised when very few Wikipedians decide your path is the correct one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't clear in my comment, NBSB; my purpose was not to debate failed legislation, or argue the motivation behind that NYTimes piece. I'm of the mind that damage control should be done with a wide-sweeping broom, not a discriminate one. The point I was trying to make was focused on how some of our readers feel when they read our political articles. I just grabbed those 2 sources to relay a general sense of how the average reader may feel when reading a WP article about their choice of political leader/party. I doubt the bulk of our general audience actually cares whether the cited source is an op-ed, a breaking news report, or a book. The criticism is wide ranging, some involves circular reporting - and even RS get it wrong from time to time which contributed to the growth of fake news sites. There's also a serious waning of journalistic integrity because of the need for bait&click revenue and the public's attraction to sensationalized/propagandized material. Jimbo already knows that, which may explain why he launched WikiTribune. Our political articles are being spun in a whirlwind of WP:NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and it's hard to deny SOAPBOX and ADVOCACY aren't also at play. I recently read somewhere on a user's TP wherein editors were discussing the potential of Russian infiltration in WP. Well, I guess if they can hack into the DNC, they can certainly team-up at a WP political article, don'cha think? Trump derangement syndrome appears to be somewhat of an issue in the Trump series articles (and there are LOTS of 'em). When editors argue that a Coatrack is NPOV, it's becoming a serious problem. It's not a new problem by any means - read the last paragraph in the lede of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has been criticized for allegedly exhibiting systemic bias, presenting a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods", and, in controversial topics, being subject to manipulation and spin....where there's smoke, there's fire. It's time to step back for a bit of introspective and realign with WP's original purpose. If you get a chance, review some of the sources in a few of the MANY articles in the Trump series (after only 1 year in office *sigh*) - like Racial views of Donald Trump, and Trump-Russia dossier. Notice how many op-eds and social justice sources are cited and see if you can get a count on how many conservative sources were cited.

^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What in the world are "social justice sources" (sic)? And in regard to your comment above where you say "especially when our readers feel persecuted by what they're reading in a WP political article" - was that meant seriously? Our readers "persecuted" ... by our articles? Sigh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SPLC - see their "About" page: The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
The Nation - see their "About" page: ...never faltering in our editorial commitment to what Nation Publisher Emeritus Victor Navasky has called “a dissenting, independent, trouble-making, idea-launching journal of critical opinion.”
As for use of the word persecuted...read some of the political articles you've contributed to, and keep in mind that every occurance of a contentious label used to describe a politician and/or their constituency is a form of persecution because it screams hostility toward readers who may disagree with what is written in WikiVoice, especially when it involves race, politics or religious beliefs. The Trump-related articles are weighted heavy to one side, unlike any other article we have about a US president...and this is only the first year of his presidency. It's noncompliant with policy to include contentious labels in WikiVoice. Right or wrong, agree or disagree with an ideology, a political position, a religion or a BLP in general - we should not use contentious labels in WikiVoice. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOX. But you already know that, VM, so why do I have to keep repeating it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So... "social justice sources" (sic) are any sources you don't like? Your quotes don't actually explain what these "social justice sources" are suppose to be.

And you claimed that our readers were being "persecuted" by our articles. That claim is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Meh! You just didn't like the answers. 🍺 Cheers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, they were silly answers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I realize legitimate answers to your silly questions may seem silly to you. That is the risk some editors take when responding to you. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I looked at the sourcing on Trump-Russia dossier, at your urging. I see neither the SPLC nor The Nation cited there. In fact, the sourcing looks very solid—primarily news pieces from reputable journalistic outlets, although there are a few unreliable right-wing sources like the Washington Free Beacon cited. I don't see "social justice" sources (although, like Marek, I find that term somewhat bizarre and indicative of a specific, and not particularly encyclopedic, worldview), and I don't see many op-eds, but I do see some partisan right-wing sources cited. All of those findings run counter to your assertions—how do you reconcile them? MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As did I, looked at the same article. Citation 3 "The Week UK", never heard of it but the fact that it's a magzine doesn't instill much confidence. Citation 4 "Buzzfeed"... one of the worst "RS" sources used on Wikipedia. Citation 27 "Mother Jones" a progressive magazine. Citation 29 "Vanity Fair" are y'all serious? a fashion/pop culture magazine? Citation 37 Buzzfeed... again. Citation 70... Vanity Fair again. Citation 85 "Paste magazine" what the fuck is a music monthly doing on a political article? Citation 87 "Mother Jones" again. Citation 89 and 92 "Vox"... another of Wikipedia's stellar "RS" choices. Citation 100 "Vanity Fair" for the third time. Yeah, there might be a reason why somebody with right leaning tendencies might be skeptical of Wikipedia with sources such as these. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good RS including The New York Times and WashPo in there, but there's some tripe to be found as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your disdain for magazines seems very odd, see long form journalism, and Vanity Fair, who employs journalists has covered politics/current affairs in addition to culture since it was refounded in the 80s (which makes sense if one just looks at the title, Vanity Fair). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Might be because I associate "magazines" with Top Gear and Women's Weekly (Australia). Not exactly the stuff you'd call journalism. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And a popular genre of books is pulp fiction, but not all books are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: There are >200 sources in the article. If ~10 of them are questionable, in your view, then that's an issue but hardly evidence of pervasive persecution of conservatives on Wikipedia. More to the point, if you categorically dismiss magazines as reliable sources by virtue of their publication format, then I think the problem has less to do with Wikipedia and more to do with you (a point Alan is making, more gently than I). MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

1) 10/100 citations. I stopped quite clearly at citation 100. 2) I said that being a magazine doesn't incite confidence. Extrapolating a statement to its most extreme interpretation is almost never going to reflect what a person thinks. "Problem with you" - brilliant choice of phrase. We're not dealing with a mental or physical illness. You're not really making a point, just arguing... badly, since it's not the publication format, but the association that gives me pause. Feel free to read this edit summary where I reflect on the comment I'm making long before you jumped in to... something. I'm too tired to care. 3) Where have I asserted that Conservatives are being persecuted? all I said was that a right leaning reader might be skeptical of the article when looking at the sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, thank you for taking the time to review. I think my points are best made using the 1st article I exampled, Racial views of Donald Trump, see Footnote #24, The Nation was cited 3 times, and SPLC is also cited later on. There's a sprinkling of other sources including Fortune, Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter cited in the lede. I broke down some of the sources in the lede as shown in this diff and this diff on the article TP, (maybe in a few other places as well), and at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump, which was an exhaustive experience, as exampled here. Several uninvolved editors tried to provide input, but eventually gave up. Masem went the long haul, and got hammered pretty good. It would take far too much time for me to review each source to demonstrate whether or not the material added in the article is actually supported by the cited sources, but after the few breakdowns I performed, I'd say my doubts are justified. All one has to do is scroll down the long, meandering Trump articles to see how inundated they are with detailed critical opinions and unsupported allegations by his detractors. Few, if any other views from either the same cited sources or any right leaning sources were included (or allowed) in the articles. I don't think NPOV was applied properly in the selection of sources or when choosing the content. One can really see the problems after comparing articles of the last 4+ presidents who served 2 terms...^{and now heeeeres Godwin}...even Hitler got more of a break than what Trump's getting, and it's only his 1st year in office. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the sheer numbers of Trump articles surpass those of past presidents who served two terms. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So one of the two examples you gave to support your point doesn't actually support your point (or at least you're not willing to explain how it does)? OK then. I picked the dossier article because I don't really have the stomach to read 50,000 words on Donald Trump's racial views, but if you're suggesting that Fortune magazine is a "social justice" source, then I think words have lost all meaning. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, your questions are the Jane Fonda of brain exercises.

I fully understand why you didn't have the stomach to read 50,000 words about Trump's racial views, 🚩. Less than half (if that much) actually represent his views, much less racial views. Some of the sections describe the opinions of how others interpret his racial views despite the context not being "racial" 🚩, but that isn't where your sights are set so I'll try to do a better job of focusing. My original comment above actually states: Notice how many op-eds and social justice sources are cited and see if you can get a count on how many conservative sources were cited. For some reason, "social justice sources" became the focus, which goes back to "perspective". I was drawing attention to the fact that conservative sources are rarely cited because they don't fit the POV narrative, which makes the practice noncompliant with PAGs. In the big picture, we are stating in the lede in WikiVoice that Trump (my bold underline) "has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racially-motivated. cited to NYTimes, Fortune Magazine, & Rolling Stone. The "war" between Trump and the NYTimes is no secret, but is Fortune's Real Estate section and Rolling Stone Magazine considered high quality RS for making racially-charged statements about a BLP in WikiVoice? I'll respond with a resounding NO for 2 reasons - #1 it's opinion not a statement of fact, and #2 WP:LABEL states (my bold underline): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The lede has changed somewhat so my earlier diffs may not apply as originally intended when I first commented here or presented my concerns at NPOV/N - I consider it a good sign. I think this diff provides sources that dispute the current narrative and should be considered when determining the overall narrative. I'll end by saying thank you for your patience and engagement. I am very appreciative, Master Po. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions. Broflakes and snowflakes alike will find some of our content offensive due to tying their sense of self to ideas that are objectively wrong. We have had this from the earliest days of Wikipedia, around evolution. Reality has a liberal bias, at least as measured by the current Overton window, and that is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that "reality has a liberal bias" that isn't adequately explained by you having a liberal bias? Or do we now accept the opinions of comedian Stephen Colbert[26] as if they were established facts? Do you also accept "The liberal Gluten-free agenda is turning our dogs lesbian"[27] as if it was an established fact, or is that only for when Stephen Colbert's jokes agree with you? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The authors of NPOV policy deserve a big round of applause for their foresight when they wrote: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I'll sensationalize a bit and say it comes mighty close to the genius that crafted the US Constitution. NPOV is the single most important policy in WP because it serves to protect the encylopedia from all biases, liberal or otherwise. What we're lacking is adherence to it because of the prevailing bias, and that actually is our problem to fix. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(Applause) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if there is one user on this talk page right now who fails to adhere to POV, mostly because they think that "lamestream media" should not be used on Wikipedia and instead we should wacky far right sources like The Federalist or Daily Caller, then it's you. You really need to look in the mirror.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you've run dry of normative reasoning, VM, and have resorted to your customary mudslinging. I wish you well, and hope you can work through your issues expeditiously. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Do you even know what "normative reasoning" means? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, you're trying to bend NPOV to include fringe points-of-view. There's nothing to "applaud" here by creating a false sense that every opinion matters or is weighted equally. ValarianB (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ValarianB, nope. False sense is what happens when editors think WP is a systematic review of what multiple RS publish instead of an encylopedia that publishes, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We also should not act as judge and jury passing judgment on a BLP in the court of public opinion. Guy M. thank you.

^{Atsme📞📧} 20:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We publish all significant views that have been published in mainstream reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That's an important keystone of NPOV — that we do not give fringe claims, conspiracy theories or arguments the same space or credence we assign to mainstream ones. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Thus, for one current example, it's clear that a few fringe right-wing conspiracy theorists believe that Shaun King is lying about his biracial heritage, and those claims have received some attention in mainstream sources. So we mention those claims in the biography, as we should. But the mainstream reliable sources do not treat those claims as true, and instead generally accept King's statements and the on-the-record statements others who know King have made about his parentage. Thus, King's point of view — the mainstream point of view — receives due prominence in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In a perfect world, maybe. The point you're missing is that we're dealing with occasional failures in NPOV policy when choosing the RS to cite, and then properly weighing the material in those chosen sources. Most quality RS present all views (some authors may be a bit more transparent with their POV than others), so there's no excuse for omission except that the desire to create a Coatrack is stronger than the desire to adhere to NPOV. I do not consider a single mention of a single phrase to carry any weight, particularly when it involves a contentious label. Just citing PAGs is a waste of time. I included a sampling of the citations, how they were applied, and the weight that was given to contentious labels. We're now at the point of redundancy, and the pointless recital of PAGs. What needs to stop is the right-wing, left-wing bullhonkey - it shouldn't even be an issue and the fact that it is, only serves to prove my point. Have a good evening - sleep well. Tomorrow's another day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

All of us would benefit from reading and reflecting upon meta:MPOV. Of course, those who would benefit most will be certain that it does not apply to themselves. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right, "reality has a liberal bias" is sloppy wording. It's just that the conservative agenda right now is dominated by ideas such as climate change denial, creationism and trickle-down theory, all of which are absolutely contradicted by reality. So to say reality has a liberal bias is a common shorthand for a huge source of conflict that conservatives have with Wikipedia and other sources. We don't give equal weight to truth and falsehood. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

^{An interesting read about that very topic, Guy.} ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Don’t be too high and mighty there, because there are certain aspects of science denials that are squarely in the liberal left." --Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yes, the right is more likely to believe in climate change denial and creationism. (I am going to ignore your comment on trickle-down theory; the worst we can say about anything in economics is "probably wrong". If you think that anything in economics is "absolutely contradicted by reality" then we have one more place where you are getting ahead of the facts).

The other side of the coin is that it is the left who are more likely to believe an antivax, homeopathy, energy medicine, crystal healing, a strong link between dietary fats and heart disease,[28][29] anti-GMO,[30] gluten being bad for most people,[31] the myth that corporations are always evil and goverments are always good and pure, the pseudoscience of microaggressions critical race theory,[32] etc. For some reason you are only seeing the antiscience on one side. See [ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"... it is the left who are more likely to believe an antivax..." (sic). Sorry, what is your evidence for that claim? Actually, that's a rhetorical question. I know that you don't have any actual evidence, and that you're just talking out of your... well, let's say you're making stuff up and presenting it in an authoritative tone. If you're interested in evidence, it does exist. See, for example, Rabinowitz et al., PLOS One 2016: "... liberals were significantly more likely to endorse pro-vaccination statements and to regard them as 'facts' (rather than 'beliefs'), in comparison with moderates and conservatives... Conservative and moderate parents in this sample were less likely than liberals to report having fully vaccinated their children prior to the age of two." MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you have chosen to resort to a personal attack is (cough) interesting. Such behavior is strongly associated with a lack of evidence.

There are many prominent antivaxers on the left (Bill Maher, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Bill Maher, Charlie Sheen, Jenny McCarthy, Billy Corgan). Try to name some prominant antivaxers on the right.

The right wing National Review says that

"The countercultural Left is and has always been the core of the anti-vaccination movement. From NPR to PBS to the broadcast networks, the message of all-natural food and holistic, homeopathic medicine has been broadcast for decades, while traditional scientific medicine has been brought under suspicion as something being put over on us by the government and corporations"

The left-wing Huffington Post says

"Out of all the anti-science movements being driven predominantly by liberals, none is more dangerous than that which claims vaccinations are harmful or unnecessary"

The five states with the highest number of parents requesting that their children not be vaccinated:

Oregon (7.1%)
Idaho (6.4%)
Vermont (6.2%)
Illinois (6.1%)
Michigan (5.9%)

The five states with the lowest number of parents requesting that their children not be vaccinated:

Louisiana (0.8%)
Alabama (0.7%)
Virginia (0.6%)
West Virginia (0.2%)
Mississippi (<0.1%)

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2013–14 School Year

Guess which way those states mostly voted in the last few elections. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to make half hearted correlations and pass them off as anything other than your own incoherent thoughts. Especially when someone has brought actual sources which perform actual analyses to the table. Your post is a perfect example of confirmation bias. If you need more proof you might have an objectivity problem, ask yourself why the person who said this isn't on your list of prominent anti-vaxers: "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!" 24.96.130.81 (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Another personal attack. What a shock! I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not that I would dream of defending Tump's often-insane tweets, but two can play that quote game. Obama said "We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Nobody knows exactly why. There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers -- this person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."

Of course one can cherry pick quotes the other way as well. Trump: "So many people don’t understand I am a big proponent of vaccines for children—just not in one massive dose—spread them out over time." Obama: "I understand that there are families that in some cases are concerned about the effect of vaccinations. The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No no, you see, up above you're the one who made the ridiculous assertion that all prominent anti-vaxers are liberal... I proved you wrong. There are countless conservatives that support the anti-vax insanity. But if you want to try to make a NEW (and also false) assertion, I suppose I'll address it (though you could easily find this information if you did any kind of fair minded research). The only thing "cherry picked" is your Obama quote (it was taken from a video, where the "this person" shows him clearly pointing to an audience member), especially considering his whole-hearted endorsement of the CDC vaccination schedule several years later. Now Trump? Well, that was a tweet so your insinuation that it's "cherry picked" is well, horse crap. ESPECIALLY considering Trump still disagrees with what the CDC and medical community recommend regarding the childhood vax schedule, and has had Wakefield at the White House.208.54.70.193 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but being civil is a requirement if you wish to have a conversation with me. You can continue to ignore my strong criticism of Donald Trump, have the last word, and declare "victory" if you wish, but I won't be reading or responding to any further comments you post. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What would you consider a civil way to tell you that you made a sweeping, unsupported, and incorrect generalization and then attacked other people's tone rather than admit that you'd made a mistake? MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I deny making a mistake, and nothing you have written has given me any evidence that I did make a mistake. Feel free to "admit" some random wrongdoing in order to fill your "why don't you admit" quota for the day.

You had two choices. you could have had a calm, rational discussion about the evidence for or against a particular claim, free of general comments about the person as a cheap subsitute for specific comments about the evidence. Or you could have done what you did, which was to accept the following as examples of a logical argument:

"you made a sweeping, unsupported, and incorrect generalization"
"...ridiculous assertion..."
"...horse crap..."
"No matter how low I set my expectations for thoughtful dialog on this page, they are always disappointed."
"I think the problem has less to do with Wikipedia and more to do with you."
"I know that you don't have any actual evidence, and that you're just talking out of your... well, let's say you're making stuff up and presenting it in an authoritative tone."

As I said, you were free to take either path. But only one of the two paths results in me continuing to engage with you. I have seen your game before, and I refuse to play. Feel free to have the last word and declare "victory" if you wish, but I won't be reading or responding to any further comments you post. I find it to be very easy to simply not read anything with a particular signature at the bottom once I have determined that engaging further is a waste of time. BTW, thanks for the distinctive sig; it makes it even easier to skip over a comment unread and read the next one instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm saddened to see that you've successfully tone policed anyone who attempted to discuss this subject with you. [33] 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:88 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

                  Trollometer
  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   +10dB   +20dB
  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |||||||

Sorry, you only hit 1.5. Try a little harder next time. Thanks for playing! --Guy Macon (talk)

Ah yes, I remember running into all of those DNC endorsed, pro-crystal campaigns during election season (*insert eye roll that can be seen from the moon*). Surely you understand the difference between a crazy belief and party established political policy. 24.96.130.81 (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Like this one? Democrats Reject Science of GMO.

Please note that I could post boatloads of examples of antiscience republican positions. The reason I am focusing on Democrats is because several strongly biased editors have claimed that they don't hold any antiscience positions and that only the Republicans do. Find me someone who thinks that the Republicans aren't antiscience and I will correct them as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So false equivalency, then. An excellent mode of debate indeed. 208.54.70.193 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that explains it - I must be a liberal because my kids and grandkids are fully vaccinated. Ok, now that we've got that behind us...how do you drown a "hipster"? You throw 'em in the mainstream. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What a great series of arguments. But a simple fact remains. Among the Trump's voters there were pro-Trump people. There were also "not this Hillary" people. Seeing pro-Trump people voting for Trump doesn't require further explanation. Seeing the "not this Hillary" people voting for "this Trump" is what should be examined. Hundreds of Hillary people have maintained the List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 with the 'secret' intent of favoring their side: look at how many singers and other "happy few" are pro-Hilary, vote for her ! This page has grown to twice the size of the page about the former election. But this has not convinced the "unhappy many". Or perhaps, this has been a part of how they have build their conviction. Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Another cool editor left...

Hello. I am calling you because I have exhausted all other options.

Every now and then, I come to Wikipedia only to discover that one of your cool editors is no longer editing. He or she has left. If I ask about him or her, people always act as if that editor was a personification of evil. So, is this how you are planning to make an encyclopedia? Have a group of cool and smart people dedicate all sorts of resources, and then show 'em the door and tell them to choose between graceful retirement or disgraceful discharge?

The funny thing is the blame-pushing culture here. People act exactly like that comedy TV shows in which A and B get into a nasty quarrel and then everyone, including A and B, trying to pin all the blames on one of the two, acting as if everyone did right and one wrong upset everything, not realizing that all the while, they've all been doing nothing but wrong. When an editor with 200,000 edits and one 50,000 edits get into a nasty argument, one of them gets a short block and leaves, everyone in Wikipedia looks bad. In auto industry we never fire our seniors engineers or suspend them for anything less than committing a crime. They're our life-blood. Firing them would be catastrophic for business. Also, catastrophic for themselves; they've won't find work anywhere else. So, we have both the incentive and leverage. We prevent disputes in the first place. And, we've put in place very advanced forms of dispute resolution processes, where participation of a kind intermediary is guaranteed (as opposed to being on-request and almost-impossible-to-get, which is on Wikipedia). These dispute resolutions are usually very short, fast, and efficient... unlike Wikipedia, in which they are torturous.

Another funny thing is the janitor + bouncer role of admins. These people go through a gauntlet, and when they come out, their duty involves dealing with snivelous vandals, so when they see a real dispute, they don't recognize it. They must be leaders and managers instead. Their tenure must be time-limited, requiring renewal. And they must have oversight. Janitorial actions like fighting vandalism should, be like every other community, automated or flag-based, and done by ordinary editors. Have you ever wondered why RFA is so brutal? Because the community knows that they are irreversibly installing someone who could make their lives miserable and get away with it.

One last things is how Wikipedia facilitates digging dirt and assuming bad faith, while good contributions are often forgotten, even after the doers of the deeds go through a lot of pain to preserve and advertise them. Logs, which exclusively track actions that one is not proud of, are made public. Wikipedia argue that it is called transparency. I argue that it is called building a transparent restroom, which puts all kind of nasty things on display.

74.82.60.84 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Which editor are you talking about? If you let us know, maybe we can talk them into returning. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless they were sanctioned, which is sort of implicit in the OP's statement. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It does sound like an interesting case study, but impossible for me or anyone else to comment, really, without some indication of the specific case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The particular case in question is that of one of our ~~female~~ editors, Codename Lisa (since renamed as part of a vanish), and Headbomb. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that might indeed be a good case study into why editors leave. Just maybe not the editor you had in mind. PS. Headbomb hasn't left so far as I know, so it would be courteous to ping them when mentioned. --Xover (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As a point of order, Codename Lisa never declared a gender here, and explicitly refused to do so in their user page when it was up. Codename Lisa is a well known a computer-related codename (unless it's after Kodnamn: Lisa by Johan Falk), so let's not assume Codename Lisa is female just because the Lisa is a female name. I also couldn't give a damn about which gender they chose to identify with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As for context, for those who care, this is what this is about (partial timeline here). The cliffnotes of it was Codename Lisa kept making WP:BOLD changes to the documentation of critical templates, they were reverted by multiple editors, they were encouraged to engage in discussion by multiple editors, they refused to engaged in discussion. Then they, for some reason, decided I was the root of all evil, and tried (and I'd argue failed) to make things personal against me. They accused me of vandalism, then kept edit warring by claiming their edits were exempt from 3RR because I was a vandal, they kept making further personal attacks by accusing me of lying or being dishonest, claimed that refused to discussed my objections (which had been on the talk page for days by then).

Then they got blocked for edit warring (the constant personal attacks didn't help I'm sure), and since they had egg on their face, took up their marbles and went home. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

More background: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Purpose of Cite web. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If stubborn disagreement on trivia stopped resulting in blocks or bans, that could threaten the primacy of centrist views for nontrivial issues. If editors were expected to resolve disputes inclusively, how many NPOV detentes would fall apart, seriously? The stability of Wikipedia is based on preferring duplicity to objective truths under controversy whether we like it or not. The only solution is enforced compromise, 71.218.15.84 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Edit warring leads to blocks. Always has. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP, by the way. Sock of whoever this is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So, so far:

Blame-pushing: Check
Personification of evil: Check
Everyone looking bad: Check
Bouncer duty: Check (although, why?)

@User:Jimbo Wales Maybe the IP didn't name any names for a reason. He/she has mentioned several practical actions about keeping editors. We can discuss that without beating the dead horse of Codename Lisa–Headbomb dispute. I really want to know how the auto industry prevents dispute. That's fantastical if not more. I tried googling and I read something about "preventative FMEA" but it was too technical for me. 31.214.132.166 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

When disagreements occur at say, Ford, they likely hash it out via internal discussions, rather than try to make unapproved changes to car designs during live production. There is also likely a lead engineer that makes the final call somewhere, and once the call is made, the rest of the team falls in line. We don't have such a hierarchy on Wikipedia, nor will we ever have one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. – William G. McAdoo

37.27.99.193 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Speak plainly, rather than throw quotes from my own userpage back at me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Headbomb: I wasn't talk to you at all. If I wanted to do so, I would address you directly. You are part of the problem, so you cannot be part of the solution. At least, not as long as you want to keep up the A vs. B. farce, push the blame to code-name whatnot and retort by saying "speak plainly".

@Everyone else interested in a solution: To elaborate what I quoted, sometimes, a discussion is futile. Resolution by authority is an alternative. Not like locking the page and threatening not to unlock it unless the dispute is resolved through consensus. (That's just a type of bullying.) In this type of resolution, a person with deep knowledge and understanding judges both sides of the disputes and rules an abiding resolution. Mandatory mediation is another solution. The editors are blocked from doing anything else other than participating a mediation session in which a kind mediator helps them reach a resolution and diffuses any animosity by reminding them that they can do better.

Also, make a firm policy: Any act of reversion must either have a justification or a link to a justification. Failing to meet this requirement should meet with immediate (albeit temporary) editing ban, enforced by blocks in case of deviation. And unambiguously mark pages as "bold editing allowed" or "bold editing not allowed".

But I wish the OP was unblocked. He made some very interesting points about admins being leaders. I want to know more.

37.27.99.193 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Consider me part of the problem if you want, I tried to engage Codename Lisa, like most people did, but it went nowhere. All CL had to do was explain what they wanted to change, why they wanted to change it, and gain consensus for it. WP:BOLD is a core policy, and that means allowed pretty much everyone is allowed to be bold everywhere that isn't protected. CL's initial edits were fine, even if they were disagreed with. The issue is that WP:BRD applies to everyone on Wikipedia, and we shouldn't make special exceptions to that because someone has a lot of edits and refuses to do the D part of BRD. If you face opposition, you must discuss, and ignoring this repeatedly leads to blocks. Try as you might, no amount of policy, mediation, formal/binding or otherwise, will ever bring to the table anyone who simply refuse to discuss, especially volunteers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Geez, what an argumentative person. Even though he has won, he won't shut up. Why? Guilty conscience? Everything he said about BRD here was false. (It's not mandatory, there are alternatives to it, not every reversion counts towards BRD, etc.) God knows what wrong things he said in that discussion.

– They've all been doing nothing but wrong: Check

So, it seems it is Codename Lisa who punished Wikipedia, not the other way around.

Anyway, this discussion no longer interests me. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.27.99.193 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I welcome you to point out to me where I'm wrong about the broad principles behind the BRD approach. I'll also point out that none of the alternatives to a strict BRD cycle were followed, all of which rely on discussing things at one point when you cannot surmount the opposition for one reason or another. Has CL done nothing but wrong? Of course not, you can't have 50K+ edits and not have productive contributions to the project. Some of CL's proposed changes to the documentation even got adopted/gained consensus. But not everything is a grey truth, some situations have a side that's clearly in the wrong, or a side that's clearly responsible for misbehaviour. And if you can't accept that sometimes you screw up, that sometimes you just have a bad day, or that sometimes what you want is simply disconnected from what the rest of the community want, then you're going to have a very unhappy life / experience on Wikipedia. Would the encyclopedia be better with CL than without? Absolutely. But not if they're going to keep edit warring against consensus, or keep making personal attacks against people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we are supposed to keep editors by not reverting edits that have no support, and not blocking them for edit warring and assuming bad faith. That doesn't sound like a terribly good idea. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's military talk. It is the military that often says "Are we supposed not to kill our enemies? That's a terrible idea!" Well, when you make friends with them, they cease to be the enemy. So, there is no one to kill. Likewise, when resolve the dispute, there is no more edit warring and no more edit warrior. Actually, that's your policy too: WP:CON. So, yes, you are supposed to. If you are so bad that editors with years of service and millions of edits still edit war with you, I am not in a hurry to say it is entirely their fault. 37.27.99.193 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the auto industry uses a large variety of methods for conflict resolution, the Homestead Strike method among them. Perhaps, you should conduct your analogy more clearly. Pldx1 (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is headed exactly that way. Do I even need to say that one is a poor model for Wikipedia? 72.52.112.40 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem with too many really good and needed people leaving due to problems with Wikipedia. But most left of their own accord and at first glance it looks like this particular example is not typical of those. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering whether an IP might at last have raised a valid complaint at Jimbo's talk, the answer is no. The cool editor who left was in fact a good editor who often did useful things, but one with a temperament totally unsuitable for a collaborative community. I have noticed the user edit war in several unrelated cases. When the normal procedures of WP:AN3 were finally (and correctly) applied, the user quit. That's unfortunate but better than the alternative, namely that they continue to win battles by edit warring as that has a very corrosive effect on the community. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I made the 48 hour block and while Codename Lisa leaving is unfortunate, that is their choice and I stand by the block. The edit warring was one issue, calling the other editor's edits vandalism was a larger one. Having any editor think they can revert edits they don't like with impunity and label them vandalism (and so exempt from WP:3RR) is not acceptable. The sock who started this discussion was concerned about one editor leaving - what do they think other editors, who follow our dispute resolution mechanisms, are going to do when they see their good-faith contributions simply being wiped away as vandalism? CL had been cautioned against this, both in the report that led to their block and previously. Instead of heeding the cautions, they chose to double down in their last post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN And yet you did exactly what you are condemning: You removed and blocked a voice of reason (this and this) and besmirch it with the word "sock" (considering you're not a checkuser), in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Ever heard the expression pot calling the kettle black? Angry people say and do wrong things; an admin must be better. You are not.

I wouldn't have found those deleted posts if you hadn't posted this seemingly out-of-context message. Guilty people are just like you. They talk when they normally wouldn't. (They say "RBI"; they do "RBT".) 37.27.99.193 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You use Wikipedia terms yet you show little knowledge of what they actually mean. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free not to enlighten me. If you are wise, I'd rather remain a fool. 37.27.99.193 (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. Let him play wack-a-mole with dynamic IP addresses. This discussion is derailed anyway. It was derailed the moment they changed its subject from "editors leaving" to "Editor X leaving".

A house divided cannot stand. That's all I have to say. 72.52.125.64 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this really what the two of you were arguing over? This one looks like (s)he really did revert a mistake, with stuff on the wrong line, and to my skimming eye it looks like none of the AN people noticed, despite it being one of the named crimes. I can't believe someone, anyone, got banned over minor changes to obscure documentation that almost nobody is really going to read. The problem with this "computer world" is that inevitably you end up with a bunch of people (and I don't just mean admins .. Lisa is in the same head space) with this hard-edged machine logic and the illusion of a God's-eye view and God's-eye power who get caught up in a power trip. And don't even compare this to a workplace because nobody is getting paid anyway, and this is supposed to be fun. There's ten times too much "administration", with effects lasting a hundred times too long, and power concentrated a thousand times more than necessary to do it. What we need is not somebody with a ban hammer but just somebody with a third vote to break the tie who would actually care about it. 50.29.152.30 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, believe it. If someone edit war, refuse to discuss your changes, personally attack editors, and promise to keep edit warring, you get blocked. Even if it's about template documentation. Also, there was no 'tie' between two camps, it was more like 5-1 or 10-1 wall of opposition to making substantial changes to documentation without discussion. There was no need of having a 'third vote', there were already multitudes of editors making those comments. But, again assuming that had been the case, the onus was still on Codename Lisa to discuss the proposed changes as had been requested of them half a billion times before.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nigeria as a major "expanding market" for Wikipedia?

I volunteer at WP:Articles for creation and over the last couple years I've seen a major uptick in submissions relating to Nigeria, mostly biographies of musicians, actors, footballers, and some politicians. I came onboard in 2008, and what I'm seeing now reminds me of the big uptick that I started noticing around 2010 where we started getting a ton of contributions about India. And as I'm sure a lot of us have noticed, India-topic articles on Wikipedia frequently rank in the Top 25 when a blockbuster movie comes out, or something major happens in the sports or political world.

Nigeria is 186 million people (USA is 325 million, UK is 66 million) and while there are many local languages the national official language is English. So while not as huge as India, that's still a really large Anglophone population that is increasingly online. I'm seeing this though on a smaller level with other Anglophone African countries like Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

As a very, very tentative observation, it's my vague impression in AFC that Nigeria submissions tend to be higher-quality, pound-for-pound than general US or India draft submissions. Is this a reflection of a slightly higher technological bar-for-entry in Nigeria, or due to a larger portion of people coming to WP through more formal outreach that has them paying more attention to article requirements before submitting? I'm genuinely surprised at the success rate of drafts for Nigerian musicians, that are relatively more likely to be properly sourced to Nigerian media reports as opposed to the regular flow of non-notable American garage band (and I say this as someone who's played in American garage-bands).

Are there any good articles or essays (on Wikipedia or off) that folks would recommend to read up on Wikipedia's increasing penetration in Africa? I'm under the general impression that Wikimedia is doing more outreach there since I've seen edit-a-thon drafts come through AFC, so that's heartening to see.

Just writing here for those who may work in other aspects of WP and not have noticed this trend yet, or to invite further enlightenment from folks tracking this issue more closely who have interesting observations about this trend and what it bodes for Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to evaluate 100 articles about Nigerian topics a couple of years ago, as part of an editing competition. I read about 20 of those articles quite carefully. My experience was quite positive. Although there were a few clunkers, a large majority were solid, properly referenced start class (or better) articles about notable topics. This is the day-to-day work of addressing systemic bias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There is indeed a major Wikipedia awareness campaign in Nigeria. Graham87 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This all seems quite cool to me. I think we in the community need to on-guard to make sure that people aren't reflexively nominating things for deletion in this area based on spurious "I have personally never heard of this, therefore it is not notable".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure others have noticed, one of the huge issues with Systemic Bias is the "chicken or the egg?" wherein Wikipedia can only cover a topic if RSs have covered it. So we run into the issue where there may be major African figures who aren't well-covered in RSs and thus hard to prove Notability despite being unquestionably significant figures in their field. The solution to that is more, for example, Nigerian scholars and journalists publishing about significant Nigerians. Fortunately there are a number of Nigerian media sites online that appear to be RSs; I've found entertainment news is really well-covered by Pulse so that really helps getting Nollywood films and actors through since we have coverage of their careers, box-offices and reviews, etc. In a weird symbiotic way, increased Wikipedia coverage of Africa might actually help more scholarship and journalism to cover Africa since running into Wikipedia roadblocks might cause more people to say "hey, why isn't anyone writing about Dr. Smith who had such an active role in medicine during the Biafran War?"

Thanks for the Wikimedia blog post, that's just the kind of thing that helps answer my questions. Just today I'm seeing Category:WikiGap Harare popping up in the queue, so glad to see Wikimedia folks kicking off such projects. Having seen a lot of iffy India content come through during the initial press of Indian editors, it's gratifying to see that African editors are disproportionately doing their homework in advance to provide strong sourcing. I'm unclear to what degree that's just a reaction to Wikipedia's rising standards, and to what degree it's because editors are entering through a more formalized outreach process, but in either case it makes AFC easier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is more wiki potential in the Nigerian ecosystem. Kudos to Wikimedia UserGroup Nigeria, who have been making some strategic partnership and organizing awareness programs that could be responsible for the increase we are seeing today. Although 2018 is my 8th year on WP, I began interacting with the Nigerian off-wiki community about two years ago and have been priviledged to coordinate the activities for Ibadan hub and I'm proud to say off the top of my head there are at least 10 new editors (eg. Oshhhh, AshiomaMedi, etc) who became WP editors due to the two outreaches we were able to organize in UI in conjunction with WUGN. However, I still think more can still be done, for example many Nigerisns still do not know that Wikipedia is free on Airtel, sometimes I wonder if part of the mou between Airtel and Wikimedia foundation was that it should not be overly promoted.@Mathew You are 100% on point about refernces; notable Nigerian nollywood and music-related content that were released since the mid-2000s have good coverage, especially from Pulse. However, we also have a number of indigenous sites that cover local Nigerian football, but they don't have the resources Pulse have to make them 100% reliable sources. Media platforms like allnigeriasoccer.com, ladiesmarch.com, Saharareporterssports, Savidnews, etc are owned and published by reputable stakeholders in Nigerian male and female leagues but they are not as refined as Pulse, all their first-person information have always been accurate too. So we can also say Nigerian football leagues (both male and female) have also been well covered lately. Goal.com, Complete Sports Nigeria and other richer sporting sites are also doing quite well for the big games. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of current affairs articles deemed to have "no lasting notability"?

It appears that some editors think this is a good idea, even on a good-sized current events article (with ongoing consequences) which survived an AfD in May 2017 as a SNOW keep. The prime movers happen to be Trump fans, though not all in the discussion are in that camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but this really smells like deletionism/protectionism/carrying water for Trump. They propose to revisit AfD or condense it down to practically nothing, compared to its current size, and then merge that content elsewhere. The article deserves more than passing mention.

See: Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information#Reevaluate this article. I think this is a bizarre and horrible idea.

What do others think? I have never seen Wikipedia as an assembly line where, as new articles are added at one end, older ones are deleted at the other....and this one isn't even old! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When people propose old articles for deletion, keep an eye out for new news. Nobody remembers an old article that has genuinely passed from the public eye, let alone cares to delete it. As a rule, if they nominated it, there's a reason. (To be sure, I didn't find that reason in this case; even this recent editorial referencing the case doesn't seem that important. But occasionally deletionists seem to know news from tomorrow and the day after ...) Wnt (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, sneaky deletionism is a reality. They wait til "no one is looking" and then succeed with a small cabal of supporters, when they previously failed with the broader community looking on. Ban those types. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, clearly we should ban everyone that doesn't agree with your opinions *sigh*. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It is still an over-hyped nothing-burger news story. Due to the existence of semi-partisan news media sources whose WP:MILL contemporaneous news coverage is often mistaken for secondary sourcing, it's almost impossible to fairly assess anything involving Trump and Russia in realtime, and probably will remain impossible for the duration of his presidency. Fortunately there is no deadline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

More fortunately, we never have to fairly assess it. I generally believe in "verifiability, not truth". But while it is theoretically possible for editors to decide what is True in a more absolute way than the mere reading of sources, it is implausible and unnecessary for them to decide what is Important. The mere existence of the sources, summarized here in a hopefully impartial way, and of editors interested enough to do the work, is sufficient to justify the permanent acquisition of the article. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect most are aware of this, but for those not, the basic policy here is Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY - notability is intended to be permanent. But the policy recognises we may not always get this right. In such cases, I'm likely to generally support a keep, as I think the question is usually adequately scrutinized at the time of creation, and heaven knows that Trump's presidency is going to keep historians & readers busy for decades to come. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Deletion is not the process to be looking for or at, as a merge, or a title rename/scope issue is what is being suggested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange this section's heading begins with "Deletion" then! Notability is all about a subject's appropriateness as a stand-aloner article. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not strange, just usual confusions of Wikipedia process - will the subject be covered in Wikipedia, quite obviously, so the subject will not get deleted, how it's organized is up for debate, that's why we have talk pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, when all the public furor dies down over the 2016 election of what some consider a shady, playboy businessman over a crooked politician (only in America, folks), the pedia will return to normal, and those who are interested in being journalists rather than authors/editors of encyclopedic content will move over to the WikiTribune. The Trump administration doesn't need our help to cause any further damage to their reputation than what they are quite capable of accomplishing on their own. Facts only, please. Regarding the deletion of Trump-connected articles, it would not be an issue if editors (as applicable) would stop discounting the cautions described in WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. WP was inundated with similar types of disinformation/gossip/unfounded allegations relating to the Clinton, Bush, & Obama administrations - there were plenty of controversies/scandals to cherrypick from RS to fit a particular POV agenda - but those articles had a chance to cure over time, so the bulk of negativity was whittled down for compliance with NPOV, and the same will happen with the Trump articles. Per WP:RECENTISM: But in the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles should be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias or article imbalance, and not every topic eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article.

Trump just completed his first year as president, and there are 3 more years to go (maybe)...possibly even 7...and we already have more articles filled with unverified allegations, journalistic analysis/commentary/opinions mixed with news, along with so-called expert analysis by doctors who never personally examined him, and other negativity than what was included in the articles of 2-term presidents. Deletions/rewrites are a necessary part of reaching compliance with NPOV which is why WP:CIR is important when making early determinations, especially considering the DS and accompanying restrictions to which such articles are subjected. It may feel good to write what we "feel is appropriate" now but it simply won't stick. Stricter adherence now to WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:LABEL, WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the 3 main core content policies NOR, NPOV, & V will probably reduce a lot of the necessary UNDUE, GOSSIP, POV deletions/modifications that will become apparent as time progresses.

Suggestion - while some may oppose any comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica, (because WP is far better and more reliable than any other ), we can't deny that the Britannica is a long standing, stable and widely accepted tertiary source in academic circles, and aligns with encyclopedias by Cambridge and Columbia. It is also conveniently available online. It wouldn't hurt to compare their articles about the same political topics, and use it as a gage for neutrality as it relates to our own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The "journalists" will stay here. Phil Graham once said that journalism is the first rough draft of history, and today Wikipedia is that first rough draft, for better or for worse. As far as policy acronyms go, truly enforcing WP:NOTNEWS is clearly not supported by the community (I've made vague suggestions of stronger enforcement that got no support). The rest will happen in due time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The name WP:NOTNEWS is trotted out every time there's one of these conversations, so every time I have to mention that if you actually read the policy, it doesn't say we have to delete good data just because it's news. It says only not to treat news differently than other content. There has been a global push against news aggregators of all kinds, with even big companies like Google teetering on the brink of illegality as the legal landlords claim their rent from knowledge of the world's events (see ancillary copyright for press publishers), but Wikipedia doesn't have to go along with it. The news industry is failing because their overall economic model, the idea of copyright in general, is failing, and if we can hold out just a little longer, they won't have the capital left to lobby against us. After that we may need to get more creative about how to define or find a reliable source, but I think the hindrance of their collapse may be less than expected. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am blocked for life on Swedish Wikipedia, but not on English or any other Wikipedia.

The reason is that I made an attempt at tackling a highly sensitive political issue - that Jewish slaughter (shehitah) is banned in Sweden. The reason is that the Nazis (National Socialist German government of the 1930's) pressured the Swedes to do this. At the time, the Swedish government was a coalition between the Social Democrats and the Agrarian party - a forerunner to today's Center party. Sweden is alone together with Norway and Denmark in having political power vested in peasant farmers. and these parties - in Sweden and Norway were pretty racist having as a policy to refinde the blood of the Swedish/Norwegian people (folk) and the minister responsible in Sweden for pushing the legisltion through was the Minister of Justice who was from the agrarian party.

A prime mover for the legislation who spoke a number of times on the matter was Otto Wallén, who said at one stage in the Swedish Riksdag - "I am not ashamed to call myself an antisemite.

Swedish wiki entry on Otto Wallén The exact quote is:

Jag erkänner gärna, herr talman, utan att blygas att jag idag är antisemit /.../ Den asiatiska folkstammen passar icke i sällskap med vår hyggliga svenska folkstam

I readily admit, Mr Speaker, without embarrassment that I am today an antisemite ... The asiatic tribe does not suit the company of our fine upstanding Swedish tribe.

However, the immediate problem is that the article on Skäktning is wrong and i cannot correct it.

The very first sentence is:

Skäktning är en slaktmetod föreskriven inom judendom (kosherslakten) och islam (halalslakten). I båda fallen avlivas djuret genom att halspulsådrorna skärs av med kniv.[1]

Skäktning is a slaughtering method within Judaism (kosher slaughter) and Isam (Halal slaughter). In both cases the animal is killed by the arteries being cut with a knife.

Well this is not the case. there are two major arteries and two major veins that supply and drain blood from the brain - they are the carotid arteries and jugular veins.

RPSM (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In both the Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods that are different in many respects, all four blood vessels (two arteries and two veins) are cut simultaneously with a long, sharp knife. the text is therefore misleading.

I need to publicize that the Swedish wikipedia is misleading on this point and unreliable.

The traditional European method is to use a short pointed dagger called a sticking knife, and often only one jugular vein is cut.

Cutting one, two, three or all four of the major blood vessels results in death occurring and different rates - slowest with only one blood vessel cut and quickest when all four are cut.

This is why when an animal is stunned unsuccessfully that the long Jewish knife is used to put it out of its misery as quickly as possible.

I got this information from the South African Meat Company when their handbook for supervisors was on line.

My editin on English Wikipedia has mostly been on an article for

I have an Idea for you Jimbo!

Since the wiki format allows users to create highly customizable user pages and the fact that Wikipedia feels more like a social network of sorts than an encyclopedia (especially with talk pages and stuff) I think you could create a social network using the wiki format called Socialwiki, the free social network! Great Idea huh? Ninsative (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Ninsative (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Plus, you could add friends and stuff ^_^ Ninsative (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Ninsative (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The short response is: no. Slightly longer: Talk pages serve the purpose of resolving disputes and leaving notices, not back and forth chit chat between friends. Wikipedia space tends to serve as a more central space for wider discussions, but these are intended to serve the purpose of facilitating the improvement of the encyclopedia. They key word here is "intended"... it's an abysmal familiar in many ways. Of course, humans being social creatures, editors have others with whom they are friendly and leave the occasional message, but Wikipedia is not a social platform. Besides, that market is more than saturated with twitter/facebook/myspace and hundreds of less popular alternatives which are all already free and are designed for that purpose. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

People can say pretty much whatever they like on their user talk pages, but most of the time it should have some link to Wikipedia articles. It would be sad if a person's user talk page consisted of "Hi, I'm having breakfast right now" and similar banalities.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, Ninsative has been blocked as a sock. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

17 years of editing!

Hey, Jimbo Wales. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Happy first edit day, next year I'll give you a beer! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Are there any other active editors who have been editing for 17 years or more? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'd say Larry Sanger reached 17 years if you consider him active. The Anome and Magnus Manske are both close to 17 years. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I know that the recorded edits in 2001 are not quite complete, but I checked anyway. Larry's first is March 1, 2001 - but no, he's not really active now. Jimbo's first is March 27, 2001, Magnus's is in July, and Anome's is in November. Congrats to all of them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Both Jimbo and Larry have two earlier usernames, JimboWales and LarrySanger, respectively. If you look in the 17 August 2001 database dump (which contains a complete record of edits at that time), the first logged-in edit by JimboWales was on 19 January 2001 while LarrySanger's first logged-in edit was made two days later. However, they both clearly would have made logged-out edits before then. Jimbo, I've boldly removed you from Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar/March/27; your first edit day was Wikipedia Day! Graham87 11:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We've also been here before. Graham87 11:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's something wrong

Hello, when you have an active user with a few more contributions including articles or uploads approved by different other users (and you have some other users in the talk page of the user, they have became troubled due to an indefinite block of the user and they are supporting the user, User:رتور and User:Dandamayev and User:Mohamadr_za and User:BaqBan20 noting that the BaqBan20 is actually the User:Nargess.n had given some special sign to the blocked user previously but had a rename recently by the admins) and the user is blocked forever because had mentioned a simple Image in its user page and has been blocked from editing even its own talk page (by the admin User:Mardetanha) because the user had uploaded the official documents of what had been claimed so even if you were not familiar to the Farsi language you must know for sure there is serious problem with Wiki censorship policy and administration system especially in Wiki Fa however we know there are many problems in west threatening Wikipedia itself but in other wikis such as wiki fa probably and seemingly has less consideration of supervising, the problem is more effective. The indefinite block of a semi-active user is irrational because they know when this user claims something sensitive it will provide the reliable sources absolutely and the content can't be removed later so the user should be blocked forever now.

Previously I could see how some special users use the weakness of inability of talking Persian of others to push their censorship affairs to the English Wikipedia so there is no hope about other sister projects. When there is no guarantee in the admin stage about the project existence so we should say Good bye Wikipedia. Nowadays I will not be surprised to see corruption or political decisions everywhere (the poison for an Encyclopedia) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 04:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

2 new RfAs look good

FYI: The community (~190 !votes) seems interested in the 2 current candidates at wp:RfA, scheduled to end 29 March and 1 April 2018, with over 96% Support. You might want to read results when have time. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Activity

Are you still active?

178.135.82.254 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of Wikia right now? 178.135.80.78 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather broad question. I like Wikia. But questions about Wikia are probably best addressed by email, not here, as this is Wikipedia and not Wikia. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A question.

Do you feel like this userbox should be on your user page?

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Just asking. ⌤TheMitochondriaBoi⌤^(☎) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Many people (myself included) feel that calling talk page watchers "stalkers" is inaccurate and prejudicial. I welcome the watchers who help to deal with questions posted on my talk page. They aren't stalkers. They are helpers. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just one of those things I don't understand about cryptocurrency and initial coin offerings

Normally I wouldn't bring an article content question to this page, but it's a bit slow today and it will likely take a long time to get an answer on the talk page of Telegram (messaging service)

I've just written the following there. It is 100% true according to the sources and I believe them to the extent I believe any sources. It also sounds like 100% nonsense to me.

"Though the firm claims that it does not operate for profit^[1]^[2] it has already raised $1.7 billion by selling securities and plans an initial coin offering.^[3]"

Of course the reason that it sounds like complete nonsense is that investors don't make investments of this size unless there are profits to be made. Can anybody find the sleight of hand?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, this turns out to be fairly complicated. Washington Post had a pretty good article that confirms there was sleight-of-hand (before the securities offering).^[4] The simplest quote is "For starters, Durov and other Telegram employees had repeatedly claimed their app was nonprofit, which wasn’t technically true." So my summary is technically correct. And even if something still doesn't add up, the WaPo article makes it clear that it's unlikely I'll find out what it is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Telegram F.A.Q, "...making profits will never be an end-goal for Telegram."
^ Why Telegram has become the hottest messaging app in the world, The Verge. Retrieved 25 February 2014. "Telegram operates as a non-profit organization, and doesn’t plan to charge for its services."
^ Shen, Lucinda (March 31, 2018). "Even as Bitcoin Languishes, Telegram Raises $1.7 Billion Ahead of Largest ICO Ever". Fortune. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
^ Dewey, Caitlin (November 23, 2015). "The secret American origins of Telegram, the encrypted messaging app favored by the Islamic State". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2018.

Warnings

Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that founders do not own encyclopedias, including ones they co-found, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you found or co-found an encyclopedia, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about co-founding to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Olidog (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ^[4-1]

Please do not assume ownership of encyclopedias. If you aren't willing to allow your encyclopedias to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.Olidog (talk) ^[4-1]

Please stop assuming ownership of encyclopedias. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from co-founding Wikipedia.Olidog (talk) ^[4-1]

You may be blocked from co-founding without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.Olidog (talk) ^[4-1]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of encyclopedias. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Olidog (talk) ^[4-1]

The Vandalism Barnstar

		The Vandalism Barnstar
		The Vandalism Barnstar is awarded to editors who tirelessly work to make Wikipedia more entertaining by adding hilarious language to articles.

^{[April Fools!]} —AnAwesomeArticleEditor 02:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

nope! 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0F8:F6AC:3841:9486 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Announce: Improved version of "Citation Needed"

New Citation needed template with improved links: ^{[Citation Needed]}

For edit summary: Citation Need ed

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

TL;DR summary: Wikipedia -- from wiki meaning quick, and encyclopaedia, meaning not YouTube. As an editor, I should be able to edit the article and quickly change it. As a reader, I should be able to verify facts against reliable sources. I cannot do this if a paid editor uploads and embeds an entire article in video format. It becomes WP:OWNED by a private organisation. -- Colin°^Talk 18:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned that Wikipedia medical articles now embed videos created by Osmosis. These videos are uploaded by an editor user:OsmoeIt who declares to be paid by the foundation to create and upload them to Wikipedia. Osmosis appears to be funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a private philanthropy foundation created by a founder of the American medical firm Johnson & Johnson.

Wikipedia is, I believe, fundamentally a project collaboratively edited by volunteers. While it may link to other websites containing medical information created by third parties, I hope the Wikipedia content itself is fundamentally user created and open to being collaboratively edited. For audio-visual material we have a history of accepting content that is not created by volunteers, provided it is freely licensed. However, this content is mostly images or short video clips which can easily be substituted for another by any editor.

Here, though we have lengthy videos that often comprehensively replace the article content in their scope. Take Epilepsy. Here we do not just have a short video of a person having a seizure, but a nine minute video documentary covering the entire article topic. There are several issues with that:

The content cannot be edited. [While theoretically, someone can take the CC BY SA video and make a derivative work, it is not realistic to do that as the narrator would be different and it would be very hard to achieve the same visual style].
The content begins and ends with publicity for a third party.
The content is unsourced and therefore does not meet our editing policies.
Some content is outdated, and it is not possible to fix. For example the video uses the outdated term "complex partial seizure"
The video does not fit with our style guide for medical articles, referring to "patients" rather than "people with epilepsy".
The video contains American English slang terms such as "spaced out" which would not appear in professional writing and may be unfamiliar to our international audience.
Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, not a YouTube channel, nor a documentary. Videos should supplement the article text, providing information in ways that cannot be done by reading alone. Instead here, we have whole article topics in video format.

Here is what happens when an editor challenges the material in one of these videos in Dementia with Lewy bodies:

Video removed and discussion started on talk: "With no mention of two of four core symptoms, this video is outdated" -- User:SandyGeorgia
video restored without discussion or gaining consensus "Sure. Will request they update it." -- User:Doc James
video restored again "I have restored the video. They say they are willing to update it." -- User:Doc James.

Another example to Coeliac disease

Doc James adds the video to Coeliac disease, which is a featured article. -- User:Doc James
Video removed by BallenaBlanca and discussion started on talk Talk:Coeliac disease/Archive 5#Coeliac disease video "I do not agree with the inclusion of this video...I repeat, these "old ideas" are “very dangerous” and the reason which most celiacs remain unrecognized, undiagnosed and untreated. So I removed this video" -- User:BallenaBlanca
Video restored without discussion or gaining consensus "lets see if they are willing to update the video based on the concerns you have raised" -- User:Doc James
Video again removed by BallenaBlanca and discussion continues on talk.
User:OsmoseIt says "The target audience of our videos is for medical students" and "We'll implement your feedback in our next revision of the video."
video restored again by Doc James "It is still useful content" -- User:Doc James
Video moved out of the lede by BallenaBlanca "This video is the same version, it was not improved. I do not agree its inclusion in the page as it is; if we let it, at least should not be in the lede, I think it has to be left in Pathophysiology section until it is updated." -- User:BallenaBlanca

So we now have content created by a private organisation that cannot be removed by any editor with concerns about its content. Instead the video is forcibly, and without discussion or consensus, restored to the article by edit warring, with just a promise that this third-party will at some point update it.

There are nearly 300 of these videos added to many of the major medical article topics. In addition to the Canadian User:OsmoseIt, another editor User:Tannermarshall is involved, of which we know nothing. But the biggest player here is Canadian User:Doc James. I can find no discussion at WP:MED where Osmosis is discussed as a possible project the community might approve of. Yet the material is added with edit summary "Videos have been released under a CC BY SA license and uploaded as part of a partnership between Osmosis.org and meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. I can find no mention of Osmosis at meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis page was created by Doc James "We are working with Osmosis to create medical videos under a CC BY SA license." That project page contains almost no discussion -- these videos are not in fact being reviewed by the project or community prior to being added to articles by Doc James. I must conclude that the "we" is Doc James, and not WP:MED nor the Wikipedia community.

While the project to create and add these videos may appear well intentioned, this is not IMO, what Wikipedia is. Would we accept it if our history articles embedded documentaries from the History Channel? Or our current affairs articles contain vidoes by Fox News? A CC BY SA licence, and an educational purpose is not sufficient reason to embed content from private third parties. Wikipedia is being privatised and collaborative editing denied. -- Colin°^Talk 10:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If they were well done, presented the consensus of scholarly opinion, and made available free, why wouldn't we? I checked the dispute on coeliac. I'm at a loss to understand what "danger" BallenaBlanca is talking about. The video is a reasonable description of coeliac as I understand it, as a late diagnosed patient. Obviously BallenaBlanca has a different view, but this is completely mainstream, and one thing that is dangerous is rejecting mainstream content in Wikipedia medical articles because we have a different view. I don't know if BallenaBlanca is medically qualified (Doc James is). Guy (Help!) 12:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you like it, User:JzG, then sure, link to it as an external link. Doc James is not an expert on Coeliac disease, and since when did we start dismissing editors because they don't publicise their qualifications or are lay. As a lay editor with a Featured Article (Ketogenic diet) I find that rather offensive. But let's imagine you are a medical authority on Coeliac disease. So, exactly how, on this collaboratively-edited encyclopaedia, are you going to edit any mistakes you find, or if you wish to update this in a year's time with the latest consensus advice? And which part of WP:V allows us to replace-in-video-format article content but not apply any sourcing policies? -- Colin°^Talk 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, User:JzG, User:BallenaBlanca's talk page states "I am a Doctor in Medicine. Gastroenterology Specialist." So not only are your comments on their medical status inappropriate on an encyclopaedia which, last time I checked, didn't require a "MD" after the user's name to be able to edit, but they are also wrong. If we believe the statements made by both these individuals on their qualifications, then Doc James is totally out of his depth, as usual. But fundamentally Wikipedia discussions are not settled on the qualifications (or lack) of editors, but on the sources used to justify article text. In this case, we neither have article text nor sources. It is the anti-Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Park your hysteria, please. I said I didn't know if BB is medically qualified. That is televant simply because medical articles are a magnet for lay activists. As I said, I see nothing dangerous about this content. It seems mainstream to me. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG, you are dealing with this as though it is a content dispute. Concentrating on whether one particular video is mostly OK isn't the point. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I am looking at one of the examples you cited, which is a subject that is important to me (as an adult-diagnosed coeliac), and not seeing any problem. Free content that fairly represents a mainstream view of the subject, does not appear to be a problem to me. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Inserting any video or other media content into an article is a question of whether there is consensus for inserting it or not on the article discussion page, not of the professional qualifications or prior endeavors of the editors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This page never fails to provide regular doses of hilarity. I am in stitches (ha!) at the sight of an amateur encyclopedia author criticizing the lack of medical expertise of an actual doctor. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I know it seems strange, but the problems are based on and evidenced with citations to the most recent, highest quality reliable sources-- focused on content. Problem being the videos don't have to (and don't) meet WP:MEDRS (or even WP:RS). Presumably, when you need a specialist, you go to one rather than a GP, because no one has time to keep up with every medical specialty and all of the publications. Nor should they try to! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: did you read the talk page discussion at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)? Here it is again. They do not present, in that case, the minimum of consensus of scholarly opinion. On the two of two I have checked, they have real errors. There is remarkably clear medical consensus on DLB, that was well established before the video was inserted, and which they apparently were unaware of. (Neither was Doc James, based on the effort it took to get him to understand the issue with REM sleep behavior disorder in that article, its lead, and its infobox.)

There was one installed at FA Tourette syndrome until a few days ago; it is now at tic disorders, but still has issues even in that article. After years of carefully keeping the POV wording, "suffers from" out of the TS articles, there it is, along with an inaccurate description of tics. The medical consensus DSM-5 criteria for TS most clearly states that not all people with TS "suffer" -- there is no significant distress or impairment requirement. Similar to DLB, Doc James is defending these videos without in-depth knowledge of the topic.

So, in three cases demonstrated here now, editors who have in-depth knowledge of the sources on a specific topic are trying to explain to people who don't have in-depth knowledge of those topics why these videos don't belong in our articles. Wikipedia editors have to engage in a dispute (that apparently involves edit warring) to remove an inaccurate video from an external source, indeed, a source that has products for sale and no about us information on their website to establish their reliability. This is COI paid editing with every video providing a website link to their shops with products for sale. I am more troubled that there seems to be no en.Wikipedia discussion about these videos, and yet they are being systematically installed on medical articles by one editor. Not seeing the hysteria from Colin that you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:MEDRS. You will see that, "well done, presented the consensus of scholarly opinion, and made available free" is nothing like as restrictive as MEDRS is. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been mentioned in this thread, so I will give my humble opinion. I can not delve into aspects that I do not know about Wikipedia and other nuances that probably escape me due to a language barrier. But I will do it from the point of view of the collaborative experience with Doc James and from the medical point of view (yes, as mentioned, I am a doctor, specialist in Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine).

The attacks on Doc James sadden me. I think he is one of the most honest people I know and I admire his selfless work. He is doing an impressive job to facilitate access to clear and understandable medical information to the lay public in all corners of the world, including the offline Wikipeida Medical project, in which I collaborated putting my tiny grain of sand. I think he is a collaborative and neutral editor. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not at all, but it is always a work in cooperation and harmony. I have no doubt about his honesty.

As for the videos, I've seen a couple of them in depth and they have not convinced me. The example that has been mentioned on celiac disease: it would have been a good video a few dozen years ago, not with the current knowledge. I accomplished that they updated a part, but not others that are of fundamental importance. I am annoyed with the user OsmoseIt. I have agreed to keep the video on the page, although in another section, during the time necessary to update it, otherwise I think it should be removed. Two years have passed and I'm still waiting for his answer and he fulfill what was promised. As you can see in the conversation, I took the trouble and the time to explain the wrong points in detail, facilitating current MEDRS references. I do not accept that the video is not improved because it requires a lot of time of work (we will have to dedicate the time that it takes, to have mediocre information and mediocre videos we already have hundreds of websites and videos on Youtube): "To give some perspective, making edits to these videos does not take 2 seconds. The edit we made on your suggestion took a couple of hours of work --OsmoseIt" or because "We feel your other suggestions are an expansion of the scope of the video, beyond what we want to cover for our target audience. --OsmoseIt". This is Wikipedia and we have to comply with Wikipedia policies and objectives, not Osmosis team objetives.

These are the great inconveniences that I see in these videos. The idea is good, but they seem prepared without a suitable specialized supervision and are considered "closed". I could only agree with the firm commitment to update them continuously, basing the information on verifiable current MEDRS sources and listening to the objections / proposals of the other Wikpedia editors, just as we do with the text of the pages. Otherwise, I do not consider them appropriate for Wikipedia, nor as external links (by the way, nor intended for students ...). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Some years ago, Jimmy Wales was pleased to announce that the medical fraternity wanted to become more active on Wikipedia. They would import good, reliable, encyclopedic information. What have we ended up with ? A torrent of subliminal advertising ! I agree with JW on most things but this paid for activity has got to stop.Aspro (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this issue was not raised on WT:MED before being brought here. Looie496 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Looie496, there isn't actually a medical aspect to this issue. It is fundamental to what Wikipedia is. But it would be been nice if WP:MED had even discussed these videos on wiki or with the wider community. -- Colin°^Talk 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  - I am seeing it more broadly as a COI issue, in which Doc James is involved with furthering paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    - What you are seeing is the equivalent of Doc James supporting a WiR, as he does for many Wikipedians in Residences and educational efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagine you have worked on an article and taken it to Featured Article status like Tourette syndrome (another example article where Doc James edit warrs over the video). Every sentence is professional-level prose. Every fact sourced. The topic is comprehensively covered in text. Then someone plants a block of text in your lead with a big box round it. The block is titled "Content created by Osmosis". The bold Comic Sans font paragraph covers much of the article topic, but is written for medical students. It gets a few things wrong and out-of-date along the way. It ends with Facebook and Twitter links to Osmosis. Well, you'd be upset and want to either remove or edit it. But when you press the Edit button you get told your edit is denied. Instead you get a web form where you may submit change requests to Osmosis. After describing the problem in the box, you are thanked for your help in improving Osmosis and promised your comments will be taken into consideration for the next version of the video. Whenever that might be.

Wikipedia -- from wiki meaning quick, and encyclopaedia, meaning not YouTube. I should be able to edit the article and quickly change it. I cannot do this If someone embeds an entire article in video format, it can become WP:OWNED by a private organisation. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Colin's comment above, it does seem that having a block of embedded content that – practically speaking – can't be modified by anyone except the original uploader is difficult to reconcile with the wiki ethos.

Placing a block of content in the middle of a Wikipedia article that credits an external agency at the beginning and end of the video, and rolls credits naming several contributors at the end, also violates the spirit of WP:WATERMARK and MOS:CREDITS. It highlights that this material isn't really Wikipedia article content, it's just an interstitial ad. (Having watched the video on Lewy body dementia just now, it might as well have ended with Ask your doctor if donepezil is right for you!)

At best, the content in these videos is simply a recapitulation of content that should already be present in the articles. This is functionally a way to circumvent the guidance of WP:ELNO—by uploading their privileged, (practically) unmodifiable content to Commons, they are able to paste their preferred video articles straight into the body of Wikipedia pages. If the videos were hosted externally, we wouldn't link to them at all, as they "...[do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page."

As an aside, Osmosis' use of a round logo with muted blue-green-red color palette is sufficiently reminiscent of the Wikimedia Foundation logo that I actually went to check whether there was an official link between the organizations. While I expect that they're sufficiently distinct for trademark law purposes, I found the design choice to be uncomfortably suggestive, especially as it appears at the beginning and end of each video. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of donepezil, I am slowly working through the DLB article (which was awful), and have not yet gotten to the Management section (or Causes, Pathology, and a few others-- the article was horribly outdated). When I have finished updating the page (need at least another week), I will take issue with other things in that video. Yes, I agree this is an ELNO problem; I don't want to see us furthering the interests of this org, even in External links. And I agree that we need to address videos at WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. It is good to include these as external links (similarly to how The Periodic Table of Videos is included at Osmium), but presenting them as they currently appear at Epilepsy isn't acceptable. It promotes "Osmosis" and is in a location where "wiki" content that anybody can edit is expected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Colin nice job climbing the Reichstag. Like most who do that, your post misrepresents the situation. You write that there has been no discussion. This is not true - they were discussed here -- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_76#Videos -- and several other times as well as this search shows. Your behavior here is reprehensible. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, would you believe me if I said that I did not see that discussion in my search results? Perhaps not. Anyway, that discussion involved very few editors not already linked to Osmosis. Such as User:Soupvector who claims he "helped their founders with Osmosis during its early days". The other discussions are quite superficial. -- Colin°^Talk 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  - I believe that you came at this emotionally and half-cocked, and the result was a thoroughly incompetent posting. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jyt, while your tone is unhelpful, that initial discussion is. The problems with these videos were expressed early on by multiple medical editors, and installed on "consensus" of a minority. Why did the project go forward? Also, a reminder about local consensus; this is not only a medical article issue-- it is one that should concern anyone who cares about COI in paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, that red link raised flags, so I went to check if I needed to file an SPI. No, but the first edit summary is of interest to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your attack on Doc James above is horrible, and noted. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting to see the Doc James contributions here. When newbie User:Chrisbospher added the words "for profit" to clarify Osmosis's position as a company, he was reverted and taken to ANI. Doc James claimed "The group doing medical videos at Khan has split off and formed an organization called Osmosis" User:OsmoseIt writes on Commons "We are not a spin-off of Khan Academy. Could you point me to where you saw that we were? If that's written anywhere then that is indeed a mistake and I'll fix it, but to my knowledge we've never claimed to be a KA spin-off." So, we have false and misleading information being corrected and improved by a newbie who is then sent for punishment at ANI. The user is dismissed as "someone with an axe to grind" and "only here for one purpose—to have the extremely useful medical videos deleted" and "The claims of "free advertising/marketing tool" are obviously over-the-top". Well perhaps Jytdog if you could stop worshiping the WP:MED deity for a moment, you might think that perhaps uneditable content owned by a private for-profit corporation on all our medical articles, may well simply be freemium teasers for their subscription material. -- Colin°^Talk 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You want to go yet further making wild claims and alienating everybody, knock yourself out. Almost everything you have written here is half-wrong and tilted. I will not be responding to you further, as you appear to be too hysterical to reason with. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this help clarify your stance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it news to you that I work on paid editing and COI issues a lot? My thoughts on those issues are very clear. They are also not black and white. There is always context and the context-less framing that both you and Colin have put on this is sloppy at best and just ugly at worst. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

At Talk:Breastfeeding#Inaccuracies_in_video four months ago, I brought up problems with accuracy, sourcing (i.e. no sourcing), editability (i.e. not community-editable), and excessive advertising in the Osmosis video for the Breastfeeding article.

To focus on one of the inaccuracies, the video claims that "Breast milk contains all the nutrients a baby needs for its first year." The overwhelming consensus among health organizations is that this is not the case, and solids should be gradually introduced starting at around six months. Introducing solid foods too late (which is tempting for parents because solids are a hassle) leads to poor growth, anemia, and feeding problems. [34].

So here we have content in a Wikipedia article that contradicts medical consensus, would foreseeably harm small children, and is not reliably sourced by WP:MEDRS standards. What would you do about that content? (Note: Gandydancer removed the video earlier today, so this is a hypothetical question unless she is reverted.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We now have five or six (?) examples already of videos that don't reflect easily known medical consensus, with several examples now of edit warring to retain them. This is paid COI editing at its worst. How do we go about removing all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure SandyGeorgia, Doc James is corporate shill. There are issues with the videos but you are so busy slathering on resentful garbage that the actual issues cannot be discussed. What a sloppy campaigner you have become. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, Colin et al. Yes, the section title is over the top, and yes, that made that it took me longer to make up my mind.

Bit worried about Jytdog personalising the dispute to such a degree.

Re. SandyGeorgia on how to address this most efficiently: WP:COIN? List there, in a new section, editors involved with the organisation that produces these videos, and the articles where these videos were (initially) placed by such editors. Don't know whether consensus would be straightforward on that noticeboard, but doesn't seem impossible. A further step could be that henceforth such videos can not be placed in Wikipedia articles without prior talk page consensus (and certainly not placed by editors with a COI w.r.t. the organisation that produces them). Seems fine to keep these videos at commons though, reachable with a click on the commons link under "in other projects" in the left margin. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Francis thanks for your comments. I don't think such videos should be embedded in Wikipedia at all, no matter who wrote them or paid for them. It really doesn't fit our model for article development or policies for sourcing and editing content. Wrt the section title, there are 300 of these videos covering many of the major topics in medical articles. Today's YouTube generation are likely to watch the video and not read the article. So I think "hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation" is quite accurate. -- Colin°^Talk 20:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Francis Schonken my thoughts on the video issue are here at WT:MED. This is not some big crisis. What is going on here, is just Colin and SandyGeorgia grinding axes.

This whole thread was kicked off by Colin who is very, very invested in the epilepsy article and it is the video there that kicked off his having a cow over this.

if you read carefully through this you will see both SandyGeorgia and Colin actually targeting Doc James and work he has been doing through the WPMED Foundation to make content available in the developing world - which includes concentrating on the leads of articles about health, getting them translated, and including video content in the lead, which are then all packaged onto cheap hard drives connected to wifi beacons and shipped all over the place.

both colin and sandygeorgia are grinding axes that have little to do with the issue at hand - which again, is not a crisis. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you convey what you have to say without personalising? As written, drenched in ad hominem, it has zero impact on how I came to think about this issue. This also has nothing to do with Doc James and his work. Commons is far more international than English-language Wikipedia, so if left the choice I'd choose commons as a vehicle for these videos, not a Wikipedia in a particular language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is only typical reichstag-climbing. I posted my careful thoughts on the issue in the link I provided you above, again here. This "discussion" is invalid from the section-header onwards and should go no where. It is just an effort to mobilize drastic action by skewing the issues and leaving out key aspects. I am posting here only to call out the bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read that. Screams "Commons!" to me, not "Wikipedia!". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As I wrote there I look at the video thing with askance and I do not have the know-how to participate in editing them (like I don't have the know-how to edit templates in lua, for example). It is also not clear to me if having videos that are ~~recapitulating the textual WP:LEAD(this is actually what they are)~~ intended to serve as an AV equivalent of the LEAD, is a good thing or a bad thing , but there is no room for an actual discussion of that, the way this discussion has been framed and prosecuted by its protagonists. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

A kind of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia 2.0 then (for a limited set of articles, only involving the lead section, but with imagery). Still rather something I would link to (at Commons) instead of using them as a sort of second lead image. I've looked at one now: with the publicity at the start and at the end they should be removed from Wikipedia on sight, with a stern warning (if not more) to those who ever thought it a good idea to place them with these characteristics in an article lead section. If used as a thumbnail image (which I think they should never) the caption should be clearer on what one is clicking in to ("video explaining..." doesn't cut it for me). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I am curious why you say these videos are "recapitulating the textual lead", because that is not the case in any instance I have looked at. If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary to sit through the whole thing(s) to uncover all errors. Do you have an example where this was the case, and do you know if that changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

My sense is that this is the intention -- to serve as an AV version of the lead. I did not mean "take the words written in the lead and videoize them". I meant "provide the AV equivalent of the LEAD". This is kind of an interesting idea to me. Whether the execution of the collaboration is done well or poorly, and whether there is too much benefit for the collaboration partner, are all things that can be discussed, and do not need reichstag climbing in order to discuss. There were other things I wanted to do on content, but instead i have been dealing with this drama/bullshit. There is no crisis. This can be worked through calmly. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I get a very different sense from the ones I have seen-- the one now parked at tic disorder is trying to combine various articles (TS, tic and tic disorder). I think. OK, so could we now start discussing real content issues, and real issues that drain editor time and prevent us from working on content ? I guess I am not going to finish treatment at DLB today after all :( Which was my goal, since I pick up five more reviews tomorrow at the clinic. I have as much time at DLB into dealing with issues similar to this in the lead, as I have editing. I hope you might consider that getting WP:MED to focus on content as we very clearly once did is ... relentlessly discouraging. For the person who "founded" MEDRS, and worked a very long time to get it through, I hope you understand Colin's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please cut the "Reichstag" and "drama" and whatnot which you keep repeating? As unhelpful as the "hijacked" in the section title. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What I will do is stop commenting here. There is a discussion going on at WT:MED and one is enough for me. I think I have beat my particular horse quite to death here, as you noted. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jyt, could you please calm down the rhetoric? Doc James is not a paid editor; the Osmosis guy is. But Doc James is open to the claim that he is acting on their behalf by edit warring this content in (prior to this discussion, I was unaware that was happening on so many articles). As to sloppy-- this is a huge distraction. I am trying to write an article. Could we keep our priorities, and the discussion, focused on how these videos impact content (and the editors who try to improve it)? There is a clear example at Talk:DLB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken, I am wondering if an RFC to get them all removed at Commons might be a better option. But I know nothing of how Commons works, and am more interested right now in trying to finish working on one of the articles where this came up :) It is really hard to focus on dozens of secondary reviews with this issue overshadowing. Thanks for the suggestion, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about commons: as said, if asked the question, I'd probably keep them there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, they are valid content for Commons, but not Wikipedia. Some editors, I think, have focused too much on "ooh free educational medical videos" and totaly forgotten what Wikipedia actual is. -- Colin°^Talk 20:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Meta-discussion, not fun to read
You and Colin are the ones climbing the reichstag and flaming everything. I am calling you out on that sloppy garbage. Both of you. What resentful people you are. Neither of you do anything here for months and months and then you show up screaming bloody murder about all the work that other people are doing. If you want to improve content then do it. Neither of you have come anywhere even close to addressing why these videos were being added. What you have written here is sloppy, lazy, resentful garbage. I do not respect any one of those things. Jimmy's page is the last refuge of scoundrels and campaigners in WP. We see this every day. That is what you've become. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I will ask you again to tone down the personal aspects you are bringing to this discussion, remind you that quite a few editors besides Colin and me have raised the same concern (see discussion at WT:MED), and ... gah ... you got me, I have been such a slouch at editing lately! Jyt, one tries to improve content,and is derailed by this sort of thing; it's most discouraging. Perhaps you aren't aware of just how we lost Colin (without whom, we would not have WP:MEDRS today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Your call for "civility" is entirely fake, when what you and Colin are doing with this pseudo-crisis reichstag-climbing is just personal ax-grinding. There is no crisis and neither of you have dealt with any nuance in the discussion of these issues. What you are doing here is bullshit - speech intended to persuade without regard for truth, which I am calling you out on, and clearly so. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Meta-discussion, not fun to read

You and Colin are the ones climbing the reichstag and flaming everything. I am calling you out on that sloppy garbage. Both of you. What resentful people you are. Neither of you do anything here for months and months and then you show up screaming bloody murder about all the work that other people are doing. If you want to improve content then do it.

Neither of you have come anywhere even close to addressing why these videos were being added. What you have written here is sloppy, lazy, resentful garbage. I do not respect any one of those things. Jimmy's page is the last refuge of scoundrels and campaigners in WP. We see this every day. That is what you've become. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I will ask you again to tone down the personal aspects you are bringing to this discussion, remind you that quite a few editors besides Colin and me have raised the same concern (see discussion at WT:MED), and ... gah ... you got me, I have been such a slouch at editing lately! Jyt, one tries to improve content,and is derailed by this sort of thing; it's most discouraging. Perhaps you aren't aware of just how we lost Colin (without whom, we would not have WP:MEDRS today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your call for "civility" is entirely fake, when what you and Colin are doing with this pseudo-crisis reichstag-climbing is just personal ax-grinding. There is no crisis and neither of you have dealt with any nuance in the discussion of these issues. What you are doing here is bullshit - speech intended to persuade without regard for truth, which I am calling you out on, and clearly so. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Break 2

One thing in all of this is certain — this is not going to be settled by arguing on Jimbo Talk. If the videos are such an issue then a couple of editors who familiar with the issue, say @SandyGeorgia and Doc James:, should put together a site wide RfC on whether to include these in articles. Placing these in many articles is a question for the community. Even before we get to the issues of accuracy there is the question of giving Osmosis privileged positioning for their content when there is no evidence of a formal relationship with Wikipedia. At the very least the Osmosis banner needs to be edited out but, I assume that can be done by anyone with a video editor. Jbh^Talk 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jbhunley, in my experience, Wikipedia and Commons are often too quick to make a proposal and then get people voting. That tends to polarise comments and focus too much on any flaws with one solution. The discussion was only opened today and it covers multiple areas of policy: COI, paid editing, proxy editing, sourcing of videos, appropriateness of long videos covering entire article topics, inability to edit videos in a wiki manner, edit warring, bullying. Perhaps there are several possible RFC's. I think they need to be proposed by someone capable of neutrality and discussion prior to making any community proposal. Someone experienced with creating policy and getting consensus. I don't think Doc James is at all appropriate for that job. Nor do I wish it. -- Colin°^Talk 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  - @Colin: Hmmm... I can see that. I was thinking of being able to get buy in from both camps but you are probably right that things are already too polarized. The reason I think getting a community wide RfC up is it, hopefully, get a resolution process started before the dispute spreads. I can see the problem with kicking off a poorly considered one in the heat of the moment too.
    I would suggest first addressing where these videos conflict with site-wide policies like RS and V. There is also the question of giving Osmosis a privileged position at Wikipedia. As it stands there are two root issues 1) the Osmosis banner in the video is spammy and, since there are so many articles with the videos, appears to be a Wikipedia endorsement of Osmosis. 2) the videos provide narrative information which is impossible to verify which may contradict information in the article. I would think that these would have failed MEDRS out of the gate and I am extremely concerned that some of our to medical editors seem not to apply the same rigor to the information in these videos as they do to what is in the article. The people most at risk from bad information in the article are the same group who would be turning to these videos to get medical information. Jbh^Talk 20:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    - - Jbhunley, just for the record, for anyone unfamiliar with who I am, since I don't edit here much any more, I created WP:MEDRS in 2006 and pushed it to an official guideline. So, yes, to see WP:MED support medical content that is entirely unsourced, never mind poorly sourced, is most grieving to me. -- Colin°^Talk 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    - @Jbhunley:, thanks for measured responses. I don't see concern for the dispute spreading, but a neutrally framed RFC is needed. Most of the medical editors who have weighed in on this discussion here and at WT:MED are quite experienced editors, and I don't see any risk that many of us are going to go around deleting the videos without consensus (previous edit-warring aside, which will hopefully cease). Since multiple issues have been raised on various pages about all of the various policies and guidelines and aspects of Wikipedia editing that are in play here (I am thinking also of ELNO, MOS:IMAGES, MEDRS, V, RS, WP:WIAFA, and others) an RFC should be drafted, but first with careful discussion of all of the pieces in play. I do not know how much I can participate; I have a medical situation in my family, and edit as I am able to get sources while I am at the hospital. Things change by the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      - Being neither a medical editor, nor a writer of RfCs, I think that the issue could be addressed with a two-part RfC question:
        Should long form videos, included in articles and purporting to cover the topic or part of the topic of the article, be subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.
        If not all policies and guidelines should they be required to meet sourcing guidelines like WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:ORGIND?

To me the answer is a no-brainer. Anything which purports to represent a topic on Wikipedia must meet our content policies and guidelines. Once that is established it becomes the responsibility to whomever wants to produce such a video to come up with a format. As far as the Osmosis videos go I would suggest that if they are ultimately allowed that the producers be asked to upload versions without the Osmosis branding. If they decline then either a separate RfC on the applicability to ELNO to these videos or simply encourage editors to go through all of the videos and remove the Osmosis branding. They are, after all, freely licensed and if a great hew and cry were raised the arguement that they were spam becomes very strong. Jbh ^Talk 22:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As a not-anonymous physician-professor who volunteers here with the intent of contributing in concert with others, and having been a pretty severe critic of Osmosis, I really don't appreciate what I perceive to be Colin's veiled aspersions cast above about a COI I might have with Osmosis (at the time they were students they did not tell me of their commercialization plans, and I can assure you that I did not receive a dime or equity). More than others at the time, I was quite critical of the idea of posting these videos - for many of the reasons stated above (proprietary, promotional, un-editable); I sunk hours into editing the Google Docs they posted (after unsuccessfully arguing that the scripts should be in Talk/sandbox space); ultimately, I did think that the ones generated collaboratively were a net positive but likely to become stale. I stuck to content in my area of medical/scientific expertise. I am not sure anyone did more (critical) editing of scripts than I did - but at some point I lost interest because I felt that I was going it alone, and I really did not feel that it was a collaborative effort (and I'm busy). I don't find the tone of the discussion above collegial, FWIW, which may be relevant to those who wonder why it's hard to recruit/retain academic editors. — soupvector (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- soupvector, thanks for clarifying your position. I don't think my words "that discussion involved very few editors not already linked to Osmosis. Such as User:Soupvector who claims he 'helped their founders with Osmosis during its early days'" were "veiled aspersions cast" as you were open about your link, which is all I stated. The discussion did not bring many fresh eyes from WP:MED and certainly did not involve the wider community deciding that getting a private organisation to redo wikipedia articles as videos embedded in the lead was a good idea. -- Colin°^Talk 21:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  - Thanks for clarifying. The phrase "redo wikipedia articles as videos" seems overstated - these videos did not replace content, simply sat alongside. I think the format is not a good fit for WP for the reasons many have given, but "redo" seems intentionally provocative/territorial. There are many learning styles, and at their best these videos seem like a net positive; I would certainly prefer content of this quality that can be edited collaboratively and that is entirely non-promotional. — soupvector (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    - soupvector, I am struggling to find an alternative than "redo" for content that covers exactly the same topic scope, but in a different format (video). It isn't even all visual in the video, with loads of text in webm. Yes, a major issue is that video documentaries cannot be collaboratively edited in a wiki fashion. Even if the technology existed, one would almost certainly need a computer generated narration, because humans do not all sound alike or talk alike. Can you imagine if a reader had to listen to all the editors of an article read the word's they had contributed. -- Colin°^Talk 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate this discussion and, FWIW, offer my uninvolved perspective. I am not a medical professional at any level, just an amateur encyclopedia author and avid reader. I do not see hysteria in Colin's presentation. I do see capitulation in aspersion based rebuttals like "climbing the Reichstag", "thoroughly incompetent posting", and the incipient regurgitation of the hysterical label. Nothing says "my argument is weak" more clearly than these fallacies of relevance. Aesthetically, the video's presentation is poor and they are a considerable distraction as a lead element. Especially if you enlarge your text, as I do, to compensate failing vision (the media's frame quickly becomes hugely disproportionate, and its lack of a meaningful caption defies even its own unclear purpose. I resent the island mentality that this issue is the provenance of WikiProject Medicine. The silver lining I see in this grey cloud is that Osmosis may have single handedly ended the infobox war, but the ante and stakes have also been raised. The ensuing cause, however, will not be called lame.--John Cline (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Inhouse

Is there no funding for us to make theses vids? Don't think we would need to ask for much cash.....some cash for hosting software so Wikipedia editors could collaborate on making videos of this nature. Having a third party doing this no matter who they are looks bias on our part.--Moxy (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, while we have enormous content problems in biomedical and health articles, I am seeing it is increasingly difficult for editors on Wikipedia to actually work on improving content, as they are distracted by issues like this (and several others) that are taking over medical articles. I am sorry to see so much editing time taken by these videos, which should be an easy delete based on all of our policies and guidelines. I would be more sorry to see even a bigger drain placed on our content by editors instead working on videos that create a difficult WP:V and WP:MEDRS issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would think It would bring in a new set of editors (those interested in regurgitating content in video format) vs our content editors....I for one don't have an interest in making vids....but millions out there who have zero interest in writing may take up this torch. --Moxy (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the problem as those editors who seem to "have zero interest in writing ... [have already taken] up this torch". Distractions like this one take valuable editor time away from actually working on our Wikipedia content. Efforts at WP:MED are increasingly off-en.wikipedia focused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So let's bring it back home...take control...get the Graphics lab involved etc.. Let's propose solutions over walls of text about the problem. We have thousands of editors that do noting but mess around with non-content stuff. Let's put out a call to action.--Moxy (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is we already have too many people involved who are not topic experts, not up-to-snuff on recent high-quality reviews required for sourcing medical articles, so medical misinformation is being spread. I would be happy to have no further distraction to attempts to improve written content. Writing medical articles is hard; what these video problems all have in common is that people are making and spreading them without thorough knowledge of the topics or sources. Let's not encourage more of same! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes we should all go away and let you and Colin do everything. Everyone else is clearly a biased idiot or paid shill. Jytdog (talk 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tolerated you and your resentful, defensive, abusive juvenile discourse until now because (as Sandy mentions above) there are so few people willing to work on Wikipedia health content: I figured it was better having you here doing it than us having one less editor. I've changed my mind on that. I know one good editor who won't edit Wikipedia medical articles because of you. If you go, you'll probably be replaced by a much warmer, more respectful, more intelligent editor. So, yep, you should go away, or learn some manners and respect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, while creating the content by volunteers would remove some of the issues, it still remains a fundamental problem that this content is not editable and yet is extensive enough to cover whole article topics, rather than illustrate a single point with visual. I have raised concerns about the lack of sourcing for any of these videos at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. It seems to me that once one goes beyond illustrating a fact or two, the leeway that we give to images wrt WP:V becomes a problem. Wikipedia is a project where editors collaborate to produce articles. And one where anyone can edit easily and quickly. By offering the article in video format, a single user can subvert our policies and editing model, and demand an all-or-nothing approach to its inclusion. While such videos may be acceptable to Commons, they aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Perhaps there is room for another free-content project where videographers collaborate to produce educational videos, but that isn't Wikipedia, and the output seems more appropriate for YouTube than a hyperlinked fundamentally text-based encyclopaedia. -- Colin°^Talk 20:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid using images to convey text? "Moving images" should probably follow the rule (or one similar to it) too, I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Don't replace the entire article topic with a video :-) -- Colin°^Talk 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is BS. Not one article has been replaced by video.

Speaking about distracting medical editors. Gah we have user Colin bringing unfounded statements to half a dozen places.

That user has made at most a couple of dozen edits to Wikipedia articles in the last two years! With two, yes that is correct two edits having been to a medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You might think about that, Doc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than spreading conversation out across more places I have provided a more detailed response here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've read all this with great interest and I am reflecting on it. For me, the allegations about COI and "a torrent of subliminal advertising" require a lot more evidence, as I don't really see it. A charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license is a good thing. On the other hand, I do think there are interesting (and hard) questions about what happens if such a video has errors or ambiguities or could in any way be improved, since it's quite hard for editors to actually do that with a video. (Text is wonderfully fluid, video is much more frozen in form.)

There is also a valid question about the style of the videos, which is super casual. The first line of the 'pneumonia' video goes like this: "Alright, so checkout this dude,..." Not really an ideal match for Wikipedia's style.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

subliminal advertising is the art of not making it obvious. I dare guess that you are more more able than most editors to see through to the gist. But having a background in sales and advertising, I suggest your read a 'very old book' : by Edward Bernays. He wrote our bible and was a marketing genius. For instance, he persuaded women the that could be seen smoking cigarettes in public in a time during the 1930's when it was not approved (to promotes sales) and regretted later in life that he doubled the the lung cancer rates. Read the book and then tell me me if medical ~~orthodox~~ marketing knowledge is not doing the same in 2018. I was formally in a world where we earned our salaries by pulling the wool over other peoples eyes. You are in the position where you can get easy access to consult and chin-wag with professors of medicine who have no affiliations to any 'for profit organizations'. WP values proof but after speaking to those that know, you might have some other thoughts about the policing (by a few very active editors) of proof , evidence, and reliability as it applies to WP- if you know what I mean. Aspro (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrt "A charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license is a good thing." such material belongs on Commons. Also I don't see the distinction between a private charitable foundation and a private commercial organisation. Both may have goals that do not align with ours. For example, these videos are originally designed to train American medical students, and that is their goal and interest. That does not align with our goal of educating the general readership and an international audience. There is a conflict of interest there, never mind any possible bias or censorship that the foundation may impose on its authors. Wikipedia is only collaboratively edited at the level of text, and is only verifiable via in-text citations, and can only meet its CC obligations for documenting authorship and modification history via textual means. Commons, where these videos are hosted, is not a collaboratively edited project. They just don't fit Wikipedia. There may be a place for them elsewhere in the WMF family. WikiVideo? WikiTube? -- Colin°^Talk 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the super-casual tone, which is also typically a cheerful, almost sing-songy tone, I agree it's not appropriate for Wikipedia's style. It's also inappropriate for the content and audience, given that the narrator is often talking about distressing medical conditions that are currently causing suffering to the viewer or their loved ones. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Enforce the usual watermark policy

We are Wikipedia, which means we are thieves and proud of it, because we serve the People. If we take an old PD book from Google, we edit out their watermark, just because we don't like it. Obviously these leading and trailing logos, taking actual eyeball time, are something we *really* don't like, so the videos should be trimmed by any editor to remove that spammy and unwanted content. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup it is fairly easy to do. The beginning of the video from Osmosis was removed here to take this out. And we have updated that Wikipedia page to include the version without it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) A measured and neutral summary of the issue as always. Thanks, Wnt.

Knowledge Diffusion (the company) would really like to sell subscriptions to their service, Osmosis Prime (enjoy 1, 2, or 4 years for $209, $279, or $419* *best per-month value!). Sticking their Osmosis logo and credits up on videos that appear inline front and center on hundreds of Wikipedia's medical articles (the most-read information resource in the world) is quite the marketing coup.

I've contributed hundreds of thousands of words to Wikipedia over the years; I don't expect or insist that my sentences be separately set off with a TenOfAllTrades banner at the top and bottom. I understand and accept the terms under which I share my writing, images, and expertise with Wikipedia and the world. I don't see why we would change the nature of that relationship between Wikipedia and its contributors – or create, effectively, a new class of relationship for one particular contributor – just because Knowledge Diffusion wants to build brand recognition and sell subscriptions.

If KD doesn't want to release videos under a Wikipedia-compatible CC license because they can't be guaranteed a particular type of marketing opportunity, that's their choice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades as the videos are all under an open license we can remove the logo at the beginning. I will ask them to do that. We can also remove the credits at the end. And move credits to commons text.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

While the promotional logos represent one problem with the videos, it's not the only issue. (See concerns raised above and on WT:MED regarding editability, privileged position in articles, turnaround time and responsiveness in correcting errors, accessibility, tone, compatibility with Wikipedia's mission, etc.) Trying for a quick fix without doing some extensive community engagement and discussion (some of which will probably be uncomfortable) is not likely to resolve the community's concerns.

Incidentally, why are you, Doc James, acting as Wikipedia's representative and point of contact in all of this? I don't question your good faith, but it's not clear to me why you are the conduit we have to work through. Shouldn't there be a representative of Knowledge Diffusion and/or Osmosis who can directly engage with the Wikipedia community about their work? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: You make a good argument that this needs to be examined as a standard case of COI editing, not much different from music fansites adding links back to themselves or any other such case. However, that is the situation on Wikipedia. Videos could still be kept on Commons as useful free-licensed content, and edited by users there, and incorporated into Wikipedia articles by anyone without a conflict of interest under the usual bright-line rules. So I don't think a wholesale deletion is necessary -- provided that extraordinary claims about their non-editability made below are duly dismissed. Wnt (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades I have no formal relationship with Osmosis or Knowledge Diffusion and do not represent them in any manner. I do however generally consider their videos to be useful for our readers. And thus I generally supported adding them and still support keeping them (with modifications). I was involved with convincing them to use an open license and to upload their videos to Wikipedia starting back in 2015. I began this when one of there members (a pediatrician at Stanford) was still working part time at the Khan academy. That organization released three of their videos under an open license as you can see here Khan was not interested in releasing further videos under an open license however. When Osmosis formed they were much more interested in using open licenses and working with us. In these discussion I speak on my own behalf. Happy to ask them to respond here directly if people wish. Looks like some are simply push to remove the videos entirely though. This does not really require them to join in a discussion. Having them join a discussion is only required if people are interested in collaborating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And of course based on community consensus we may simple delete the entire lot of them if the community deems the issues to be so great as to be unfixable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, et al. Can folks remember that these files are hosted on Commons, not Wikipedia. Commons:Watermarks policy includes a serious warning "Legal issues with the removal of watermarks" (which includes prefix/postfix titles and credits and copyright notices) from WMF legal. Don't try this a home folks. When Doc James says "we can remove the logo" he is out of his depth, being neither a lawyer nor your lawyer. The correct approach is to ask the copyright holder to do it, or get explicit permission in writing. -- Colin°^Talk 19:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and I have spoke with them and they have agreed to remove both the front bumper and back bumper for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: It's up to Wikipedia users to ignore BULLSHIT LEGAL THREATS and just rework Wikipedia content to fit our needs. The claim you're making here is that when an organization, allegedly volunteering their help for us, submits free content directly to Wikipedia for our free use using a state-of-the-art "free license", that even then we don't get to play with that content unless we consult a lawyer and/or beg the authors to authorize any changes. If that is true then Wikipedia is already dead. I mean, there's really not even a POINT to it. Now I'm not denying that a government or a private organization or any scammer could attack Wikipedians; they could. But you're talking terrorism, terrorism imposed by legal means. People could do terrorism in return with knife, gun, and freon torch and it would be more legitimate an exercise of law. I think the lobbying for hidden spy watermarks in documents expressed at that essay is actually more dangerous than the present issue, because it is so diametrically opposite to all the ideas that Wikipedia holds dear -- even if we ignored that these will presumably be used to track and censor documents in the future in ways that we currently don't fully appreciate. Perhaps there is no human right but murder, no mercy but death, but I would hope this is not yet that day. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

we can remove the logo at the beginning. What a great "we", Doctor James ! Someone occupying a "community-selected" seat introduces a large set of documents that infringe the usual policies. And then conducts an edit war against people trying to remove the infringing documents. A wall of text later, what we have obtained is this great "we". But this "we" is rather unclear. One possible parsing is the imperial "we", meaning that Doctor James, by himself, will remove the offending watermarks before reintroducing these videos. Another parsing is "we=me+you", i.e. me and myself, the sitting trustee, have introduced the offending documents, and you, the standing pawns, are allowed to clean the watermarks (but not to clean the mess any further, since I like these videos). A more precise statement would be appreciated. Pldx1 (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

General issue of long article-topic videos

I have created the essay Wikipedia is not YouTube. As with all essays, it offers one viewpoint and set of opinions that isn't necessarily shared by the whole community and has no pretensions to represent consensus (yet!) Constructive edits to the essay by those who share some of the views/opinions expressed are welcome. Editors who have opposing views can rant on the talk page, if they can remain civil, or create their own essay. I would appreciate if big edits were discussed first. It is only a draft at present. -- Colin°^Talk 20:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussions at WPMED about the collaboration

Here are nine prior discussions over the last five years about this collaboration.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

An interesting read. About 15 editors total involved over 4 years. Not a single discussion or even proposal for an en.Wikipedia-wide discussion. One indication of understanding of the number of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or purpose being breached is when Jytdog brings up the WP:V problem at July 2015. It is hard to find any understanding in these discussions that Wikipedia exists beyond the walls of WT:MED. And yet these videos are installed in the leads of most medical FAs. Again, without even considering taking it to WT:FAC.

WP:V says

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

But to find the sources for verification, our readers (not all experienced wikipedia editors) need to know how to go to Commons. There, we find not all videos even meet the requirements above (e.g. page no). Many of us challenge a lot of this information. And not all sources meet MEDRS. It appears these videos are removable under WP:V even without going to a full community RFC, or at minimum, removable to the External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you read the discussions, there are complaints that these videos add nothing that isn't already in the article. -- Colin°^Talk 07:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The above links make it appear these videos have been properly discussed with the community. None of these discussions involve the wider Wikipedia community, reflecting a mindset at WP:MED that they own medical articles. The discussions generally involve a few editors. At most, you can say that a handful of those involved in the discussions where generally supportive, and a handful had concerns, which were not addressed.

Open here
Dec 4, 2013 James says Khan Academy are interesting in collaborating. There are no details of what sort of video would be created, but a link to a video on post impressionism is offered. The discussion involves just a few editors and is mostly concerned with the "Smarthistory" project and that if the material is -NC then we have to use external links rather than embed. James proposes Wikipedia should allow -NC so we can incorporate these privately produce videos. Aug 28, 2014 Asks about placement of videos, offers this SimpleShow video as an example. Only a few editors discussed again the problem with licencees. One editor mentioned the video was US-centric and not applicable internationally. James himself noted that "the difficult with video is that they are hard to edit collaboratively". Hmm, isn't that the point of Wikipedia. Nov 26, 2014 James asks which of Khan academy's videos they would like. Of the few comments, one said they did not see a benefit to embedding the video rather than external link. WP Zero is given as the reason. So here we have WP article content being driven by the needs of some outside project. Feb 8, 2015 Three videos from Khan academy added to three articles. Comment: "I don't think these videos add anything of value to our articles. The blood flow through the heart video is simply a repeat of what is stated or implied in the article. There's nothing of educational value that is not already described in detail in the main article. I would be more impressed if you could find a video of a cardiomyocyte beating in a petri dish or in vivo, or something similar that expands upon, rather than repeat, the information in the main text" and "The main issue I have with the Khan Academy is that they are neither a medical organization nor an academic publisher. As far as I know, none of their videos are peer-reviewed" July 5, 2015 Asks about thoughts on videos. "Video content is something that has been requested by many readers.", "But established editors basically hate videos: they're hard to make, hard to control, hard to edit, and hard to customize. And it's not one-size-fits-all: a good drawing can be used across most Wikipedias, and a good paragraph can be translated to any of them, but a good video may need to be re-created for every language and culture.", "I understand that readers may want more "how to" but that isn't what we are about here.... That said, I would be very happy to see an alliance with groups like the Harvard BioVisions group to systematically include their videos in articles - that group's animations on what goes on in cells are super cool and informative" Dec 24, 2015 First time Osmosis is mentioned. The video on liver fibrosis/cirrhosis is "clearly incorrect" and their process for "formal/transparent peer review and feedback" is questioned. "More generally, these videos have no explicit sourcing to MEDRS, they do not come from a recognized secondary source (this is a commercial entity, in fact)", "I've noted another error - in the leukemia video - on its talk page here. This one is more cosmetic, but the nature of the error makes me think that an expert couldn't have reviewed it carefully. "The need for reviews by experts was raised. Some positive comments but only a few participants. Feb 8 2016 Is just a request to review a script for a video. It is very clear that in fact nobody is reviewing these scripts or videos. Mar 23, 2016 Just jtdog praising Doc James. The "we are working with Osmosis" is telling. Who is "we? Not anybody here. Aug 30, 2017 Nothing to do with videos in articles. It is a "how to edit wikipedia" video.

Open here

Dec 4, 2013 James says Khan Academy are interesting in collaborating. There are no details of what sort of video would be created, but a link to a video on post impressionism is offered. The discussion involves just a few editors and is mostly concerned with the "Smarthistory" project and that if the material is -NC then we have to use external links rather than embed. James proposes Wikipedia should allow -NC so we can incorporate these privately produce videos.
Aug 28, 2014 Asks about placement of videos, offers this SimpleShow video as an example. Only a few editors discussed again the problem with licencees. One editor mentioned the video was US-centric and not applicable internationally. James himself noted that "the difficult with video is that they are hard to edit collaboratively". Hmm, isn't that the point of Wikipedia.
Nov 26, 2014 James asks which of Khan academy's videos they would like. Of the few comments, one said they did not see a benefit to embedding the video rather than external link. WP Zero is given as the reason. So here we have WP article content being driven by the needs of some outside project.
Feb 8, 2015 Three videos from Khan academy added to three articles. Comment: "I don't think these videos add anything of value to our articles. The blood flow through the heart video is simply a repeat of what is stated or implied in the article. There's nothing of educational value that is not already described in detail in the main article. I would be more impressed if you could find a video of a cardiomyocyte beating in a petri dish or in vivo, or something similar that expands upon, rather than repeat, the information in the main text" and "The main issue I have with the Khan Academy is that they are neither a medical organization nor an academic publisher. As far as I know, none of their videos are peer-reviewed"
July 5, 2015 Asks about thoughts on videos. "Video content is something that has been requested by many readers.", "But established editors basically hate videos: they're hard to make, hard to control, hard to edit, and hard to customize. And it's not one-size-fits-all: a good drawing can be used across most Wikipedias, and a good paragraph can be translated to any of them, but a good video may need to be re-created for every language and culture.", "I understand that readers may want more "how to" but that isn't what we are about here.... That said, I would be very happy to see an alliance with groups like the Harvard BioVisions group to systematically include their videos in articles - that group's animations on what goes on in cells are super cool and informative"
Dec 24, 2015 First time Osmosis is mentioned. The video on liver fibrosis/cirrhosis is "clearly incorrect" and their process for "formal/transparent peer review and feedback" is questioned. "More generally, these videos have no explicit sourcing to MEDRS, they do not come from a recognized secondary source (this is a commercial entity, in fact)", "I've noted another error - in the leukemia video - on its talk page here. This one is more cosmetic, but the nature of the error makes me think that an expert couldn't have reviewed it carefully. "The need for reviews by experts was raised. Some positive comments but only a few participants.
Feb 8 2016 Is just a request to review a script for a video. It is very clear that in fact nobody is reviewing these scripts or videos.
Mar 23, 2016 Just jtdog praising Doc James. The "we are working with Osmosis" is telling. Who is "we? Not anybody here.
Aug 30, 2017 Nothing to do with videos in articles. It is a "how to edit wikipedia" video.

This is a good example of how not to do it. -- Colin°^Talk 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

From further review:

We are told scripts are here, but most are not: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis
Early on, in several discussions, we see @WhatamIdoing: is requesting that top contributors to articles be notified. The video was installed at Tourette syndrome (TS) in January 2017 (with NO EDIT SUMMARY), and I can find no indication that I was notified, or that article talk was notified.^[1]
At Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues, I did enough digging just to know a) how hard it is for a casual reader to uncover sources, and b) there are sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ An explanation of why I am so late in realizing that these videos were installed on medical FAs. I mostly stopped editing in 2015 (WP:MED negative impact on medical articles, Education Project negative impact on medical content, and protracted attacks on me from one FA writer). After the impact of Doc James unilaterally altering the structure of pretty much every single medical article as well as rewriting the leads of FAs to conform with his personal style preferences so that the leads could more easily be translated, I unwatched every medical FA I was watching, opting instead to periodically check in, should I continue editing. Which I mostly didn't. I have no idea how autism and Asperger syndrome and other articles have fared, or if anyone is watching them. I felt then that WP:MED had become a walled garden and that past efforts to get MEDMOS and MEDRS in place, and to keep them aligned with Wikipedia-wide policies, were being undermined, and I was concerned this would eventually boomerang on WP:MED. I also unwatched WP:MED. I only realized the video was at TS when I started trying to improve dementia with Lewy bodies this month, and saw the problematic video there.

SandyGeorgia I have removed the video from Epilepsy. It was added by Doc James in this edit with the summary "Added". However, I'm shocked to see that he added the video to Tourette syndrome in this edit with no edit summary at all. He seems keen to add these on the quiet. See my comments at Talk:Epilepsy#Osmosis video. I think all these videos can be removed per WP:V. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I just discovered that as well, and posted in the next section about it. This makes me very sad :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is also core policy. In the year 2000, the requirement for "significant distress or impairment" in Tourette syndrome was removed from the DSM, in recognition that the majority of people with TS are not impaired or distressed. Since 2006, I have kept the POV words, "suffer from" out of the TS suite of articles. Now we have a video with that POV installed at tic disorder IN THE INFOBOX. And I am not allowed to remove it; my efforts over more than a decade, shot, by one external company making money off of a collaboration with Wikipedia. I was previously concerned that we not head down the Infobox Wars path, but the issue here now involves at least two core policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV), so we can forget that comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And if they are all like the Epilepsy one, they will all refer to people with a disease, disorder or injury as "patients", which is forbidden per WP:MEDMOS. Our readers are not "patients"; they are "people". -- Colin°^Talk 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A contract of sorts

James + one or two others have taken upon themselves to negotiate a contract of sorts. And post it at Wikipedia:Osmosis, which of course nobody here has on their watchlist or even knew about. Without discussion with the wider community, on a project absolutely built upon rapid collaborative editing by volunteers, they have commissioned a private firm (who's agenda is to sell subscriptions to videos) to turn article topics into videos, and in turn promised to insert them in the lead section of our medical articles. We can see now why Doc James is edit warring to keep them in the article and in the leads. He's promised to insert and obliged to keep this material in a prominent place on all our articles.

As part of James' contract with the community (that you didn't know about), these videos were supposed to be reviewed prior to insertion in articles. Thy have not in fact been reviewed by the WP:MED project or anyone else on Wikipedia. Many were stealthily inserted into articles with the edit summary "Add", which hardly notifies watchers that their article has now been converted for YouTube format and their lead section now contains privately generated content they will have to accept.

We can assume the partnership will be in jeopardy if the video content is not kept or moved to, say, the external links section as a link rather than embedded in the article (they fail WP:EL anyway). And what is the benefit of this contract for Osmosis:

https://www.coverys.com/About-Us/Media-Room/Press-Release/January-2018/Coverys-Invests-in-Patient-Engagement-and-Medical

Osmosis is a medical and health education technology company with headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. It has an audience of more than 500,000 current and future clinicians between its advanced learning platform (www.osmosis.org) and popular YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/osmosis). Osmosis leverages its video learning platform to create and disseminate co-branded video content that is visually appealing, clear, and concise. It also has a strong partnership with Wikipedia, which features Osmosis content on health and medicine articles. To date, Osmosis has focused on medical students but is quickly gaining traction with a number of other critical healthcare provider segments including nursing, physician assistants, pharmacy, dentistry, and others.

User:Jimbo Wales's comment above isn't quite right. This isn't "a charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license". It is a private firm who got a grant from a charitable foundation. And who see financial benefit in collaborating with Wikipedia to further their business selling educational videos. And what will happen when the grant runs out or when the firm decides its investment in this area is now sufficient. The videos will be left to rot on our website. Nobody here can edit them to amend the content. Wikipedia is not YouTube. -- Colin°^Talk 07:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: I have always felt that your efforts, although misguided, were entirely in good faith. Reading this information just now, I am concerned that you inserted this video at TS with no edit summary, and that although @WhatamIdoing: had asked that top contributors be notified, I was not. I understand that mistakes happen, so I will continue to AGF. But we both know that you know that I was not going to be happy about changes to an FA that breach WIAFA, so a missing edit summary is not a good thing to discover here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

policy

These discussions seem oddly placed - these discussions obviously should have been raised on the project talk page, the sub project talk page, or if Doc James is your issue start at his talk page. WP:DR is the primary policy the the OP, Colin, appears intent on not following. At any rate, addressing the substance, see Wikipedia:Image use policy and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for the policy and guideline to consult. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Colin started the discussion here. Others continued it in other places, when he linked to it here. This is not an issue with one policy or guideline page, one article, or one person, or videos only; it does not appear that you have read the discussion. It is a breach of multiple policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV), guidelines, and the very intent of Wikipedia as a collaborative text-based project that anyone can edit or verify. That it has become combined with personal aspects, edit warring, bullying, and more has been a side effect along the way. Perhaps it should be at ANI. That would be a circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Your odd claim that I have not read a discussion that I clearly have is the only possible 'bullying' - as for your attempt to cry some-kind of trump mentioning WP:V and WP:NPOV claims - none of those policies dispense with WP:DR, so start following policy -- indeed V and NPOV claims are exact claims for which WP:DR is required to be followed - and yes, if you have a user claim you can end at ANI, but really you will likely not improve anything there having not exhausted WP:DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, by taking the discussion to all the talk pages of all the policies, guidelines, projects, and articles involved, one is accused of spreading a dispute. My sincere apologies for making you feel bullied, or saying you had not read what you say you have. An RFC will be drafted, and has been discussed in several places. It should be carefully drafted before being launched, with ample time for input from all "sides" before it goes live. We have multiple times discussed that it is unproductive to launch an RFC prematurely, or one that is advanced by only one "side" of an issue. I do not believe I should be the person drafting the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The behavior you're describing is called forum shopping, actually. So, yes, follow DR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Let's start here, as an example, for the POV and V problems: (From WP:DR) "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." What is the source of the "suffer from" wording? How would you suggest balancing/repairing the text in a video? How does someone who has the technical know-how even go about fixing the POV wording in the video? Deleting the video, because it was installed in an infobox, is fraught with other issues, and has led to edit warring. Are you suggesting I open myself to further "forum shopping" by posting these questions at the talk page of DR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is rather plain - if your issue is with inclusion in content at a particular article you raise the issue at the talk page of the article, and if it is not settled, you then proceed through the DR processes. If the issue is with a project, you raise the issues at the project, and you proceed through the different DR. As for editing a video, many people know how to do that, so if you wish to discuss edits to a video, feel free. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

so you would like to see talk page discussion on 300 article talk pages? It is being discussed at WP MED-- as a precursor to an RFC. The matter of edits to a video is more complex than you imply, and has already been discussed at length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What? If your issue is with inclusion in content at a particular article you raise the issue at the talk page of the article, and if it is not settled, you then proceed through the DR processes. If the issue is with a project, you raise the issues at the project, and you proceed through the different DR. What did you not get about that statement discussing two different situations? One is plainly about an article, the other is plainly about multiple articles in a project. As for editing a video, it's just not complicated -- it is just editing a video, so feel free to suggest edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming unproductive. Thanks for the input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the future of video summaries of diseases on Wikipedia

New location for RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Started here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Because this post from Doc James follows exactly after and under a discussion with posts from me where I stated:

An RFC will be drafted, and has been discussed in several places. It should be carefully drafted before being launched, with ample time for input from all "sides" before it goes live. We have multiple times discussed that it is unproductive to launch an RFC prematurely, or one that is advanced by only one "side" of an issue.

I want to clarify that Doc James launched a biased, one-sided RFC without giving consideration to input from anyone else-- an RFC which is framed with full reflection of his bias, and no framing of any of the issues raised.

And that kind of behavior shows exactly how WP:MED came to be in the kind of position it is in now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Update

Based on the feedback here and elsewhere:

I have informed Osmosis that we are ending this collaboration. As such I imagine they will no longer be uploading these videos to Commons or uploading updates to current videos. We are of course free to remove the front and back bumpers or alter their videos that currently exist as we would any other CC BY SA content. We did not discussion whether or not they would continue to release future videos under an open license.
I have removed all their videos from Wikipedia which you can see in my edit history over the last day or two. If I missed one or two others are more than welcome to remove them.
They will be removing any mention of collaborating with Wikipedia or Wiki Project Med Foundation from current documents as they are able and will not mention an ongoing collaboration going forwards.
They have withdrawn the application for funding from the WMF to support the elective at UCSF and with medical students generally (which also involve support for creating these videos).

Feel free to share this update were you see fit. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you DJ. This is one of those gray areas where taking sides is not as important as discussing it. We have both a consensus now and action that doesn't close down our options for the future but maintains our 'Wisdom of Crowds' editorial control. Thinks to myself... if Wikipedia will never work in theory, how comes it work in practice ! Aspro (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, James. I am reminded of the saying that God never closes one door without opening another. This collaboration was not meant to be, and better things lie ahead. W.r.t. Osmosis's commitment to remove "any mention of collaborating with Wikipedia", I am afraid this leaves them open to continue saying things like "We are the biggest contributor of medical videos to Wikipedia" and "Our videos have been viewed on Wikipedia over eight million times". Can you ask them to stop mentioning Wikipedia altogether? Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect to "Can you ask them to stop mentioning Wikipedia altogether?" yes that is what I have requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Did they agree to stop mentioning Wikipedia altogether? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did agree to stop mentioning Wikipedia going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That is good. Thanks for clarifying. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

i hope that this will lead to more effective collaborations of this nature--some possibly including Osmosis, if they;re will willing to work with us at all. :There is a place for material such as they submitted, but not in the lead or inforbox of WP articles or as a substitute for text. I consider them still a valid EL; I have no experience with Wikiversity, but i think their material might be fairly suitable there.

What we need are focused short videos and 3D representations of medical and scientific concepts--more sophisticated versions of what we already do as illustrations or animations. They should be short and discrete enough that they can be edited by including or not including a particular one without damaging the overall flow of the article. I do not know if individual WPedians are prepared to develop this material, but if not, it would not be unreasonable to work with outside suppliers.

We should not feel unhappy with the conclusion of this project--WP is an experimental service--a new form of information preparation and dissemination. It's not reasonably that everything will work right the first iteration. If there's a general lesson, it's to start new things slowly and without final commitment until we see how they work out. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@DGG:, I fixed a minor formatting error above (indent in front of your second para), as I couldn't tell who was writing what. I see it is all you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Decreased main page traffic?

is there a reason for such a decline as seen here. Is there cause for concern? Will it be a lasting change? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Easter? See also Christmas. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The more interesting thing on the chart is the huge spike in page views in July/August 2016. Can someone explain this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2016 Summer Olympics took place around that time, and there were a lot of big story lines leading up to and during those games. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: There's so many different things that affect page views that these kinds of aberrations in the statistics happen all the time. The drop probably doesn't mean anything at all, and if it does, it's a question best answered scientifically by data analysts, rather than speculatively by you or I. --Deskana (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

People paid to edit Wikipedia articles

It is possible that there are individual users (editors) who are paid by other organisations to remove/delete any negative content about that organisation, although authentic references are provided. It is possible that the paid user/editor is an administrator, who has rights to block other well-intentioned users. How do you plan to curb this menace? -Polytope4D (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is coming from, but we do have a few rules about this type of thing. Perhaps we haven't been active enough in letting people know about this. See e.g. WP:PAID and WP:COI. Recently WP:Admin has been amended by RfC prohibiting admins from using their admin tools for paid editing. I've only seen strong evidence of admin paid editing 3 times, 2 of which ended up at Arbcom, and one which occurred before the Terms of Use (==> WP:PAID) were changed about 4 years ago. If you have strong evidence of admins doing undeclared paid editing, you should report it, perhaps at WP:COIN or even Arbcom. But please be prepared for some major hassles (i.e. you'd be reporting admin abuse to admins who hear a lot a garbage about admin abuse) and have very strong evidence ready to go.

My feeling is that rules about admin paid editing should be stronger. An admin's status and influence by themselves make admin paid editing problematic even if they don't use admin tools to do so. I've proposed banning almost all admin paid editing (at WT:Admin) twice in the last 2 years or so. Reasonable exceptions included payments made by the WMF, chapters, and GLAMS. In both cases the !votes were about 50-50. Mostly non-admins supporting the ban, mostly admins opposing it. Admins just didn't (or wouldn't) understand the the damage that the appearance of admin paid editing does to Wikipedia. BTW, no admin (other than in the 3 cases above) have declared paid editing status in the last 4 years (to my knowledge), so it doesn't appear that admins would be giving up anything by banning paid editing by admins. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki in the media

There's an article titled "Don't fix Facebook. Replace it" where the author suggests:

Another “alt-Facebook” could be a nonprofit that uses that status to signal its dedication to better practices, much as nonprofit hospitals and universities do. Wikipedia is a nonprofit, and it manages nearly as much traffic as Facebook, on a much smaller budget. An “alt-Facebook” could be started by Wikimedia, or by former Facebook employees, many of whom have congregated at the Center for Humane Technology, a nonprofit for those looking to change Silicon Valley’s culture. It could even be funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was created in reaction to the failures of commercial television and whose mission includes ensuring access to “telecommunications services that are commercial free and free of charge.”

→Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

lol, they have no idea. The mere mention of a social network effort would likely evoke user revolts, with misguided quotes of WP:NOTFACEBOOK... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should probably consider, in a very general way, such an idea given in the New York Times, by Tim Wu a prof at Columbia Law School who is very well-known in the area of internet law. That said, this doesn't look like a project the WMF could do well and I'd be surprised if anybody could find 10 regular editors who would support it. (yes, that's a challenge).

I'm often surprised by what outsiders think that we can do or should do. I'm more often surprised by what we can't do. For example almost all the major internet players have banned or severely restricted ads for cryptocurrencies and ICOs. The following list is from Initial coin offering (in a couple of paragraphs mostly written by me): Facebook, Google, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, Baidu, Tencent, Weibo, Line (Japan) and Yandex (Russia). In the same article I quote our founder 'Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, stated in 2017 that "there are a lot of these initial coin offerings which are in my opinion are absolute scams and people should be very wary of things that are going on in that area." '^[1] (Jimmy, may I ask that you check the ICO article to see if I've used the quote properly?)

Given all that, I have no idea how we can ban cryptocurrency and ICO ads, what process to follow, who to ask, etc.. Please don't say that we already do ban these ads, I can show you dozens. If we can't do something as simple as banning ads from what almost all the major internet players recognize as scammers, how can we do something as complex as make a Facebook replacement that guarantees personal privacy? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Bercetche, Joumanna (October 5, 2017). "ICOs — the hottest craze in cryptocurrencies — is an 'absolute scam,' Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales says". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-04-02.

Smallbones, the articles you describe sound like perfect candidates for speedy deletion per WP:G11. Are you getting pushback on such deletions? We do not "ban" such articles, we delete them in accordance with policies and guidelines if they are promotional, and sometimes we salt them if recreation of unacceptable articles is persistent. On the other hand, some scams are notable, and if it is well established that they are scams, then our articles about them should say so clearly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An article isn't an ad, or shouldn't be, and we shouldn't be letting Facebook dictate policy at us! We can, of course, educate regarding the frequency of scams, and merge content where appropriate, and delete articles that are written by companies as ads to sell their product or which can never be reliably sourced due to lack of notability. It is Wikipedia's role to give people a way to research things, but it is not Wikipedia's job to protect them from all mention of potential bad investments they could make. Wnt (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: We wouldn't be letting Facebook dictate policy. Please read again the list of sites banning these types of ads. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, Baidu, Tencent, Weibo, Line (Japan) and Yandex (Russia). My feeling is that Wikipedia should be better than these sites in screening out false or biased information - which is what these ads are all about. We would certainly use our own standards in deciding which ads/articles would be banned but I'd think that "if companies in the industry are banned from advertising on Facebook, Google, and Twitter" should create more than a simple presumption that they are scams.

@Cullen328: I have no objections to including articles about scams on Wikipedia, as long as the articles recognize that the scams are scams and include evidence. But going through the regular deletion process is much too slow and ineffective. Wikipedia has a long history of having articles on these companies that do not give any info about the scam. The three big offenders have been retail forex brokers, binary options brokers, and currently cryptocurrency and ICOs. Facebook's ad ban actually includes all these areas. Warnings from regulators on retail forex brokers (the entire industry with some exceptions) started about 2004, but we've had scores of "articles" on these companies over the years. Mostly they stick around for a few months or years before getting deleted, often they were recreated and go thru the same process again. Yes, there is lots of pushback on getting these deleted. Binary options brokers had dozens of articles. Regulators were a bit slow on giving warnings about these companies, but over the last 2-3 years (out of about a 10 year history) the warnings were loud and clear, but it was a major hassle getting these articles deleted multiple times. Cryptocurrencies and ICOs articles are ongoing now. There are perhaps 50 now. There have been multiple warnings from folks like Warren Buffet and George Soros that cryptocurrencies are scams or bubbles. Regulators were pretty slow on this, but it's clear that they are clamping down now and more actions and stricter rules will be coming. So, yes there is pushback on deleting these scam ads and the current methods don't come close to working in any workable way. In the meantime our reader are getting scammed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I realized it wasn't just Facebook, but is a consensus of ten corporations holier than one? The point is, they censor whatever might be inconvenient to their profit stream, but we want to record all human knowledge. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF is wiki? Do we mean Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation Projects? Wiki means neither of these. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I see the comment simply as a recognition that our general methods of operation have been accepted as valid. The importance of WP is in establishing the principle that a general interest site of very wide coverage could produce work or real work using our consensus undirected method of operation and organization. It happens that the first project we did to show rthis was an encyclopedia -- a very wide choice, consider the great opening provided by the declining value of other ways of producing them, and the very wide scope involved. We've expanded this to other areas--most importantly Commons and Wikidata, where it was by no means obvious the same methods would work, but where the product was supplementary to our basic encyclopedia .

Just as we produce an encyclopedia for others to use, we have in a much broader sense established the principle of free cooperative content development for intellectual work in general to be used by by others. Such a method might well work in operating a social media service, but that doesn't mean we should do it ourselves--it is probably too indirectly connected with our principal projects. But we've established the principle that such a way of running a very large site is possible. That's our broader role--to show the applicability of free culture to human purposes. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

On other media coverage, The Guardian reported on "Former Trump aide approved 'black ops' to help Ukraine president." In the article, they write " Proposing to rewrite Wikipedia entries to smear a key opponent of the then Ukrainian president." This is after Another story, claiming that Brigid Hughes was systematically erased from the web, including Wikipedia being edited to hide her. One wonders the frequency of such things. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Eddie891: 1st here's a link to the Guardian article. We can only guess the frequency of such things, especially when we're talking about the former Soviet Union. Wikipedia editors just don't have the tools to identify FSB/KGB folks editing here, nor will they ever. Similar things have been identified, e.g. a political/PR firm, Bell Pottinger that got caught doing dirty work for then South African President Jacob Zuma. (more later) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Eddie. It's very hard for me to read articles like Assassination of Boris Nemtsov or International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia without my seeing the style of one country's security forces. The question is whether this is done by actual security forces, or farmed out to various trolls or agencies, or done by people directly affected by the propaganda, or whether its just from fan-boys or "patriots" who are affected by the entire social situation of the country is very difficult to say. I see the same pattern in very many articles about controversial events involving that country (sometimes in reverse - more than one country may be involved). What to do about this? and how to document the problem? are not easy questions to answer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia at the border

Is Wikipedia social media already, regardless of any alt-Facebook suggestions here? The US Department of State proposes to require visa applicants to declare which social media platforms they've used in the last five years and what their identities on them were. They'll provide a list of platforms.[35] Will Wikipedia be one? Editing might be as revealing as tweeting. 92.19.30.124 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Email, Scp, Gopher, and WAIS? Usenet? Google Reader? 174.16.120.252 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, should the Wikimedia Foundation produce a phrasebook for the U.S. Southern border? 174.16.120.252 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see b:Refugee Phrasebook#How to create new versions. 75.171.252.216 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is Nolo.com on the blacklist? 75.171.252.216 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness, WMF could sue in this situation. According to that article, "Russian hackers penetrated the Department of State's email system in 2014, and in 2016, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) gave the agency dismal marks for both its physical and cybersecurity competency." Even without the threat of direct confiscation of the information by foreign governments, the risk of discrimination within the U.S. against immigrants with certain interests or sharing of that data with, say, LGBT-hostile 'home' regimes, is certain to directly impact volunteer involvement in a purely negative way. The likelihood of tit-for-tat retaliation by other repressive regimes means that American editors likely would face discrimination abroad. It may be worth it for WMF to stand up and be heard, while it might yet dare to. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Why bother to sue when you can teach migrants fleeing oppressive regimes to request asylum instead? 75.171.252.216 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

What are the best phrases for requesting asylum? 174.16.120.252 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see https://www (dot) nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-can-you-apply-asylum.html -- Why is Nolo.com on the blacklist? 75.171.252.216 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Greek Wikipedia issue, there is nobody else to talk to

In Greek wikipedia a user posted two sections that are clearly an Original Research in the Greek version of the article Criticism of Christianity. He the tried to translate these sections and post them in the English article as well but they were removed as OR. However the admins in the Greek Wikipedia have not only refused to listen to my and other user's pleas to remove the sections but have also protected the article. I threatened them with legal actions and now I am blocked for 2 weeks and the OR remains in the article. I am aware that this is a different wikipedia project but I really don't have anyone else to report this issue to. Could you help me deal with this issue please? (note that since this is an international issue I cannot ask for help anywhere else) ΕρΚιλλ (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The request I made here was rejected, since this isn't an en.wikipedia issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΕρΚιλλ (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the problem: "I threatened them with legal actions and now I am blocked for 2 weeks." Withdraw the threat and try asking again when you get unblocked. Do you have a diff link? 63.146.90.146 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, not this shit again

Hello from Cuba

Questions to ask

Spam

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

Some falafel for you!

The TWA Error

An idea about a new feature

Editing News #1—2018

Recent changes

Let's work together

Anomaly in Very Active Editor stats

Counting +1,500 frequent editors is huge

Warren Buffett investment lessons and our endowment fund

Related question: should we shun certain investments based upon political aspects?

Best sources on free college?

Another brilliant 'how to avoid community scrutiny about your COI' guide

Raise autoconfirmed as 300 edits

Rally more support to approve more admins to control COI editors

Everipedia?

3D in color?

Some cool images

Drama free?

YouTube to use "a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia" to expose conspiracy theories

The Coming War on General Computation, by Cory Doctorow

So apparently YouTube is gonna be linking here soon...

"Variation of WP policy across the various language editions" question at the Teahouse

RfC on permanent implementation of ACTRIAL

Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets

Another cool editor left...

Nigeria as a major "expanding market" for Wikipedia?

Deletion of current affairs articles deemed to have "no lasting notability"?

I am blocked for life on Swedish Wikipedia, but not on English or any other Wikipedia.

I have an Idea for you Jimbo!

17 years of editing!

There's something wrong

2 new RfAs look good

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Activity

A question.

Just one of those things I don't understand about cryptocurrency and initial coin offerings

Warnings

The Vandalism Barnstar

Announce: Improved version of "Citation Needed"

Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

Arbitrary break

Break 2

Inhouse

Enforce the usual watermark policy

General issue of long article-topic videos

Prior discussions at WPMED about the collaboration

A contract of sorts

policy

RfC about the future of video summaries of diseases on Wikipedia

Update

Decreased main page traffic?

People paid to edit Wikipedia articles

Wiki in the media

Wikipedia at the border

Greek Wikipedia issue, there is nobody else to talk to