User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

BLP situation coming unglued

Assume you have seen this? Several administrators got tired of waiting for you and the WMF board and the WMF staff to actually implement Flagged Revisions, as had been hoped for since 2007. We are still waiting for Flagged Revisions implementation on English Wikipedia (a dream since August 2007, a suggestion since January 2009, a Foundation-level proposal since January 2009, and a call to raise hell if not implemented by September 25, 2009). This current mess at ArbCom could have been avoided if only you had shown more ability to actually get simple things implemented in a timely manner. Many of us are very disappointed in you. -- Deloware (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged versions will not solve the problem of the grandfathered-in unreferenced BLPs unless you'd flag them all as un-reviewed and display a blank page for them until sources are added. It is a possible solution, but I'm not sure there's consensus for it. It's certainly less disruptive than mass deleting them, that's for sure. Pcap ping 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the main part of that comment but Jimbo isn't in any position to solve this. Hell has been raised and ArbCom so far seems to be getting the point. I don't think it would be wise for Jimbo to intervene at this point. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been a strong advocate of Flagged Revisions for years, but I'm also unable to actually write the code myself. In any event, I think deleting these bios is really an somewhat different matter (as Pcap notes) and without endorsing each and every deletion that was made (any large movement is bound to involve some degree of error), I am generally supportive of the broad strokes of this. Hosting bad BLPs is not a viable option, period.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, don't you work in the same office as many of these people—or at least see them several times a year, for board meetings? Can't you slap them around the ear and tell them to get their backsides in gear? AGK 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the recent posting on the Wikimedia tech blog about this? It's not as simple as kicking people in the butt. :-) But, yes, I would say in retrospect that I could and should have done more to get this done faster - I don't think anyone who is involved in the whole FlaggedRevisions process is happy that it has taken so long. At the same time, I think it is important to note that FlaggedRevisions is not a magical cure-all, and that real enforcment of policy is sometimes difficult but should be applauded.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is a bad BLP to you? For instance János Aczél (mathematician) was tagged as unreferenced, but everything said there is easily verified from this page in the external link. And he qualifies for a bio here per WP:PROF. Pcap ping 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what the technical problems are meant to be for FlaggedRevs but they managed to give it to us very quickly over at Wikinews. It works a dream over there and we've never had any problem with it; in fact, coupled with a review system we have turned WN into a valid, reliable source using FlaggedRevs. Does anyone know (in plain English, sorry :p) why it is hard to put it on en.wp when it is in use elsewhere? I belive de.wp has it as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the community here had expressed their will to have a custom and watered-down version that could be turned on only on specific pages on demand (specifically for BLPs) because it would otherwise interfere with the notion that anyone could edit en.wikipedia. :The modifications to implement that is what's holding back the whole thing here. MLauba (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can see why that might be an issue. Thanks! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wales. I don't know if anyone's ever done this to you before, and I had hoped that my first interaction with you might be more positive, but I feel the need to do this:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

How can you defend the unilateral actions of sysops using their tools for destruction with flagrant disregard (and even open contempt) for consensus and established policy? What happened to fancy ideals like "community", "consensus", "no cabal" and "no big deal"? If the backlog of unreferenced BLPs was such a huge problem, you could have organised a task force to tackle it constructively: you could have put big banners at the top of all our pages asking for help, and you'd have got it. Improvement via collaborative effort wouldn't magically solve everything overnight, but it's the way we've come to expect things to be done around here. You have not only bitten many of the hands which feed Wikipedia, you have also betrayed your own stated principles upon which you built this huge, living, breathing miracle of teamwork and co-operation which you are now willing to discard in favour of dictatorial hierarchy. Words are incapable of adequately expressing the disappointment and disgust I now feel. Perhaps the saddest part of this for me is that you used to be my hero. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a positive flurry of collaborative effort happening since this kicked off.   pablo_hablo. 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about the community

• Jimbo, the admin you have praised on his talk page , wrote, to justify his actions: This deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt. ([1]). Do you endorse this opinion? --Cyclopia^talk 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it that case, Jimbo should join Wikipedia Review, where this view is widespread. Pcap ping 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a serious question. I think it is important for the community to ensure what Jimbo thinks of such statements. --Cyclopia^talk 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, like anyone else, should feel free to endorse one statement without having to be held accountable for anything else that someone has said.--Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flip it around for a second, and the absurdity becomes apparent : if you disagree with one thing someone has said, do disagree with everything they've said? If you disagree with my statement that "I hate people" do you necessarily think that I was incorrect when I said "murder is wrong?"--Tznkai (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your logic, Tznkai. But the action Jimbo praised stemmed from that very opinion -that is why I am asking. I hope Jimbo will endorse one thing and not the other, but I really, sincerely want to be sure, and see how he answers. We, as a community, deserve to know. --Cyclopia^talk 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We don't deserve bupkis from Jimbo. He owes us precisely nothing. What he choses to do, what is a good idea, what is sometimes needed from Jimbo - thats a separate discussion. But leave just desserts out of it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave Jimbo the right to answer, if he feels so, and not to if he feels not to. My personal opinion is that the Wikipedia community deserves to know if the Wikipedia founder thinks too that it deserves "nothing but ethical contempt". I am quite sure that Jimbo doesn't think that, but it cannot be a bad idea to ask, especially in the recent context, what he thinks. --Cyclopia^talk 23:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't think that. I disagree strongly with that statement. I would say, rather, that the quick endorsement of a proper action builds very much on my faith in the community to make the right decisions. I understand why Scott was frustrated - but I disagree with his assessment of the situation. There are a handful of people who are, in fact, irresponsible and unethical - they are mostly not members of the community, who may disagree about certain parameters here and there, but who, as far as I can see, very much have their heads screwed on straight about BLP issues. I think sometimes we just need someone bold among us to remind us that we, the community, have the right to insist that Wikipedia is of good quality, and following an ethical mission in the world - even against the cries of those who think that it's something else.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much Jimbo. --Cyclopia^talk 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rules?

IAR apparently played a part in this recent deletion spree Jimbo, so I wonder what your view is on this petition I just knocked up. I'm not fussed if you do or don't sign it, I haven't been so bold as to put words in your mouth and plonk a Jimbo quote on it, but we do generally seem to be well overdue an up to date Jimboism on the small matter of NO BIG DEAL. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Irresponsible administrators restoring unreferenced contentious BLPs?

This restored an unreferenced BLP that said the guy is currently unemployed. Presumably forever so! Obviously no references were provided. Pcap ping 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for sure it was not a G10. To say that someone is unemployed is not defamatory, nor an attack. PROD it or send it to AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a fairly obvious A7. Being a soccer player without a contract is not an assertion of the importance of the subject. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also [2] (says the guy is famous for making bad decisions as a referee)., [3] (says the guy is very controversial in an unspecified way), [4] (says that guy had "vocal attitudes" in "numerous instances"). Pcap ping 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can be solved by removing the negative statements, they're not purely attack pages. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC) - Which I did. --Cyclopia^talk 16:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Just found this thread. Pcap, if you are going to discuss issues about an editor, it is considered good manners to contact the editor in question. On ANI, it is obligatory to do so, and I am sure the same applies here. I do not appreciate stumbling upon a thread only to discover that for the last half hour or so you have discussing my actions, and calling me an "irresponsible administrator". Stephen! ^Coming... 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You said you were following my contributions, so I assumed you'd have found this too. Pcap ping 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but assuming is not very reliable. There is a phrase: "Never ASSUME as it makes an ASS of U and ME". If you check the time-stamp on that post diff you give above, it was about 6 hours before you started this thread. I had been travelling home from work, then I started doing some work on other areas. It was only because I thought I would see if you had responded to my post and saw that there was a thread on your page stemming from my post that I thought I would see what prompted it. It is always safest to drop a note on a talk page, just in case it hasn't been spotted - saves unintentionally causing bad feelings. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You were actively posting message after message on my talk page, when I posted this here. Pcap ping 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted once on your page after you had started the thread about me, before I found it; that was to reiterate the other poster's comments, and to add about the importance of tagging correctly. It was a little while later that I discovered this page. In any case, you shouldn't rely on chance or assumption that the person will see a thread about them. You assumed I would find it, and I only discovered it by chance - it was only because I saw "irresponsible administrators" mentioned in your list of contributions that I decided to check it out. Up till then, I was only interested in checking your tagging of articles for deletion.

Now, at this point, we could carry on indefinitely saying "you said... I said..." which will get us nowhere, and will result in someone quoting the WP:STICK guideline. I propose we both chalk this up to experience, and vow to do the following. I'll pay more attention to contensious sentences in articles, and you can tag appropriately and notify editors if you are discussing them. OK with you? Stephen! ^Coming... 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Pcap ping 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem manufacturing

Example, another (look at this guy's contribs too). There are other IP addresses doing just this. There are approximately 17,000 BLP articles that have at least a web address or a ref tag in them, but are tagged as totally unreferenced. And obviously Bruce Schneir did nothing but write a column for Wired. Of course, Schneier is going to lie about his date of birth or the algorithms he invented, so one couldn't possibly cite and interview with him on that. And we couldn't possibly trust that he published any books because that info comes from the publisher, who isn't an independent source. So many bad BLPs that need to be deleted. Pcap ping 05:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your sarcastic tone is helpful at all. The problem is, by constructing a "straw man" to mock, you fail to consider the genuine arguments put forward by those who disagree with you. Let me be specific: "we couldn't possibly trust that he published any books because that info comes from the publisher" - no one seriously involved in this discussion is arguing that a statement from a trustworthy publisher that a book has been published is not a reliable source for that fact! So please dispense with that sort of argument so we can focus on the real issues - of which there are of course many about which reasonable people can differ. You make your own position seem worse than it actually is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents. (The difference between Wikipedia and sound-bite politics, I hope, is that we should try really hard to avoid cute statements that misrepresent the facts.)

Now, regarding one of the specific biographies: I'm sure that Sourav Chatterjee is a wonderful fellow, and he may even be a suitable subject for a biography. But that doesn't change the fact that the current biography of him is junk. "Following from there he came to Stanford University, which is the seat of academic excellence across the whole world." While Stanford is indeed a wonderful school, that bit is pretty clearly not consistent with our NPOV approach, and having a biography with a statement like this is precisely what gives rise to the perception that anyone can write any old nonsense into Wikipedia they want. We need to insist on higher quality.

There is a philosophical point to all this as well. There are those who point out, correctly, that fixing a biography like this takes 10 minutes (or some other short period of time depending on the case), so that therefore, arguably, we should not delete them, but rather fix them. I'm sympathetic to that perspective, but for the fact that for the ones that have sat around unreferenced and of low quality for several years, it seems likely that we simply do not have the capacity at the present time to responsibly correct and maintain the articles, in which case I think it clear (in the case of BLPs, which can clearly be dangerous vandal/troll magnets with a real and tangible impact on the reputation of the subject and on our reputation) that we are better off deleting them until such time as we can actually write a decent biography and maintain it. I support that the list people are using to delete these also be used to re-create them, if someone wants to do it right. In the meantime, I think we ought not to have them at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New Motto

On Talk:Wikipedia, someone proposed to change Wikipedia's motto to "providing a way to see the big picture". I am in support of that. Will you please change it? Us441 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

one person doe not consensus make....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IF it was me, the moto would be changing the world one edit at a time! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest Wikipedia where the deplorable community is totally irresponsible and deserving of nothing but ethical contempt.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please no name calling or slander! We are doing our best to remove incorrect infos! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: All your knowledge are belong to us! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DANGER! DO NOT ENTER. DEMOLITION IN PROGRESS. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am highly upset by all the motto suggestions except my own and "Changing the world one edit at a time". Stop slanderous and offensive motto suggestions THIS INSTANT. Us441 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPD2010

How does deleting articles like this one [5] improve the encyclopedia? Also, if you're going to give Gregory Kohs a role in running this community, don't you think he should at least be unblocked so that he can participate in discussion on the site? I know a lot is done via e-mail and with a lack of transparency, the recent arb voting system is a testament to that, but don't you think we should encourage policy discussion to take place on Wiki? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This sort of conspiracy-mongering makes zero sense, and am sure that if you believe it, you must find this all incredibly frustrating.

As to the question of how it improves the encyclopedia, I would regard that as being at this moment transparently obvious. For over a year the article sat with zero references of any kind. Now it has 5 references, and people appear to have checked the facts carefully. I think that's delightful progress. Those who are saying "Oh, it's so easy to fix these, don't delete them!" have a very easy path to success: {{sofixit}}.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. You seem to be accusing those who disagree with you of being some sort of meatpuppets for Kohs. UnitAnode 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy mongering involved. The recent spate of attempts to speedy delete unreferenced biographies, even ones that have been here for years and have been checked over by numerous good faith editors, was instigated in large part by Gregory Kohs in a collaboration organized off-wiki. My suggestion was that if Jimbo is going to have Kohs play an active role in setting policy, it might be nice to have the discussions take place on wiki so members of the Wikipedia community can take part in them.

Jimbo's argument equating improvements to articles and the addition of sources to articles after they're discussed by the community with efforts to speedy delete those same articles without any review is completely illogical nonsense. An article that is speedy deleted does not get improved and does not get sources added, obviously. That's the point. Deleting things without looking at them is stupid.

Maybe Jimbo needs to spend less time in meetings and hanging out with his buddies at the New York Times and more time getting a grasp of how things work here? Sources can't be added to articles that are speedy deleted without any review or discussion. I thought that was fairly well understood. Jimbo are you confused about that?

And by the way there are several well organized packs of editors who use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes and to push their personal biases, including by disparaging biographical article subjects that they disagree with. Maybe taking a stand on that would be more construcitve than taking a great big dump on many of our best contributors by disregarding their work and trashing tens of thousands of articles without any consensus or discussion. Just a thought. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would've taken me one button press to delete that article. It took me about three minutes to do a Google search and place a reference to confirm everything in that stub. But I guess it's easier for people to do the button press than to, y'know, actually improve an article on a formerly prominent provincial politician. Now, the argument I know will follow is "why won't people do it for these articles" or "why don't you go do it?" or something. Yes, these articles need sourced. Deleting them will not get them sourced, and we wind up losing articles that could have been saved by one quick Google search and three minutes of work (most of which was finding the "cite web" template again). Tony Fox (arf!) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And, if someone comes across the redlink, and is willing to rewrite a short stub, with references, the problem is solved. UnitAnode 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. But who's going to do that? Thousands and thousands of articles have sat unsourced for three+ years and nobody's done anything about them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are over 50K+ of those articles. At a rate of 3 min/article, that's over 2500 man hours of work. UnitAnode 04:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we might as well just forget it, then. Deleting them is easier than, say, starting a WikiProject to identify the articles in question and improve them before they're summarily torched. Right? Well, whatever. I'm just sayin'. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not even that it's "easier", Tony, it's that it's right. Unsourced BLPs are a magnet for trolls, vandals, and other problems that could truly damage the subject's reputation. If any deleted articles are sourceable and relevant, they'll be recreated properly, with sources. If not, they won't. UnitAnode 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But again: if these articles haven't been dealt with in months or years, what makes you think it'll be any different if we start cracking a whip? I'm all for making an effort to improve articles before deleting them. In fact, I've been working since noon on clearing out Category:Unreferenced BLPs from January 2007 through adding sources, amending maintenance tags, removing unsourced info, and using the admin bit occasionally. I realize though that even if we have hundreds of active editors working every day, it'll take years to clear out the backlog. And we know that's not practical. So, for me, the only option going forward is through selective deletion and systematic recreation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We will have to disagree on the point of summary deletion; it's really not worth further debating it, obviously. Have fun. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Create a project to fix the problem, you say? Brilliant idea! Surely if you build it, they will come. Lara 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Lara, unreferenced biographies have nothing to do with BLP violations. Smears are far more likely to occur in articles with references since when they appear in something unreferenced they are easily removed and the article itself usually deleted. Misuse of references is a much greater problem as sources can be misrepresented or their content cherry picked. The articles being deleted seem to all have been created in good faith. This campaign is completely misguided and doesn't do anything to improve the problems with BLPs (and other articles) being used to disparage and smear, and it doesn't address the other problems of bias, promotion, advocacy and other distortions of the encyclopedia's mission. This campaign is doing enormous damage to the encyclopedia and the community by creating a huge rift. I haven't seen anything contentious in the articles I've looked at that have been targeted, and a far greater portion of them seem to have been created and edit in good faith than the rest of our articles. If they weren't clean they would be easily deleted. This contrasts with the problems I come across with our sourced content every day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Smears are far more likely to occur in articles with references since when they appear in something unreferenced they are easily removed and the article itself usually deleted. " Oh really? I have deleted articles which stated (completely unsourced) for years that person X was a nazi prison camp guard, person Y was a porn star, person Z was a yakuza member... Some of these may have been correct (although no easy references were found when checking), some of these were probably incorrect, but all of them had had these extremely negative unsourced statements for years. I have just deleted a page on a supposed transsexual for whom no decent sources existed (youtube, myspace, blogs...). It was tagged as BLPunsourced, that's how I found it. Fram (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules on unsourced negative or contentious content are clear. So there's no issue with deleting those articles. It's the other 52,900 that's a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We've become complacent in our blind faith in WP:DEADLINE as an excuse for not actually fixing things. It used to be that taking an article to AfD would almost always result in many improvements to it, if it was worthy of rescue. But the indiscriminate efforts of the WP:ARS and of foamy inclusionists who say "it's fixable, KEEP!!!" without always actually fixing it have diluted that beneficial effect. Sometimes a shock to the system is what is needed. Deleting these articles may be the best thing that ever happened to them, in many cases. I've had a stream of people turning up on my talk page, asking for articles to be userified, or telling me that they found sources and restored the articles I deleted. Bravo! I never wanted all the articles deleted in the first place. It's just that the vaunted COMMUNITY had 3 years to do something, and did bupkus. Well, something was done, finally, and good things happened. That's what needs focus here, the outcome. The ends don't often justify the means, but once in a while they do. And the means, in this case... were entirely within policy as written. Those fomenting insurrection need to get a grip. And get fixing. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be fine and all, but per the same deadline, I don't see why the admins in question couldn't have spent the last 3 years sending this stuff to AfD. All of a sudden, we have to speedy all this per IAR and BOLD ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Lar and his friends had 3 years to do something themselves too, had 3 years to properly discuss such stuff. They didn't. They just waited for the right circumstances to make hell break loose. That said, AfD is not meant for fixing articles (even if I've done it successfully sometimes when dealing with AfD's). Being fixable has always been more than enough, read WP:ATD. Deletion is for unfixable things. --Cyclopia^talk 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cyclopia, actually we (me and my friends as you put it) HAVE been doing things. We have proposed policy rewordings, we participate in all the processes, we take baby steps, we try to find ways to fix it, incrementally. But each time we do, the rabid foaming inclusionist-at-all-costs types shoot whatever we do down. (I'm an inclusionist, but people like you, and A Nobody and a bunch of others with similar mindsets make me embarrassed to admit it, frankly... do you need a catalog of all the things you've thwarted, or can we take it as understood?). I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt that something is at last being done, but just get out of the way, please. A precipitate action has galvanized some positive change... the RfC is proposing a number of good solutions (any of which I would be happy with) to how to improve process in this area and move this aspect (unsourced material) of the larger BLP problem forward. This isn't the final answer to the BLP problem, in fact it may well make some other aspects worse, but it's a start. More work is needed. Other aspects need addressing, But your approach is to stand athwart and yell STOP!, foamily... Well, no, sorry, we're not going to take that for an answer. Lead, follow or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We have proposed policy rewordings, we participate in all the processes, we take baby steps, we try to find ways to fix it, incrementally. But each time we do, the rabid foaming inclusionist-at-all-costs types shoot whatever we do down. - Here another mask dropping. It's funny to see how much people like you care about subjects of biographies, but don't give a fuck about fellow editors. Since you failed, continuously and repeatedly, to get consensus, -per your own admission- now you got what you wanted by mere force. What can I say? Enjoy your coup d'état and have a happy time in your junta. --Cyclopia^talk 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't trump core policy, Cyclopia. The sooner you wrap your head around that, the better off you'll be. UnitAnode 15:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is core policy. If consensus and core policy aren't agreeing, why that is should really be looked in to, and the policy changed. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Prodego ^talk 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently making such statements is still dangerous despite the recent developments. I've now been threatened with an indefinite block for saying something simular on the RfC. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• My experience with the PRODings I've done has been much the same as Lar's with deletion. While some have gotten snippy in their edit summaries removing the PROD (I was even "trouted" for the first time, in one), most of them actually have taken the time to add sources when they remove the PROD. As Lar said, sometimes it takes large actions to affect large change. Like it or not, the events of the last couple of days are affecting large changes -- or at least larger changes on this issue than we've yet seen on the project. UnitAnode 12:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We can not toss out the fundamentals of the site to try to avoid incorrect statements in BLPs. Wikipedia is based on the assumption that people are contributing in good faith, until we know otherwise. We should not make the assumption that because something is unsourced it is wrong - especially things that are not negative statements. Frankly I don't believe an unsourced article is any more likely to contain incorrect and negative information than a sourced one. Flagged revisions and proposals like this actually do take steps towards solving the problem, by having articles reviewed - and at least on a basic level checked over. It isn't proper editing and fact checking, but it is a step. Another practical step would be to raise notability standards to make sure that article subjects truly are verifiable - which they often are not. Deleting articles that are unsourced does not get us closer to solving this problem, since all it does is remove information that may be useful to our readers, and information that there is no reason be more inaccurate than the many unsourced statements in a sourced articles. Do not let arbcom pull out the principles of the site in to protect us against something that is simply impossible to eradicate so long as we have articles. Do not let something be done under the logic of 'at least its a start' without taking that start to its logical conclusion. The only Wikipedia free of incorrect information on living people, is Wikipedia, the empty encyclopedia no one can edit. Prodego ^talk 15:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The presumption of good faith ends the moment they irresponsibly place unsourced claims about living people on one of the most heavily trafficked websites in the world, then simply disappear from Wikipedia. Remove all such. Good faith contributors will confine themselves to verification, reliable sourcing, and a modicum of responsibility for what, in most cases, can only charitably be described as their work.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember that new editors do not know the rules, do not know the syntax, and do not know who to ask for help. If you delete everything they write, they are going to leave. And even if claims are sourced, we still have to trust that they are not misrepresenting sources or cherry-picking sources to write a biased piece. We don't ask people to write finished articles, we ask them to write what they want, and others will add what they want, and in the end we get an encyclopedia. If we require perfection, we will get nothing. Prodego ^talk 15:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. We need to help new editors along if we want to keep the project alive. That doesn't mean we have to walk on eggshells and deliberately ignore problematic BLPs, though. Wikipedia is approaching its 10th year of operation, and it's continuing to make the transition from an experiment into a more professional and responsible project. That means we need to start backing away from the internal bureaucracy and worrying more about quality, particularly with regards with BLPs. We don't have to make it perfect, since that would be impossible barring a click of Special:LockDB, but we should put effort into reducing as much incorrect and harmful information as possible. And, FWIW, the articles I think most people want deleted are years old, so their authors are very unlikely to still be around; if they are, they're probably now administrators who would be more than happy to fix them up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@prodego. Hogwash. The vast majority of these articles were created by people who left immediately after creation. But who cares? When i was a new editor i read the rules and guidelines. That is, I took responsiblity. People who can't be arsed to do the same don't need to be coddled by preserving unsourced, unverifiable claims about living people for years (most of us have been working off BLPs tagged as unsourced since 2006). You seem to confuse a request for enforcement of "minimum standards" with a demand for "perfection." It's just another roadblock to starting to fix the problem. Are there other problems with our BLPs. Of course, big ones. To argue against addressing one of the problems because other problems exist is juvenile. If you can't see the difference, then there's not much to talk about. You just don't get it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: Exactly. But we aren't going to solve problems with blanket deletion - and mostly because unsourced BLPs aren't the problem. The problem is incorrect (and harmful) statements in BLPs. The proper way to handle these unsourced BLPs is to see if they are verifiable, and if so, source them, and if not, delete them as such. But these unsourced articles themselves are not the problem, and I don't think they are any more likely to contain problem statements than unwatched, rarely edited sourced BLPs. A system like flagged revisions would implement for both sourced and unsourced BLPs at least some level of editorial fact checking - and editorial fact checking is the system every other encyclopedia has used for quality control. @Bali: If every rule had been thrown at me when I was a new editor, I would have been blocked, and would absolutely not be here today. That is what I do understand, if not for the welcoming environment I got back in 2005, I wouldn't be here. That environment, even then, was dieing and without it, so will Wikipedia. That experience is why I believe that WP:AGF is the most fundamental policy. There are more fundamental principles - we are building an encyclopedia, for example - but as far as policies go, Wikipedia really is built on an assumption that people are good. After all this site is built on what these people wrote. Prodego ^talk 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF absolutely is at the center of what we do here (I really could not agree more), and most people are here to help. But WP:BLP says (in part) that, when we do come across edits made by people who are not acting in good faith and are trying to harm others, we need to act quickly and forcefully. The argument you are making is, I think, specious because assuming good faith 98% of the time and rigorously enforcing BLP are not at all mutually exclusive. Your suggestion that combing through the unsourced BLPs, sourcing most of them (as would happen), and deleting those that do not get sourced somehow defiles AGF and creates an unwelcoming environment is not remotely convincing to me (and you just assert those things, without offering evidence). In the process of doing the cleanup we can warn authors of all these articles that they will be deleted if they are unsourced (giving them sufficient time to do the sourcing), and explain why it is we need to do that (a friendly, detailed, and standard note to be placed by a bot would be easy to write). I have no doubt that most contributors would not have a problem with that or think the wiki-environment had gone to hell because they were asked to source an article (why on earth would they?).

To your first point, no one knows whether sourced or unsourced BLPs contain (per capita) more incorrect or harmful statements. There's been a lot of back and forth about this but it's a silly thing to argue about in the absence of data. Clearly both of those categories of BLPs do have problems, and what has been proposed of late is a systematic means to deal with one of the categories (the smaller one, since there are hundreds of thousands of sourced BLPs). In the process we would be sourcing a bunch of unsourced articles, which is a good encyclopedic practice whether or not it's a BLP. The fact is that up to this point there has been no agreed upon and collective effort to work on even some aspect of the BLP problem. We seem on the verge of one now, and while it does not solve everything and other solutions will need to be put in place, I'm mystified by the "unsourced BLPs are not the real problem" comments. Obviously they are a part of the problem (no one can credibly deny that), so why we would we not start working on them since it seems we will come up with a consensus based way to do that? Aside from dealing with a bunch of problematic bios via cleanup or deletion (which is the most important thing), we'll have come together collectively to address a portion of the BLP nightmare, and that itself is quite valuable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more agreeing with you than disagreeing BTP. What I'm saying is deleting them outright is contrary to the principles of AGF. Combing through them sourcing what can be verified and deleting what can't is exactly what should be done. Prodego ^talk 21:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We're definitely in agreement then, because like you I do not support outright deletion (though if we literally could not agree on how to go about combing through and sourcing them—which would be insane at this point since it seems like we're about to do just that based on the RfC—I could see it being necessary as an option of last resort). I think the fact that full-on deletion was pursued initially made some people feel (understandably) that it would continue, but hopefully the outcome is that it only stirred up enough trouble to force us to come up with a process for a longstanding problem (which we clearly were not doing). I actually think the vast majority of editors basically agree on what we need to do now (it's what we are both saying) and are pretty flexible about how to do that, it's just that the heated arguments of the last few days have muddied things a bit and prevented people from seeing the extent to which most of us are on the same page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE is a false argument. It cuts both ways. We're not on a deadline to continually be hosting unsourced BLP articles, many of which have been around for 3, 4, even five years or more. If anything, we're on a deadline to get rid of these things quickly before we expose ourselves to even more bad press, or worse. JBsupreme (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who prods any article must show evidence of having looked for sources prior to prodding per WP:BEFORE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another bureaucratic hurdle that can be safely ignored if there is sufficient necessity, which this situation certainly warrants. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not looking for sources before prodding an article is just plain laziness. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to see about getting that explicitly incorporated into WP:DEL#REASON and the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy page then. Personally I feel that if an article has been lying around for three to five years without sources with a questionable edit history there isn't much to be lost. JBsupreme (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any good faith editor who cares about his colleagues would always check for sources before prodding an article or nominating it for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That is where you and I, and many others I take it, will disagree. If an article has remained unsourced for five years then it should be summarily deleted. Its not my job to fix it for you. JBsupreme (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not your right to unilaterally rewrite policy. Frankly, your actions are far more damaging to this project than letting these articles sit around for a little while longer while the community attempts to form policy is. You are not above the community, no matter how full of yourself you are. Resolute 20:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, "the community", no matter how many gather in gaggles here and there to pontificate, is not above and cannot alter basic BLP policy. Leaving these articles around does far more harm than you can comprehend, apparently. And to A Nobody, reductio ad absurdum statements do not a sound argument make. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP articles should be sourced. Removing unsourced material from BLPs without showing evidence of attempting to first source them is not within policy. An admin should make a good faith effort to find sources and discuss with article creators before unilaterally deleting per WP:BEFORE. Outright libelous content should indeed be removed and any specifically libelous edit can be deleted, but the articles themselves (barring they are hoaxes or articles for which no sources exist and for which the deleting admin can demonstrate he thoroughly checked for sources prior to deletion and could not find any) should remain if even as stubs. Moreover, those who seek to reduce this discussion to name calling only enflame the situation or diminish its level of mature academic discourse. Blanket denigration of 331 editors and admins cannnot be considered productive. Yes, I should probably just ignore it per WP:DENY, but others viewing this discussion should be aware who is approaching it maturely and seriously and who is not. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To Resolute, your statement gets right to the heart of the argument and points to a lack of understanding of the spirit of BLP that I see in far too many editors. "Letting these articles sit around for a little while longer" could lead to real-life consequences for one or more people (damage to reputation, loss of current or prospective employment, simple emotional harm at reading lies about yourself online, etc.). The whole point of WP:BLP is that we cannot be cavalier about letting possibly harmful material just "sit around" because we don't know who it will hurt and when. If you disagree with that, then you're not in step with one of the most critical policies on this entire project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that almost any article could possibly contain information which could cause adverse real-life consequences for someone. If we are prepared to delete articles based on the risk, however remote, that such material could be present then we should shut down the project entirely. Hut 8.5 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec - though you can never be 100% sure one could reasonably assess prior to deleting something whether it is potentially harmful) Also fundamental to the project is that it is a civil, collaborative, consensus-driven, non-hierarchical crowd-sourced free content site. If you lose that, you have no content at all good or bad. We have standards for content, and one article a day is deemed to have met those standards. The vast majority of articles, though quite informative and perhaps better en masse than any other encyclopedia in the world, are very far from that standard. Most facts in the encyclopedia are not specifically sourced. We all agree, I think, with the proposition that all statements of fact should be sourced or at least sourceable. There is disagreement as to whether uncontroversial unsourced statements about people should be removed until a citation is found. There is a great difference of opinion on how to go about improving unsourced articles about living people, even if people agree on the end goal. All of these things get decided by discussion, debate, and sometimes bold action. Imperious unilateral rule-flaunting is not one of the better ways to muster editors for a widespread improvement campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! I have reverted personal attacks on real people made by vandals in articles on fictional things, just as I have seen editors refer to real people as such insulting things as a "shit disturbing creationist" on a discussion page and arguably worse in edit summaries and on user talk pages (I am holding back the diffs, but we all know they exist). Everything from our user talk pages to edit summaries do indeed contain occasional damaging and insulting material on real world people. We react to these by reverting them, oversighting them, etc., i.e. the specific edits, not the articles, talk pages, discussions, etc. themselves. And we certainly do not delete articles that can be sourced because we are too lazy to look for and add sources ourselves. Even when I argue to delete, I still make a sincere effort to check Google News, Google Books, J-Stor, Amazon.com, and Academic Search complete for sources before I comment, no matter how much the article seems unsourceable to begin with. I check for myself and then I indicate as much in the relevant AfD with at a minimum a link to Google showing that sources are not available. If no sources really do exist, then, sure, the article should be deleted as I argue in such instances as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Hisayo. I am not opposed to removing unsourceable content that is potentially libelous; I am opposed to lazily removing content that can be sourced. Besides, the only way to be sure that we do not cause adverse consequences for people would be to not have a website anyone can edit in the first place. Surely that is not what some are after? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@BigTimePeace: Quite the contrary, actually. WP:BLP said (before an admin protected it in their preferred version) that contentious unsourced material needs to be removed immediately. You already have the mandate to deal with material that has the potential to harm, and nothing is stopping you from wading through the backlog to search for such problems. But don't sit here and tell me that the indiscriminate deletion of articles in part or in whole is anything but destructive. My issue is that "fuck the community" is not a valid argument for anybody but the Foundation itself, and allowing individual editors to act under their own personal opinions of what they think policy should be is the surest path to anarchy. You can't save something by destroying its core. Resolute 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarc and Bigtimepeace et al are the embodiment of why nobody ever rushes to fix the BLP problem, and why it will never be fixed the proper way, by the effort of the entire community without doing the dumbest thing ever, deleting and recreating the same content using 3 or 4 people each time, and creating policy by breaching experiment or militant action. And this is their plan for the unlikely cases, never mind the real sources of trouble, which are reffed and usually indistinguishable from the claims in an unreffed blp. It's a real shame these people have zero self perception as they go around dolling out the truth. I find it hilarious that the biggest obstacle to fixing the BLP problem are the people who, if you were that gullible, are apparently the only people concerned about it. Leave it to them I say. I'm sure the seemingly less than 20 people that so vociferously care about BLPs will be able to handle it themselves. Either that or Wikipedia will die the predicted death of a thousand retirements, as the truthers gradually gain control and hey presto, problem solved, no new articles to worry about, and all the old junk deleted without cause or care, because apparently all you need to delete articles is to believe that the only reason anybody would ever have created an unreffed bio stub would be for the most nefarious of intents, and an ability to call anybody who disagrees a moron, as you ask them to help out anyway. Too much of a risk, have to delete them all immediately, without even looking at them. Even if it turns out 99.9999% pose no risk at all, and they were only created because someone asked people to contribute to a user generated encylopoedia way back when. MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you're a bit worked up, but I'd stipulate that you know essentially nothing about me or my views. I've had nothing to do with "breaching experiments" or "militant actions," I've never called any Wikipedian a "moron" in any forum anywhere, I could not remotely be classified as a "deletionist," I myself created unreffed bio stubs in the past and thus certainly do not think they're generally created for nefarious reasons, I did not think it was wise for admins to go on a deleting spree (though I understood the reason and think it has led to a good discussion) and asked them to stop, and my main involvement in this entire argument has been to try to help come up with a consensus based solution where we could begin systematically fixing the unsourced BLP articles and then deleting them if and only if the fixing does not happen (and I think the only way to get folks motivated for the fixing is to put those articles under the deletion gun, so to speak). There is far too much extreme rhetoric on both sides of this debate, and unfortunately I think you are engaging in it yourself above. Honestly I don't even know what your exact view is (and you presumably don't know mine), but it's entirely possible that we would largely agree if you would stop e-yelling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Mr. Wales. You don't know me and I know now you could not care less what I, and many others like me, have done here. Without causing (much) drama, and without seeking power, I have (usually) quietly volunteered here, contributing what I could in what areas interested me. During that time I have bit my tongue many times when my own personal opinion conflicted with the consensus of the community. I have sourced articles started by other editors when they were threatened with deletion. I have made an effort to source every statement I've put on the main space. With this edit you spat in the face of every editor who has ever abided by consensus in order to work in a collaborative environment. You have spat in the face of editors who have tried to improve on the work of others rather than denigrate and delete it. You have spat in the face of contributors and cheered on destructive power-hungry thuggery. You have made it plain that this is a place for petty, impotent despots to come to play online power-games rather than what it pretends to be: a place for generous volunteers to contribute and share information. You have, in my eyes, bastardized this project for volunteers here and lessened the value of Wikipedia as a potential source for information. Dekkappai (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales,

as a regular contributor to wikipedia (given, i havent dont much lately, but still), the commendation you have given to Scott MacDonald can be seen as controversial. His work on the John Silber article and his response (which is to threaten blocking/banning users who revert his edits) is rather distressing. Here i shall paste the concerning warning:

"

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"

I was one of the early contributors to the Silber article, and Scott's work involves deleting anything and everything that is unflattering to Mr. Silber, despite that fact that they are sourced from reputable sources such as New York Times, with correct citations. Your praise to Mr. MacDonald can now be seen as a tacit endorsement of his policies, including his implied threats against editors who do not agree with him, whether you see it that way or not. It is my belief that wikipedia biographies is to describe a person's life, controversies included, rather than whitewashing any unflattering details about the person's life. I would like to hear from you on this matter. Thank you. --Bud (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a little high in rhetorical flourish but in substance I agree, it is not a good thing to encourage rogue behavior by administrators. If there is a large scale problem it needs to be discussed in the community, a plan worked out, and then executed in an orderly way. This spree of deletions was unannounced and is both capricious and sloppy. They aren't being logged or noticed, and often not even reviewed - some of them are sourced despite the unsourced tag. Even a very simple solution would be better, like moving them all to an archive where they can be evaluated and sourced. Allowing administrators to go wild with their own interpretations and solutions alienates the community, hurts the encyclopedia, and causes widespread discontent. This has been a common thread in all of the previous deletion campaigns I have seen. It really is some kind of power play. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

==Hallo Jimbo! Just to let you know a copy of a comm to user:cirt - great work! Uwe

Antarctic Krill Image by Professor Kils

Hallo Cirt!

On the occasion of a retirement I give my photograph of Antarctic Krill Euphausia superba to the public domain in 591 pixel resolution. Can you please set on commons krill.jpg und krill666.jpg to that resolution. It was on thousands of pages and documentations, often on the frontpage, like in WIKIPEDIA in Germany and Danmark - you can bring your results to no higher distribution and mention in so many countries like wikis frontpage. Just look on the image description page into how many countries it went. It would be nice if you find for me a copyright tag royalty free with mention of author.

I can not do that because user:martin h. blocked me pages over pages, claiming uploading nude, you asked us to use only one voice. He can have all copyrights, we never uploaded these images (which we do own, they were stolen first). Thank you very much to authors like you and to Jimbo - thank you very much Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)