User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Dangers of paid editing

(continued from thread #Editors for hire)

So far, many problems of paid editing tend to be "self-regulating" in the sense that the greater the danger, then the more likely several people will come to fix the problems. For example, with people who make just a few edits, then they cannot slant too many articles. When people make many edits, then their patterns of slanting become revealed, and in fact, computer bots could scan their edits to look for a pattern of unfair wording. In the case of a public paid Wikipedia speaker, and unknown numbers of his/her fans, then the fame of that person attracts more editors checking for policy violations or WP:TAGTEAMs which overpower opponents as a form of gaming the system. Hence, a person most likely to attract devoted fans is also most likely to be caught for whatever potential policy violations being questioned at WP:ANI. The kinds of users which WP has trouble stopping are gangs of like-minded users who censor opposing viewpoints, because WP policies are designed to catch more people by evidence of adding improper content rather than those who suppress content, where the lack of information is difficult to "see" compared to the glaring violations in the questionable incorrect added text. In that sense, I think the people to fear most are "paid removers" rather than "paid writers". Hence, WP needs to improve policies to deter people who are slanting articles by slowing removing text, just a few phrases at a time, or rewriting articles where the removed text is difficult to spot. -Wikid77 02:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikid77 and I may have our disagreements on other issues, but this is an excellent point: I think the people to fear most are "paid removers" rather than "paid writers". It would be a relatively simple thing for a bot to compile for review by a human editor, and it would be a useful thing to have in place, whether the removers were paid or otherwise. WWB Too (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least it would be good to have a tool to count if a suspected editor had a pattern of page sizes getting smaller after each edit. Then see if notable ("significant") content is being removed, in general. Also, we need to address when paid editors are a problem for other paid editors, such as competition between them tending to over-criticize a competing editor. -Wikid77 22:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't let me post the external link here, but there is an academic paper called "Detecting Wikipedia Vandalism with Active Learning and Statistical Language Models" that is along these lines for vandalism. King4057 (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous IP editor on Kobe Bryant sexual assault case article

Happy New Year, Jimmy. I hope my past mistakes do not preclude my asking you for advice on a troublesome matter. I'm having some difficulty with a problem IP editor with a history being blocked for edit warring, and who seems to have difficulty following WP:AGF and other guidelines, in regards to his insistence on adding the name of the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape some years ago to the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case article. I'll try to summarize in five succinct questions:

1. BLP policy clearly states that Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. This description would seem to fit the name of Bryant's accuser quite clearly. Because of this, and other arguments brought up during the discussion on that article's talk page, as well as other precedents such as Star Wars Kid, which omits the name of that subject's name even though it appears in sources that are cited in that article, I removed the accuser's name from both the article and the talk page. Was I correct to do so? The other editor, 70.245.209.94, argues that the article talk page discussion shows only five people in favor of omitting her name, and eleven against it. Now putting aside the fact that I count it as four to six, and not five to eleven, and that this is a problematic endeavour when some editors participate from anonymous IPs (which could allow single editors to chime under different ones), my understanding is that while we do build consensus, editorial decisions are ultimately not based on voting, particularly when policy is clear. Am I correct in concluding this?

2. Editor 70.245.209.94 takes issue with the phrase "widely disseminated" by arguing that her name has appeared in The New York Times. Now I apologize to have to ask you this, since I think this is obvious, but since he insists on splitting this hair, I want to make sure that you agree with my response: My understanding of the phrase "widely disseminated" means that her name is mentioned commonly, across many news publications, particularly reputable ones, to the point where her name becomes a household name, at least at the time that the case first made news, and not that it is merely reported in one publication, even a widely read one like the The New York Times, since that would mean that "wide dissemination" essentially has the same meaning as or criteria as the Verifiability Policy. Am I right here?

Nightscream (whom, full disclosure, I am acquainted with in real life through our common participation in Wikimedia-NYC events) has asked me for opinions on his questions 2–5 here, since no one else seems to him (or me) to be addressing them.

Here, no, I don't think that publication in a single outlet, even one with the stature of The New York Times (probably one of our most frequently cited sources), counts as "widely disseminated". Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Editor 70.245.209.94 continues to include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser on the article talk page, and the IP talk page. If you summarily agree with the above that removing her name is necessary, then is it a blockable offense for someone to continue mentioning her name on the talk page in new talk page messages? And if it's not so clear-cut, would that mean that it's okay to mention it?

I think we're entitled to some latitude on a talk page discussion while the issue is being resolved (much as we allow the temporary use of a fair-use image there if it is relevant to a discussion, while that discussion is taking place). Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not. There's zero difference between article and any other pages for WP:BLP purposes. Any material that would be retracted from an article for BLP purposes should be immediately redacted from a talk page. Herostratus (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Editor 70.245.209.94 repeatedly violates WP:AGF by accusing me of harboring a bias against Bryant, that arguing that omitting the accuser's name implies guilt on Bryant's part (even though it's common for reputable news organizations to omit the names of alleged rape victims). Although he continued to do this during his block, I decided not to extend the block or ask another admin to do so because I hoped that I could show him how assuming intent on the part of someone, without eliminating other possible motives, is an ad hominem logical fallacy. He responds that "ad hominem is not a logical fallacy if it is to establish bias". My efforts are probably futile, so I need to ask, if an editor continues to violate AGF with repeated accusations, is this a blockable offense?

Yes, especially with a response like that indicating an appeal to logic would be completely lost on the respondent. However, get someone else to make the block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

5. I know that talk page etiquette allows editors to respond to other editors' messages by placing responses to certain passages in the middle of the first speaker's message-- that is, responding to a sentence or comment directly after it. I dislike this practice, as it appears to mutilate my messages, and makes it difficult to discern the authorship of the individual messages at a glance. When this happens, I tend to remove the responding editor's responses and place them after my initial message. Is this acceptable? Shouldn't the initial editor have some say in that? If so, and editor 70.245.209.94 continues to mutilate my messages, is that a blockable offense? Nightscream (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of this practice is that it's easier to interpolate responses between paragraphs where there's naturally space. If I want to fisk someone's response, I put it in quotes and italics within my own grafs. At the very least, if you do this, Nightscream, I'd put in a note of some kind noting the refactoring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The name should be included; a long paragraph going on about the accuser's admission to "lying" when neither her handwritten letter nor the paragraph blurb introducing it in thesmokinggun.com puts it that way (the two sources), not so much. I made an edit to that, but the rest of the article could bear checking. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the accuser's name should not be included - she's a clear BLP 'one notable event' case - and I have to admit that that article is doing a fine end-run around BLP by basically listing off everyone the accuser knows: Poor woman's going to have to move to a new town because everyone who reads wilkipedia will know intimate details of her personal life. This is not a scandal-rag, this is an encyclopedia. stick to the facts of the case. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is the threshold for creating an article about her, not the threshold for naming her. "Avoiding victimization" in BLP is a statement about pulling names out of primary court transcripts or the like. Once there's a body of published work about a person, including them becomes a relevant detail for an article. Wnt (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WNT, the spirit of BLP is that we are an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. We avoid unnecessary defamatory or embarrassing material except where it's necessary to describe some notable event. This woman is not notable in her own right, and is only notable because she accused someone famous of assaulting her sexually. We do not need detailed information about the woman herself (her life, her character, her name) because the woman is not significant to the article. The only reason to talk about her at all would be to try to argue Kobe's side of the case; but he had lawyers to do that, Wikipedia doesn't need to.

All this article needs to say is that Kobe (the notable individual) was accused of the crime but the charges were dropped because the accuser refused to testify; maybe present some of the surrounding analysis of the media frenzy surrounding the case. trying to drag the woman into it is irresponsible and unencyclopedic. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're justifying your position with an inexcusable lack of imagination. Certainly I can think of a reason why we'd want to know her name - to know what happened to her. Was she hounded to her grave by Kobe fanatics? Did she take the undisclosed settlement and retire happily to a private island? Or is the truth somewhere between? Now that she's a public figure we have a right to ask such questions - we have a right to ask how damaging the sort of character assassination that came up at the trial really is, how damaging the prospect of lawsuits over alleged rapes is, and to use such information to inform our opinions about public policy and whether the rules of evidence in rape trials should be changed. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we seem to be discussing only Point #1 from my original message at the top, and not Points 2 - 5, can we move this over to that article's talk page? I've responded to Wnt's most recent post above there. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In the context of a male-dominated world, in which there is a stigma (or even deadly sanctions) attached to being a rape victim, we may need to actually create a policy. Balanced against the (Western) right of the accused to "confront their accuser" is also a woman's right to have a private life. It is not for Wikipedia to out LGBT's nor rape victims, is it?

Some contributors have been trying to conceal the facts about blaming the victim and honor killings. It's bad enough to get raped; let's not pile on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy WP:BLP#Avoid victimization; the point is, it prohibits outing rape victims from obscure filings, as opposed to naming people who have 55 pages of results on Google about the case already. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please restrict this portion of the discussion to the article talk page (where a discussion on this has been ongoing since December 9), so that we don't have it in two different places???? Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

<sigh…> I sometimes think Wikipedia is where people come when they want to publish stuff that even supermarket tabloids won't touch. Some editors just don't get the whole 'encyclopedia' concept. We're not here to dig into people personal lives; we're here to report information that might credibly have import and meaning as general knowledge. The whole Bryant rape case barely qualifies. it's mere 'society column' trivia: i.e people gabbing on about the things 'quality' people do, as they have always gabbed and always will gab - the same stories repeated with an endless supply of different names and faces. I accept that this kind of thing is unavoidable to a certain extent (because we are social monkeys who can't help grunting with excitement over this kind of crap), but we really need to do something to reign it in, because there are many, many people in the world who get absolutely obsessed with ferreting out every gritty detail of people's private lives, given any trivial excuse to do so. it's all just… unseemly. Twenty years from now no one (except the the odd 'sports guy') is going to remember Kobe Bryant - he'll be a statistic in a few books, and maybe one of those goofy late night product-promo guys - and under normal circumstances no one would remember this rape allegation or the woman involved in it at all. So why are we giving this bit of social trivia a memory-life it would never have achieved on it's own? --Ludwigs2 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article, a TV station (and many other sources) just mentioned her name again recently.^[1] People running web searches on events 30 years ago today get many fewer results than they will in 30 years. I should say, I am actually quite disgusted with the way that the accuser has been treated, with her sexual and psychiatric history showcased to the media. But those are the facts, and if Wikipedia is going to cover this at all, it should cover the situation in proper detail. It has public policy implications for all the women in similar situations. We can't erase what is written on the Internet, but we can weigh it carefully and produce a more balanced, careful, and useful summary than any competing source of information. (or the article at present...) If we allow ourselves to do so. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wnt: my point is that an encyclopedia is not concerned with information that is of no credible practical value outside of its immediate circumstance. Newspapers have to cover 'current events', yes, and so newspapers are going to cover material like this. And yes it will be stored in their archives for anyone who wants to look it up. But 'stored in the archives' of a newspaper that moves incessantly onward to the next interesting bit of social trivia is a far cry from 'established as a matter of significant fact' in an encyclopedia. 100 years from now people are still going to want information about the theory of gravity and Sigmund Freud; these have passed the test of time. Are you suggesting that 100 years from now people will care a fig about some woman who accused some (by then) ancient basketball player of sexual assault? No. There will be plenty of athletes having sex with plenty of people in that time frame for them to gossip about. The thought of a (by then) 120+ year old Kobe having sex with anyone will do nothing except disgust them.

You have to look at the bigger picture here: an encyclopedia isn't about every little 'sexy' tidbit of information that comes down the pike. An encyclopedia is about knowledge that ostensibly lasts - stuff that will be meaningful to people long after the people involved are dead and buried. I know that Wikipedia is young and the internet travels at the speed of rumor, so it's hard to remember that we are writing for the long term, but still... You'll do a lot better to edit the feminism article than this silly article about a sexual assault case if you're worried about public policy implications. And while I trust your intentions (I've seen enough of you to know that you're both honest and self-aware), don't kid yourself that most of the people wanting to add this woman's name are interested in 'public policy': most are either trying to defend Kobe's honor (out of a misguided sense of hero-worship), or simply following that monkey-urge to know more-and-more-and-more about something scandalous. That's not the kind of thing that an encyclopedia ought to be interested in. --Ludwigs2 07:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The bigger picture here is that we, as a society, have to decide whether the rules of evidence in the courtroom allow a woman's prior sexual and psychiatric history to be brought in when she alleges rape. In other words, if a woman has been subjected to psychiatric hospitalization or other treatment, does this mean she is Fair Game for the rest of her life? This one of the highest profile date rape cases in the past two decades - one way or another, it has shaped public opinion. Those seriously seeking to understand the laws and responses of this society to rape will want to understand what happened in this case, even decades in the future. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the case set any new legal precedents ? No. Did it go to trial, No. Was an out of court settlement agreed between the celebrity and the complainant, Yes. - this is all standard stuff. There is nothing in the case details that supports your opinion that, " Those seriously seeking to understand the laws and responses of this society to rape will want to understand what happened in this case, even decades in the future" - talk about over egging the pudding. We appear imo to be 'over reporting' this issue considering it from a long-term, historical view. Youreallycan (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Bless sins and User:Vice regent

Hi Jimbo. User:Bless sins and User:Vice regent have been blocked because they've edited Wikipedia from the same computer. They were accused of committing sock-puppetry. Bless sins has been editing for five years (15,763 edits) and Vice regent for 4.5 years (4,765 edits). Their contributions only overlap in 183 pages. There is no apparent motives for them to commit sock-puppetry. For all the five years, both of them voted together just in one discussion. Please unblock them or join the discussion at User:Bless sins. Thanks.

(Note that I have no relations with both of them. I am just appealing for them because the block is unfair) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.137.161 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. I just read the entire discussion and it seems that it is trending towards an unblock. I think that would be the right decision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for that decision was almost unanimous, and I'm pleased to say they're both unblocked. WilliamH (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing in a WP:BLP

The section at issue has been edited down a bit from its original overstatements, but remains in part at Rick_Santorum#K_Street_Project using what I think should reasonably be considered opinion or editorial pieces, rather than given as absolute statements of fact (that Santorum was a key figure in the K Street project - and then the appended fact that he denies it). Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not enough to go to BLPN (as you have done)? What does coming here add? Disclaimer: I am not the editor sparring with Collect on this one -- I'm just wondering in general why people bring this sort of issue to a user talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably because I strongly invite and support it, I'm guessing. I think it very important that I stay very plugged in to what is going on. I always wonder what agenda people have when they don't want me to know about something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying I didn't want you to know (where on earth does that come from??) -- I was merely wondering about the logic. I'm ever so grateful that you and Collect have explained it to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo and I have had many discussions about "silly season" edits on political figures in the past - and he has many times stated that all are welcome here. This is not just a "user talk page" - in some ways it is an adjunct to the Village Pump and other pages for general discussion. Thus my presence here is quite proper and in line. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Santorum page is seeing quite a flood of activism and partisanship over the last few days, unfortunately. This project really needs to get a handle on political bios being used as platforms to denigrate the subject; the latest is a handful of editors trying to jam the full "frothy" faux-word definition into the article. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A huge amount of frothy mixture is being spread on that page, indeed. Also allegations which are made by editorial writers being used as "fact." Collect (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well what about the larger issue of why there is a hatnote on the top of Rick Santorum. Clearly the word Santorum refers only to him, as does that campaign. But I don't have the energy for that fight. Prodego ^talk 08:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

About a proposed blackout

Jimmy, I think you need to go here. SOPA will kill the US web scene -- and that will affect everyone. The Anonymous suggestion to put the front page as an explanation of SOPA is a good one. It might be wise to give every participating web service an identical page, which clearly lays out the problem, and what frustrated users can do about it that will be effective. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.174.161 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you speak Russian ?

Do you speak Russian, Jimbo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Мамаджанов (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. I speak only English with any fluency. I have studied German off and on for years, so that with some effort I can make myself understood to a taxi driver in a German-speaking place (though they almost all speak English better than I speak German!) and I can read quite slowly, having to consult a dictionary often. I have also studied Spanish briefly, though not enough to have any serious impact on my ignorance. I studied Japanese at the University level for one year, and for a while many years ago I think my conversational Japanese was about the same as my conversational German is today, i.e. quite bad. But I know nothing of Russian, I'm afraid. It's my desire to continue with my hobby of language studies, but as you might imagine, I don't seem to be especially good at it, nor do I tend to devote enough time to it.

There's an old saying that most people who say they want to write a book actually don't want to write a book, they want to have written a book. I think that probably applies to me and languages. I want to know how to speak several languages, but I don't particularly seem to enjoy the process of learning them.  :-) Still, I will keep slowly plugging away. As I intend to continue working on Wikipedia for the rest of my life, I hope that when I am 85 years old, I'll be here on this talk page giving a much more satisfactory answer. We shall see. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., at 92, was found by FDR reading Plato in Greek. FDR asked why he was doing so - and Holmes replied "Why, to improve my mind." [2] [3] etc. I trust that you , at 85, will indeed seek to keep improving your mind. (OWH was alays called "Wendell" by his family per my mom knowing them living down the street) Collect (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We should talk to each other in German sometime Jimbo? I happen to be 100% German being fluent in both English and German.—cyberpower (Happy 2012) 13:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In some respects, Englsih is the more ancient language as it retains the "th" sound lost in modern German <g> (Jakob Grimm IIRC). Collect (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Jimmy Wales. Es freut mich das sie auch Deutsch sprechen koennen.—cyberpower (Happy 2012) 14:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke sehr, aber mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht. Ich verstehe nur ein bisschen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Macht nichts. I habe ihnen einen e-Mail geschickt, es waere nett wenn sie es lesen koennen und mir einen Antwort gibst. Da habe ich nehmlich einen Idee wie man Wikipedia verbessern kann. Hier habe ich es nicht gepostet weil ich dachte ich werde Anschiss bekommen von andere Wikipedia Editierer.

You've Got Mail

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—cyberpower (Happy 2012) 12:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Jimbo,

Thank you for transforming my ANI from a lynch mob into a very productive discussion. Your input and support were greatly appreciated. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Wales

Hey um Mr.Wales I have been (according to some users) infragmenting copyright violation when I have not. I do not know what to do because I usaully paraphrase alot of the work (keeping scentences here and there though). Do you have any suggestions to what I should do. I would aprecciate that man. Algamicagrat (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I recommend that you stop doing that! That's not the right way to write a Wikipedia article. Paraphrasing is not sufficient and keeping sentences here and there is not right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Algamicagrat, a belated welcome to Wikipedia!

Your edit to Paraptenodytes looks a lot like a blog from here. I'm not saying that's intentional on your behalf - far from it - but because they are so similar that's why it will have been flagged up as a copyright violation - something Wikipedia takes very seriously. I don't know if it's maybe something to do with the script you're using (I noticed you used a script called ProveIt for both the edits you were warned about) as I know nothing of that script. Although you say that you keep sentences here and there, if you keep them in large chunks, that will be enough to set off a copyright violation somewhere in Wikipedia. The odd word or so being the same or even the odd sentence might be ok but definitely not whole chunks. I'm sure I must have a template somewhere explaining about copyright, I'll try and dig it out for you.--5 albert square (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia?

Howdy Jimbo. The old diacritics spats were bad enough, now we've got editors wanting to move Portuguese monarchs articles from John to João. Heck help us, if a push begins to move Japanese monarch titles from English to Japanese. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, how many fora are you going to canvass in? I hope you can tell the difference between moving John to João and moving Emperor Ninkō to 仁孝天王. FWIW, I take diacritics on a case-by-case basis, and with this I think João is correct, because the vast majority of history books I've read use his name, not his anglicized name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who's forum-shopping? This is a casual chat with a fellow editor (JW). GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little quick to judgment; nonetheless, this is far from the first place you've objected to this particular move. I'm not entirely sure what you want to accomplish here, but I suppose you have something in mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much canvassing. How about starting an RfC instead GoodDay. Prodego ^talk 06:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I weren't asking for JW's input 'there'. Infact, JW's is free to 'delete' this entire thread without comment. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Undo renames from João x back to John x of Portugal: As an involved editor, I see an ongoing discussion to restore the article name back to the WP:COMMONNAME form as "John V of Portugal" from a recent non-consensus rename/move-over-redirect (on 7 January 2012) to the rare English form "João V of Portugal" (plus "João VI"). Search of Google Books confirms widespread (80%+) English use as "John V of Portugal" dating back over 250 years, to at least 1759. See: "Talk:João V of Portugal#Requested move". This might be part of a growing trend to remove common English titles from enwiki, but I have not checked the data to assess the trend. As I recall, the United Nations seems to keep English names or titles in effect, but I wonder how much the UN had to fight linguistic battles such as this. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'm finally going to admit this; your post reminds me of reading the Daily Punctilio reporter in The Hostile Hospital. If you haven't read it, read the whole Series of Unfortunate Events (The Hostile Hospital is Book 9, but you need the context; they're quite entertaining, so it's entirely worth it) and see if you can figure it out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hostile Hospital echoes ANI: Well, the plot section in "The Hostile Hospital" sounds like a typical WP:ANI thread, with the part: "The party heads to the operating theater, where Klaus and Sunny stall the cranioectomy by describing the past of the knife. Hal appears at that moment and accuses them of setting fire to the Library of Records (WP:3RR?), while Esme turns up with the real Dr. Tocuna (WP:SOCK?) and Nurse Flo and exposes them (WP:OUTING?)." And then they get WP:OUT of the hospital complex or else WP:BLOCK!! -Wikid77 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I should have clarified last night; I didn't mean to compare accuracy, only the headline style notes at the beginning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire "use English" trend has gone far too far and it's heartening to see at least a crack in the wall, even if it's not the best choice of subjects. Portuguese kings may be commonly referred to by their English names, but there are several cases where things are commonly referred to by some other name and Wikipedia's usage is to use the official English name anyway. My usual examples are anime, manga, and video games from Japan, but I just tried "tanuki" which is a word, not an anime. 8.2 million Google results for "tanuki -wikipedia -wiki", 975000 results for "raccoon dog". Guess which one we use as the article name. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

João VI of Portugal (this is the name used by English speaking historians to call him) was the son of Maria I of Portugal (not Mary I), father of Pedro I of Brazil (not Peter I) and Miguel I of Portugal (not Michael I). He was also grandfather of Maria II of Portugal and Pedro II of Brazil. I wonder what readers would think if they see a "John VI" at the middle of all those Portuguese names. The idea here is not to change the entire Wikipedia, but a single page (which has been done). The problem is that GoodDay is an user who doesn't actually contribute writing articles (such as I do: I have nine FAs behind my back) but only on taking part on discussions over what he believes to be the end of the Anglo culture. Not the kind of editor who is truly useful to Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is Mary of Portugal, not Mary I: It is not "Mary I of Portugal" nor "Jesus I, Son of God" but rather "Mary of Portugal" as 2-400x times more common than "Maria I of Portugal" (see Google Books: Ngram for Maria I/II & "Mary of Portugal"). Fortunately, the clever User:GoodDay has been quickly trying to resist these rename attempts (to rare or non-English titles), for more than 1 year now. In this effort, he is one of the most-useful editors on Wikipedia, to retain WP's world-class approach to naming article titles, continuing the traditions from more than 200 years of scholarship. While the much rarer title, "Maria I of Portugal" had been used in English texts somewhat more during the 1940s, the term "Mary of Portugal" has retained most-common status, as it has held for more than 250 years. For a user reading any related book published during the 1800s, they would expect to see "Mary of Portugal" with "Maria I of Portugal" for linking a WP article. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I clicked on the link you gave and the only person who appears is a 15th century Portuguese princess, not Queen Maria. See "Mary%20of%20Portugal"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en here. Could you at least pretend that you're not trying to fool us? --Lecen (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi jimbo

Hi,i no speak good english,but arrive here for that:need you help,wikipedia in espanish no function good,say in spanish ok: Administrators work, not good,follow yours insterests.i be now Blocking policy in spanish,can´t edit pages ,for that lie my location,never,never make Vandalism never make,but help me ,i love edit pages and help and now can´t order you that help me,plis thank you Carliitaeliza (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject Dedicated to a Cooperative Relationship with Paid Editors

Hi Jimbo. You've shown an interest in paid editors in the past, so I thought you might be interested in the proposed Wikiproject Cooperation. This project encourages editors to work collaboratively with people paid to edit Wikipedia and "improve the quality of paid editor contributions." Ebikeguy (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope this initiative begins with the premise that paid advocates should never edit articles directly, and instruct them about better options, as well as building up infrastructure in the community to ensure that those options are maximally productive. We need to be very firm on this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the initiative does not begin with the premise you suggest. It clearly encourages paid writers to edit directly, provided they do so within Wikipedia rules. Perhaps editors who share your (and my) opinion on this matter can try to nudge the project away from encouraging paid, direct editing. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Activism at Wikipedia?

Is there too much activism in some areas at Wikipedia? In the article The Wonderful World of Wikipedia article at Watts Up With That?, there seems to be pointing out some strange twisting of the reality to suit some political goals. Is the project under siege from some coordinated activists? Just look at the Climategate article that stil has a name that no one else uses and has been actively been buried down by deleting it from navigation templates under possible suspicious reasons (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3#Template:Global_warming_controversy). What can be done to change what looks like unhappy circumstances? Nsaa (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not much there. The author points out a sentence in an article in December, which no longer reads that way. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The problems there (including the gist of the disputed claim) and in other articles remain - as any neutral observer may verify, and this is true in a large number of areas on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the active editor pool and wiki policies are not strong enough to create and defend neutral articles in disputed areas. All experienced wiki editors know that. Climate change, all nationalistic articles, all political biographies, religious articles, fringe theories and medicine and biographies of anyone involved in such, sexuality articles, and a few others topic fields that I have not listed, all of these battlefield type articles should come with an edit template disclaimer that says, Wikipedia apologizes for any inaccuracies and biases contained within this article and as there is a strong likelihood of opinionated editing in this sector Wikipedia does not recommend that readers use the article for neutral research. - The recent focus on demeaning the handful of people that create articles for a small charge is dwarfed by the bias of unpaid partisan editors in these sectors and the weakness of current wikipedia polices and the difficulty experienced by NPOV contributors in attempting to implement them. Youreallycan (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

<ec> How entertaining, a fringe blog seems to be trying to recruit meatpuppets to change articles to support their own version of reality. The blog article refers to a version of Soon and Baliunas controversy at the start of December 2011, and complains that we didn't just accept their November blog commentary about a hacked email. It fails to notice that we looked at the various sources and issues, and after discussion 2meters made this revision on 22 December to meet the concerns. That's the current version, hope improvements can be made.
The blog wrongly claims that the disputed text is only sourced to this article by Fred Pearce, and says that he has told them privately he was "almost certainly wrong". Odd that he repeated a revised version of the statement in this article which was open to comment and revision (there were no objections to the statement) and then rewrote it more strongly in his book, which we now cite. Among the extensive discussion on this issue, on 10 December an editor said they'd written to Pearce asking for clarification, this was welcomed with the provision that Pearce will have to publish any retraction in a reliable source such as his own blog: we can't use verbal comments reported in an extremely dubious third party blog which includes in its article BLP violating assertions about a reputable scientist.
Perhaps Nsaa would like to use the article talk page to propose improvements based on reliable sources? . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a firewall and split the project. with a calm tranquil editing environment with stable undisputed articles and sectors, and all the battlefield articles on the other side of the firewall, with that sector clearly marked as the accuracy and neutrality of the articles included in this sector is disputed. - Youreallycan (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing a pov fork where alternate realities based on fringe blogs are given equal weight? Doesn't Conservapedia already meet that need? Or perhaps you're proposing that Wikipedia should only deal with undisputed issues. That'll make a very small 'pedia. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a pov fork, a firewall. Many contributors will benefit from the new tranquil editing environment that would be created. Wikipedia can and should deal with all topics, but all experienced editors know of the biases in these sectors. Some users support it because they support the biases. Are you a contributor to any of these battlefield sectors Dave, do you have strong real world opinions about any such topics? Youreallycan (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Youreallycan. don't know what you mean by a firewall. My edits have covered a number of topics over the years, and my strong view is that WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are essential. You seem to have contributed to some battlefield areas since you began editing on 26 November 2011, sorry you feel the way you do, but in the longer run our policies don't seem to require the firewall you're suggesting. . dave souza, talk 12:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (though as formerly User:Off2riorob you've had plenty of experience, didn't notice that link at first) . . dave souza, talk 13:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A firewall - a separator - two rooms in the same house, one room with stable articles not attracting battlefield disputes. That room in the house would have "stable status" - awarded on request to articles and if given the article is moved to that room. So creating a room in the house without rudeness or edit warring. Users if they wanted could log in only to that room. The other sector, the disputed, the biased, the opinionated articles would all sit in the other room. The objective would be to get the article out of that room to the stable non battlefield room. The only way to do this in some sectors would be to create a truly balanced article that had fair coverage of all positions so as all partisans could be satisfied with it, rather than what some sectors do now which is have to constantly defend the bias in an article through constant blocking of objectors, article protection and tag team edit warring and sometimes just pure weight of numbers. Youreallycan (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I remain of the opinion that certain areas remain magnets for advocacy, and that such articles are intrinsically unamenabe to NPOV due to such magnetism. The WP articles mentioned did, and do, fall into this category as any neutral observer may verify. WP:Advocacy articles speculates on how Wikipedia may eventually have to deal with them. Collect (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Collect, your essay promotes a false equivalence between showing mainstream science and advocacy of fringe views. Policies already deal with these issues, your idea of "neutral" doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV. . . dave souza, talk 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you did not comprehend the nature of the essay. It most certainly does not promote "fringe views." As for NPOV, it states as one of the possible cources for Wikipedia that pairs of articles (one for each side) might co-exist, thus furnishing the project with NPOV overall while admitting that individual articles representing both sides of an issue might individually (as one of the possible courses for Wikipedia to take) present individual advocacy POVs, which is where Wikipedia is now without making that decision! Cheers - and please note that what you "know" about the essay is quite sincerely wrong. Collect (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK. . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

See the essay which states specifically:

The articles which are the subject here are those for which placement of a temporary NPOV tag is substantially insufficient to alert users of Wikipedia that there are major issues concerning the content of an article.

IOW, the essay explicitly sets forth the category of articles covered, and then lists some of the possibile ways for Wikipedia to deal with the problem. No case for an accusation that I back "fringe views" or the like whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a little difficult not to read the essay in that way, Collect. Under Proposed or possible courses of action, you list four options. The first choice is the status quo, which you implicitly dismiss as unsatisfactory (else, why write the essay at all?). The second and third choices are to add essentially-permanent warning signs to articles with advocacy or neutrality issues and then wash our hands of the matter—we might as well give up, because writing these articles from a NPOV is just too hard, and our time is better spent elsewhere. The fourth choice you offer is to allow the creation of explicit POV forks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an essay. Feel free to add additional possible courses - I thought the four choices pretty much covered the field, but clearly you have other possible courses of action on what appear to be quite intractable areas - so please add the other possible courses. As for treating the status quo as "unsatisfactory" - I think that has been pretty well established, don't you? Collect (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is your essay. If you didn't want to suggest those courses of action, you didn't have to. Your statement of the problem and the emphasis of the proposed solutions focuses on reducing the load on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes—which I think rather misses the point. The status quo is better than any of the options which you offered, from the standpoint of producing an encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope - it is in projectspace, and has others who have edited it. Feel free to add other possible courses. Collect (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

John VI is Spanish Juan VI not João VI

Just when I was beginning to tolerate the claims that every word here is actually just the 26-letter English alphabet with a few extra diacritical marks (or a few dozen) added for "cultural accuracy", I checked to see how Spanish-language or French books accept these new words: they don't. At least in the case of "John VI of Portugal" being claimed to be more accurate as "João VI", the Spanish-based texts, searched by Google Books, have far more "Juan VI de Portugal" than any "João VI" appearing in Spanish-language books, during every year from 1900-2008 (see: Google ngram). Whenever any people claim that English editors are biased to reject outside words as "foreign" then ask those same people to find the words accepted in Spanish texts, or German, or Italian, or French texts (compare French title: ngram with João VI versus "Jean VI de Portugal", as 2-13x times more common). No one else except Portuguese speakers think that "João VI" is the name in their language either. In German, it is "de:Johann VI. (Portugal)" or in Danish, it is "da:Johan 6. af Portugal" or in Italian "it:Giovanni VI del Portogallo" or in Polish "pl:Jan VI (król Portugalii)" or Finnish "fi:Juhana VI (Portugali)" or even in Swedish, "sv:Johan VI av Portugal". None of them are convinced that Portuguese is their language with some extra diacritical marks. We do not need a WP:RfC to settle this matter. Just look at how the rest of the world handles words that are not in their language. -Wikid77 Wikid77 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All very interesting! But I'm not 100% sure what your point is, so I do have one question. In terms of what characters to use, it seems that you are, in fact, arguing that English should be written in 26 letters plus a few extra diacritical marks. But you started out seemingly skeptical of that? I think the fault is entirely mine and I am misunderstanding your position.

My own position is that English Wikipedia is written in English, and that means that we should have a strong bias against using letters from other languages, letters that don't exist in English. There are a handful of diacritical marks in use in English, and there are special cases here and there, and that's fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"~" exists in English. A videogame like Civilization IV has the Portuguese monarch called "Joao II", not "John II". On Victoria II, if you play as Brazil, you'll see "Pedro II", not "Peter II". On Civilization IV: Colonization one of the Founding Fathers is Pedro I of Brazil, not "Peter I". If even on popular culture the name used is Portuguese, why Wikipedia can't in the case of João VI of Portugal? It's so hard to speak "Joao"? --Lecen (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of English in English Wikipedia, is so difficult to grasp? For goodness sake, let this Wikpedia use english. Let Portuguese Wikipedia use portuguese, French Wikipedia use french, Swedish Wikipedia use swedish etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Last time I read those articles they were written in English, not Chinese. Could you at least pretend that you have no foreign culture prejudice? Please? This "Oh my God, they are writing all articles in another foreign language" is not helpful. Try to write Featured Articles like I did. Now that's helpful. --Lecen (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)