User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

NB This discussion is also covered on User:Apovolot/Expert peer review page. Please note that I am suggesting "Expert peer review" feature only as optional one (conducted per request) - so I am not suggesting to abolish current practices but instead proposing to enhance those. I understand that no one wants to give up the feel of being empowered and to be in power ... I am not objecting to massive amateur volunteerism, on which Wikipedia was able to build upon so far - it is something to be admired indeed. I am not denying also that participating in Wikipedia in general first of all enhances the subject knowledge of the participants themselves (which is wonderful achievement on its own). It is also very interesting phenomena that Wikipedia "machine" has matured into classical bureaucracy with its own rules, its own authorities, it own "lingo" and its own resistance to further changes / enhancements, etc. However I am quite frankly "stunned" by the statements similar to those made by the User:Rtc, who claims that the scientific expertize, which is certified by the obtained scientific degrees, is not advantageous for editing encyclopedia's articles (those articles, which have the scientific context). Does such "claim" assumes that in general professional scientists get their scientific degrees without demonstratively proving their expert qualifications ? If to follow above claim deeper, why not to go "further" along this line of logic and state that professional scientists do not contribute into advance of science ? - If so, then who does ? ;-) May be the science (per User:Rtc ) is a fictional field altogether ? (;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apovolot (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Apovolot (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that an editor is inherently less worth merely because of the fact that he doesn't have a formal, high qualification. And you are saying an editor is more worth because of the fact that he has a high qualification or institutional affiliation. Isn't that discriminatory elitism, and wasn't it the whole idea behind Wikipedia to avoid these fallacies of discriminatory elitism? --rtc (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course an editor is inherently less reliable if they don't hold (or don't provide evidence of) an accredited qualification. This is not to say that the contributions of those lacking such qualifications are inherently useless, but that the subject knowledge of those with a degree has been examined by experts on the subject, and found to be of a high standard. Those without qualifications have not gone through such a process.Captain Seafort (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

of course an editor is not inherently less reliable if they don't hold (or don't provide evidence of) an accredited qualification. This is not to say that the contributions of those lacking such qualifications are inherently useful, but that the subject knowledge of those without a degree has not been examined by alleged experts on the subject, and not found to be of a low standard. Nor does it mean that if it has been found to be of a low standard in the past that it is still of a low standard. Nor does it mean that if it is indeed of a low standard, it cannot change to the better in the course of his work in Wikipedia. Your thinking is essentialistic and authoritarian. --rtc (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not to say that the contributions of those lacking such qualifications are inherently useful Exactly - and because of this, editors without confirmed expertise in the subject they are editing cannot be considered reliable. The contributions of those with such qualifications are inherently useful, making them superior ediors to those without.

The subject knowledge of those without a degree has not been examined by alleged experts on the subject, and not found to be of a low standard If someone wishes to depict themselves as an authority on a given subject, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the subject to be accepted as such, not on others to prove that they lack that understanding. While individuals may very well be an authority, until such time as their knowledge has been proven they cannot be accepted as such. Their contributions may be worthwhile, but this can only be determined by those with proven expertise on the subject in question, and unless and until such experts have examined each and every contribution made by non-experts, those contributions cannot be considered to be authoritive.

Nor does it mean that if it has been found to be of a low standard in the past that it is still of a low standard. It does, however, further mitigate against the reliability of said editor.

Nor does it mean that if it is indeed of a low standard, it cannot change to the better in the course of his work in Wikipedia. True, but those standards, and any improvement in them, can only be determined by those with proven knowledge of the subject in question - i.e. those with a degree or similar academic qualification.Captain Seafort (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - and because of this, editors without confirmed expertise in the subject they are editing cannot be considered reliable. Those with such qualifications are neither inherently useful, nor "can be considered" reliable. I fully agree that many people with qualifications have something good to contribute and I am ready to accept that those without qualifications often write a lot of crap. But your claim that there is something inherently different between someone with qualifications and those without is simply wrong. Often, people with qualifications write nonsense, often they produce articles full of POV. On the other hand, people without qualifications do make useful contributions and sometimes even surpass the contributions of those with qualifications. It is thus wrong to say that editors with a degree are superior to those without. It is always individual contributions by individual authors that are superior to each other. A bad contribution does not become better because of the fact that it was written by someone who has a degree, and a good contribution does not become worse because of the fact that it was written by someone who has no degree.

If someone wishes to depict themselves as an authority on a given subject, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the subject to be accepted as such, not on others to prove that they lack that understanding. The purpose of peer review is an objective one, not a subjective one, or put simply, it is about finding errors in articles, not about depicting oneself as an authority. Wikipedia is not about its authors, it is about its encyclopedia articles.

While individuals may very well be an authority, until such time as their knowledge has been proven they cannot be accepted as such. Why not? And do we need to accept anyone as an authority at all? Is it not the truth or falsity of what they say that matters, rather than who they are to say it?

Their contributions may be worthwhile, but this can only be determined by those with proven expertise on the subject in question, and unless and until such experts have examined each and every contribution made by non-experts, those contributions cannot be considered to be authoritive. Why not? And do we need to consider any contribution to be authoritative at all? Is it not the neutrality and accuracy of the contribution that matters, rather than the authority of the person who wrote it?

"Nor does it mean that if it has been found to be of a low standard in the past that it is still of a low standard." It does, however, further mitigate against the reliability of said editor. Clearly not, because someone who today has a high standard but has had a low standard yesterday is not expected to have a low standard tomorrow. And if he would be, it would certainly be no different for the one with a degree. Clearly, many of those with a degree had low standards sometime in the past. We are not born as little professors.

but those standards, and any improvement in them, can only be determined by those with proven knowledge of the subject in question - i.e. those with a degree or similar academic qualification. This argument is clearly invalid, because it contains an infinite regress (as all forms of justificationism do). It is also quite wrong. We do not need a degree or similar academic qualification to judge whether someone's contributions are good.

Let me illustrate my argument with a little passage from Plato's Meno:

Socrates: If someone knows the way to Larissa, or anywhere else you like, then when he goes there and takes others with him he will be a good and capable guide, you would agree?

Meno: Of course.

Socrates: But if a man judges correctly which is the road, though he has never been there and doesn’t know it, will he not also guide others aright?

Meno: Yes, he will.

Socrates: And as long as he has a correct opinion on the points about which the other has knowledge, he will be just as good a guide, believing the truth but not knowing it.

Meno: Just as good.

Socrates: Therefore true opinion is as good a guide as knowledge for the purpose of acting rightly. [...]

Meno: It seems so.

Socrates: So right opinion is something no less useful than knowledge.

Meno: Except that the man with knowledge will always be successful, and the man with right opinion only sometimes.

Socrates: What? Will he not always be successful so long as he has the right opinion?

Meno: That must be so, I suppose. In that case, I wonder why knowledge should be so much more prized than opinion [...]

Socrates now begins an apologetic defense of knowledge and claims that "knowledge is something more valuable than right opinion" (I disagree with him about that), but he stresses again that "true opinion when it governs any course of action produces as good a result as knowledge." "for practical purposes right opinion is no less useful than knowledge." --rtc (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion about (or shouldn't it be about) who is more *likely* to be correct about a scientific matter, all else being equal: a person with an accredited qualification or one without? Rtc, if you came down with cancer and had to make a life-or-death decision about how to treat it, choosing between two people both of whom post on Wikipedia and seem pretty smart, one of them a cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins and the other an IT support person, would you just flip a coin and go with either one? Or would you choose the cancer researcher? Would the weight you attach to the credential be greater if you only had one day to make the decision versus six months? (I think it might.) People come to Wikipedia every day looking for reliable information, and they do not have time to investigate the issue for six months, digging deep into the posts by every party who has contributed to an article, weighing arguments and assertions from one party against the other. Nor does everyone who contributes to an article have that time (or ability, to be frank). In the real world, we often need to rely on the fact that a mainstream credential increases the *likelihood* that someone is correct on the matter in which they're credentialed -- particularly in the domain of science, which, after all, has a strong epistemological foundation and has proved itself over centuries -- and just accept the possibility that a credentialed person may be on the wrong side of an issue compared to a noncredentialed person in a minority of cases. We live in a world of probabilities, not certainties, and have to play the odds. The passage from Plato does not address probability of correctness; as a work of epistemology it's not very sophisticated or helpful at all in my opinion. But that's not unusual for Plato. -- BrianH123 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A person with an accredited qualification is just as likely to be correct about a scientific matter as a person without such a qualification; the probability that the one or the other is correct is exactly zero (which does not mean that it is impossible that one of them is right; or that both are always just as right as the other). Your example is nonsense, it does not happen in reality and certainly does not compare to Wikipedia. Of course, I would not take into account their formal qualification; I would take into account what they have written and whether it seems correct to me. People do not come to Wikipedia to look for "reliable" information (whatever that is), but for accurate information on the various conflicting viewpoints that exist on the topic in question, with each of the viewpoints given the balance that it deserves. A mainstream credential does no tat all increase the likelyhood that someone is correct on the matter on which they're credentialed; it is zero and always remains zero; credentials do not make anyone less fallible. If someone with a degree knows a lot, it is not because of his degree, but because of his studies; and someone who has done the same but has no degree knows just as much. Luckily, science does not have an epistemological foundation. Epistemology is pseudophilosophical nonsense, science has done well without it. Scientists are on the wrong side all the time; in fact, if the scientist is in any way superior to a noncredentialed person, then it is simply because he is more often wrong and because he accepts that; he creates theories, which are very wrong in the beginning, and he changes them alot when he finds out, and only after doing that over and over again, until he has erred so many times and eliminated so many errors, he will perhaps publish his results, which are also quite often still wrong, as will be discovered by other scientists (or by himself, perhaps by accident). The passage of Plato of course addresses probability implicitly, as for anything to be probable, something must be certain. We do not live in a world of epistemological probabilities. We live in a world of error correction, and the result of error correction is something that is less false – not something less likely to be false. Again, I would like to stress that I agree that scientists often do make good contributions, and that others often write nonsense; and I don't want to say that all individual editors have the same knowledge on all subjects. But I find it quite strange that you don't simply join Citizendium if you like the authoritarian approach lined out above? --rtc (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to ignore your rude tone and just try to reply on the substance.
• The example you called "nonsense" was not intended to "compare to Wikipedia". It was a hypothetical situation, a thought experiment, intended to show that reasonable people quite reasonably use credentials to make decisions about what to believe. Do you disagree with that? If you were faced with a medical decision, would you not consider the credentials of the person giving you advice? If so, then realize that Wikipedia does not exist in a completely different world where different standards of decision-making apply.
• You really need to explain your views on probability better. If you're going to say something that appears contradictory (your first sentence), at least explain why it isn't.
• I said the the passage from Plato does not "address probability of correctness". I stand by that. Your suggestion that it does because "for anything to be probable, something must be certain" just establishes that he addresses a prerequisite of probability. It's analogous to saying that there's milk in the refrigerator because there's water in there.
• Your statements about science and epistemology are just bald assertions with no argument attached. If you don't feel the obligation to justify them, I don't feel the obligation to respond.
• Here is why I don't agree that the original poster's proposal is "authoritarian".

If you have two different views expressed on Wikipedia by two different people and you're trying to decide whom to believe, I think most people would want to consider the facts put forth by each person, the arguments put forth by each person, the articulateness and coherence of each person, etc. I also believe that many people would also quite reasonably want to consider credentials, if there is a credentialing system in place for that subject that they trust, especially if they do not have time to research the matter extensively. Saying that sometimes the person who is credentialed is wrong and the noncredentialed person is right does not negate that. Sometimes the more articulate person is wrong. Sometimes the person who just can't marshal the facts and arguments effectively is right. There is no perfect indicator of what's true in this world. However, the articulate person is usually more reliable and persuasive than the non-articulate person, all else being equal. The person who can marshal facts and arguments effectively is usually more reliable and persuasive than the one who cannot, all else being equal. And the M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from John's Hopkins is more reliable and persuasive about cancer than the IT guy is, all else being equal. All of these things are factors that some people want to consider in deciding what to believe. We already have a system in place that reliably shows who is more articulate, who can marshal facts and arguments effectively, etc. It is the history maintained of every persons' post. Imagine that the history could easily be forged -- that would be a disaster for those who want to consider those factors in making their decision. But what about those people who want to consider credentials in making their decision? What about the editor who cares whether a contribution made to the cancer article comes from someone who has spent his career studying the subject versus Joe the Plumber? The original poster suggested that we allow people to reliably assert their credentials in scientific areas. There's nothing "authoritarian" about that. Nobody is saying that only credentialed persons can post. No one is saying that the credentialed person is always right. The suggestion is just that we allow people to declare their credentials if they want to, and to do so via a system that prevents people from falsely claiming credentials they don't have.

• If you reply, try to keep it civil. It's not necessary to call someone an authoritarian or suggest they leave Wikipedia just because they disagree with you. Also, I would like to suggest that we can probably discuss this issue without drawing esoteric philosophical distinctions. People are coming to Wikipedia for practical reasons, and the merits or drawbacks of this policy can be discussed on practical grounds.

-- BrianH123 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The example you called "nonsense" was not intended to "compare to Wikipedia". It was a hypothetical situation, a thought experiment, intended to show that reasonable people quite reasonably use credentials to make decisions about what to believe. Do you disagree with that? Yes. Reasonable people use reason to make decisions, and reason does not consist of justification. If you were faced with a medical decision, would you not consider the credentials of the person giving you advice? Exactly, I would not. I would consider their advice, not their credentials. If so, then realize that Wikipedia does not exist in a completely different world where different standards of decision-making apply. There is simply no such thing as "standards of decision-making".
• You really need to explain your views on probability better. If you're going to say something that appears contradictory (your first sentence), at least explain why it isn't. Where do you see a contradiction? I assume you know that probability zero merely means "almost impossible", not impossible? And did you read the debate on epistemological probability?[1]
• I said the the passage from Plato does not "address probability of correctness". I stand by that. In fact, it does: "Except that the man with knowledge will always be successful, and the man with right opinion only sometimes." So Meno suggests that the man with knowledge is more probable to be successful than the man with right opinion. Your suggestion that it does because "for anything to be probable, something must be certain" just establishes that he addresses a prerequisite of probability. It's analogous to saying that there's milk in the refrigerator because there's water in there. In fact, it is the other way around. It is a prerequisite that water is in the refrigerator for milk to be there, because milk contains water. In the same way, if we make the epistemological statement that X is true with high probability, we are basically claiming that the statement "X is true with high probability" is certain. So epistemological certainty is a prerequisite of epistemological probability.
• Your statements about science and epistemology are just bald assertions with no argument attached. If you don't feel the obligation to justify them, I don't feel the obligation to respond. See, I disagree with the whole concept of justification. I deny that justification is possible or even exists at all. I also think that reason has nothing whatsoever to do with justification.
• I certainly don't want anyone to leave Wikipedia because they disagree with me, on the contrary, I like people who disagree with me. I merely wondered why they don't go to citizendium because it seems to me that it is exactly what they are looking for. I thought it would be in their own interest to go there. I certainly don't mind if they stay here...
• the merits or drawbacks of this policy can be discussed on practical grounds. I was not the one who used abstract pseudo-philosophical arguments to try to justify such a policy. But even on practical grounds, I don't see how there can be any practical problem at all about allowing anyone to participate in peer review, not merely the ones with degrees.
• is a credentialing system in place for that subject that they trust, especially if they do not have time to research the matter extensively What you are saying is that we should declare that we do not have time to research the matter extensively, and instead let the degree decide. I strongly disagree. If we want to have an accurate encyclopedia, there is no other way than to research the matter extensively, and we are not short on time or anything. Your proposed approach does in fact not make Wikipedia more accurate (or "reliable", as you call it), but less accurate. Wikipedia does not need trust, it needs distrust and careful error checking.
• "The suggestion is just that we allow people to declare their credentials if they want to, and to do so via a system that prevents people from falsely claiming credentials they don't have." If we disallow declaring credentials altogether, or (a less radical solution) warn people that they should not take Wikipedia too seriously when making decisions, even if it was written by someone who claimed credentials without lying (in fact, I think that this is pretty close to the official position of the Wikimedia Foundation), we don't have such a problem.
• I certainly do not want to struggle about words. I am claiming that all justificationism is authoritarian, regardless of whether it justifies something with degrees, or probabilities or anything else. If I understood you right, you are saying that people with degrees should have special rights here in some way, because they are authorities. So to me, the word authoritarian seems to be appropriate. However, if you dislike it and want to use a different one, that's fine for me. --rtc (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I gave an example where someone had come down with cancer and needed to decide whom to take medical advice from, an IT guy or an M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins. I assumed that reasonable people would take the credential into account but you disagree, saying "reasonable people use reason to make decisions". So just to be clear, you are saying that a reasonable person, when trying to make a decision about a course of treatment for cancer, would not give any weight to whether the person advising him was an M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins or an IT guy, right? Is so, I'll let others judge what is "reasonable" here.
• You say, "If I understood you right, you are saying that people with degrees should have special rights here in some way, because they are authorities." That is NOT what I am saying; you very much misunderstand me. What I said was: "Nobody is saying that only credentialed persons can post. No one is saying that the credentialed person is always right. The suggestion is JUST [emphasis added] that we allow people to declare their credentials if they want to, and to do so via a system that prevents people from falsely claiming credentials they don't have." There is no "right" here granted to credentialed persons to the exclusion of non-credentialed persons. Every person has the same right: to list whatever credentials they have in the context of a system that prevents someone from lying about it. The person who is able to list only one credential, because he only has one, has the same right as the person who is able to list two, because he has two. The person who only has zero has the same right as the person who has one. You keep suggesting that I belong at Citizendium, but at Citizendium, only credentialed people can post. I have explicitly said this is NOT what I want. I merely want people to be able to say what their credentials are, in the context of a system that prevents lies about the matter. Honestly, I think you're arguing against a position you're heard from others and attributing it to me.
• When you say I want to "let the degree decide", you misrepresent what I'm saying. Read what I wrote above (the indented paragraph in the second-to-last bullet point), where I list a number of factors that I think should weigh. None of them "decide" by themselves, and I'm very explicit about that.
• You misunderstood what I was saying with respect to the milk & water example. This is how the discussion went:

• You gave a quote from Plato.
• I said it doesn't discuss probability.
• You attempted to "correct" me. You said "of course" it addresses probability, since for anything to be probable, something must be certain.
• I gave an analogy to milk and water, which you then misunderstood and tried to "correct" me again, with a lecture on certainty and probability which I agree with 100% but is irrelevant. Let me explain the water and milk analogy step by step, so hopefully you can see your original mistake:

• I said "Plato did not discuss probability". Let Plato be the refrigerator and probability be milk. This is analogous to "There is no milk in the refrigerator."
• You said "of course" he did, because he discussed certainty and "for anything to be probable, something must be certain".
• Let water be certainty. Just as water is necessary but not sufficient for milk, the concept of certainty is necessary but not sufficient for probability. You said this yourself in your second attempt to correct me. So your statement in the immediately previous bullet point is analogous to saying "Of course there's milk in the refrigerator, because there's water in there, and for there to be milk, there must be water".
• Now do you see the problem? If not, this is as tedious as I can stand to get.
• (In your most recent post, you brought up another passage. We're not discussing that here. We're discussing your first response to me, where you said "of course" Plato discussed probability, since "for anything to be probable, something must be certain.")

• In your assertions about justification, you once again do not explain terms or give rationales, which makes it very difficult for me to understand or be persuaded. I can't imagine what definition of "justification" you have that you consider authoritarian, but all I mean by it is that someone bothers to give reasons why he believes a certain thing, so that the person listening to him has some basis to evaluate the claim. That, to me, is the opposite of authoritarian. If you're authoritarian, you don't give reasons, you just make naked claims and expect people to accept them. To give reasons, to give "justification", is to show respect to the person you're communicating with. It's saying to them, "I know you have a brain, so I am going to give you the facts and reasons I have for what I believe, so you can double-check it and identify flaws." Someone who refuses to do this I have a high degree of suspicion toward.
• Question: If I *ask* you, *plead* with you, *beg* you, to give me a justification for one of your claims, are you still an authoritarian if you give in and do so? If so, that's a strange type of authoritarianism. Exactly whom are you "oppressing" when you give a justification to someone who has requested the justification?

-- BrianH123 (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "So just to be clear, you are saying that a reasonable person, when trying to make a decision about a course of treatment for cancer, would not give any weight to whether the person advising him was an M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins or an IT guy, right?" Exactly. "Is so, I'll let others judge what is 'reasonable' here." I do not care about "what is" questions, because I do not struggle about words. I am not interested at all, for example, whether jumping out of the window of a skyscraper is "reasonable", but if your goal is to get out of the building without hurting yourself, I think you should not do this. In the same way I think that "giving weight" to the MD PhD degree concerning the problem should not be done if you want to get rid of your cancer. In fact, there are known cases of MDs that offered very questionable cancer "treatments", see for example Ryke Geerd Hamer. It would have been better for the respective patients to take the advice of the IT guy next to their office! I also disagree that what we are discussing here is a matter of "letting the others judge" or "letting the majority decide" or "letting the common sense of the ordinary man decide" or anything like that.
• As far as I know it is not the case that "at Citizendium, only credentialed people can post".
• Okay, you want people with degrees to be allowed to claim that they have these degree, and people without degrees to be forbidden to claim that they have some degree. Thus, you are giving these people special rights; you are giving them the right to pose themselves as authorities on some matter. And by doing that, you are giving Wikipedians the possibility to make further differences between people with a degree and people without a degree. And many differences would be made that you do not intend to be made or even reject to be made, and the question of the degree of authors would get an overall emphasis that it simply does not deserve. I am quite ready to accept that many people judge the credibility of something based on the degree of the person who wrote it, although that is an irrational approach. That exactly is the problem, however. Currently, people are forced to consider the content of wikipedia articles itself, rather than the degrees of the persons who wrote it, because they don't know whether claimed degrees are fake or not. Because of that, even those who wrongly believe in the authority of degrees, are forced to be skeptical of the content of wikipedia articles. This is a good thing, it makes them questioning article content and discussing it. They might often not have done that if there would be this degree list, as they would have been impressed by the degree and would perhaps have thought that because it was written by someone with a degree in this area it must be correct, or similar.
• "When you say I want to 'let the degree decide', you misrepresent what I'm saying." That may be the case, but I think it is not a misrepresentation of the actual consequences of the list that you want.
• I am not saying "Of course there's milk in the refrigerator, because there's water in there, and for there to be milk, there must be water". I am saying "Of course there's water in the refrigerator, because there's milk in there, and for there to be milk, there must be water". Plato discusses a prerequisite or ingredience of probability. Hence, he discusses probability. He does not discuss everything that makes up probability, but one of its components, which is certainty. each epistemological statement about a probability claims that something is certain, namely that the probability can be known for sure. Not merely some of such statements. If I shake all the water in the refrigator, I also shake the milk; always, not merely in some of the cases.
• "all I mean by it is that someone bothers to give reasons why he believes a certain thing, so that the person listening to him has some basis to evaluate the claim. That, to me, is the opposite of authoritarian." No, it is just as authoritarian. Why does anyone need a "basis" to evaluate a claim? I don't see that this is necessary. If you tell me that your desk is green, and give me the reason that you have seen it with your own eyes, what use is this "basis" for me; how should it help me to evaluate your claim? If I want to evaluate your claim, I look at your table myself. In fact, the "reason" you give me is much harder to check than the actual claim, and it would not even be sufficient, since you could have worn green contacts without noticing it. "If you're authoritarian, you don't give reasons, you just make naked claims and expect people to accept them." Not only then! If you're authoritarian, you expect people to accept your claims. Some authoritarian approaches don't request reasons for their claims, others do, but that does not make them less authoritarian, since in the one case the claim is unjustified, in the second case the reasons. So there is really no such thing as a justifying reason. "To give reasons, to give 'justification', is to show respect to the person you're communicating with." No, it's disrespecting them, since you try to enforce your opinions on that person using these reasons, and since you claim to know better, and since you don't even consider that you might be the one who is wrong. "It's saying to them, 'I know you have a brain, so I am going to give you the facts and reasons I have for what I believe, so you can double-check it and identify flaws.'" So you give someone reasons R, and a claim C, and you are saying to them "please double-check check that C really follows from R, and identify flaws". So the actual issue, C, remains unquestioned. "Someone who refuses to do this I have a high degree of suspicion toward." I have a high degree of suspicion towards those people who claim to be able to do this. Those who do not even pretend that they can do it at least to not attempt to enforce their opinion on me with alleged reasons. I do not expect you to have no suspicion toward what I say. In fact, suspicion it is exactly what I expect from you and other wikipedians, both concerning claims made in discussions and claims made in Wikipedia articles. But I already said that... You are the one who thinks that a high degree of suspicion is something undesirable (or why do you attempt to decrease it using the degree proposal), not me.
• "Question: If I *ask* you, *plead* with you, *beg* you, to give me a justification for one of your claims, are you still an authoritarian if you give in and do so?" I disagree that it is even possible to give a justification for any claim at all, that justifications exist, and that they would serve any purpose if they would exist. It is authoritarian to ask for justifications, or to claim to have justifications. "If so, that's a strange type of authoritarianism. Exactly whom are you 'oppressing' when you give a justification to someone who has requested the justification?" In this situation, the approach of the one asking for the justification is authoritarian, not the victim of this question. And if the victim starts to give pseudo-justifications, he has done just as wrong.--rtc (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy rests on verifiability, not truth. Credentials are irrelevant in its system. If I can't buttress with a reliable source (that is, a source considered reliable by current Wikipedia standards, which are subject to change) what I claim to be true, my degree doesn't matter. Even with a degree, OR remains OR. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources themselves, degree or not.

I agree with you that credentials are irrelevant to truth, and original research should not be not admissible to Wikipedia articles. But consider an analogy: suppose you go to a doctor for advice on how to treat a cancer you've recently been diagnosed with. In principle, his credentials are not relevant -- you're just interested in what knowledge he has. If you knew, a priori (with certainty, in advance), that Jim the IT guy knew more about cancer than Bob the M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins, you would go to Jim the IT guy. But since you don't know that a priori, you trust the cancer researcher instead. Why is that when knowledge is what's important? Obviously, you're taking a gamble that being an M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher from Johns Hopkins makes it more likely the person knows about cancer than being an IT guy. Why are you willing to take this gamble about something important (your life), but you're not willing to take this gamble when you read or help contribute to a Wikipedia article? (And I'm not talking about complete deference here. I just mean, why don't even want to take a credential into account or have the option to, within Wikipedia?) Bear in mind that what the M.D. and the Wikipedia editor do are analogous in some respects. Neither "creates" knowledge. The M.D. doesn't do original research: he consults other sources. But we trust that his credential gives him some ability to understand these sources, extract knowledge from them, etc., that not having the credential doesn't (or makes less likely). Now suppose this this M.D. Ph.D. cancer researcher goes online to contribute to the Wikipedia article on cancer and finds it full of quackery. Now he has to engage in trench warfare against those who have added all the quackery to the article, and isn't even allowed to tell people *in a reliable way* who he is and why he knows something about the subject. Sure, he can put his credentials on his user page, but no one necessarily believes him because there is no verification system. It just seems strange to me that we give deference to credentials in "real life", when it's important (our health), but in Wikipedia it's verboten. It confirms the view that this isn't really an encyclopedia we're building but a MMORPG we're playing, and introducing the element of credentials just spoils the game. We actually already have credentials in once sense though, just not academic ones. We have people's reputation and powers and influence they've acquired by playing the game: who's an admin, who sits on what committee, etc. But these are the only "credentials" that the system maintains -- ones invented within the context of Wikipedia, the "in-game credentials" -- and any attempt to import real-world credentials is forbidden. If that were to happen, the game would change, and we all have a lot invested in being able to continue to play this game we enjoy so much. -- BrianH123 (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The more interesting problem, to my mind, is sources that are considered reliable by current Wikipedia standards but contain information judged inaccurate by people with relevant degrees editing on Wikipedia, for example because the information in the sources is outdated, new data or arguments having come to light.

What if several reliable sources contain patent nonsense? Can we ignore them? What if only one, or no reliable source exists that reflects current mainstream view in a field on a particular point? Is it allowed to ignore what several reliable sources say on a particular point if several experts with relevant degrees agree that they are wrong on that point, and can easily give reasons why? What if a website considered a reliable source gets hacked, and now contains obvious nonsense, at least partly, and not being maintained well anymore, remains like that for some time? Are reliable sources always unassailable and do they always trump anything else, specialised expert knowledge, even common sense?

The reason I'm asking is that while WP:RS does say "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process", I've seen some people taking the principle too far, and interpreting it too rigorously and literally. Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actual experts have a strong advantage in any content dispute where editors are honest anyways. I can quickly dig up citations through SIMBAD or ADS or whatnot because I'm already familiar with these things - there's no need to stand on authority. Knowing which're crap, which've since been discredited, et cetera is a little more work - but again, not that hard. WilyD 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wily, with all due respect, there's no way that any one person can know, in every area of knowledge, no matter how technical, which source has more authority than another. Just in the area of medical research, it sometimes requires years of medical training and statistical training to know which study to believe over another. This is an area concentrated study can be of benefit; it's not enough just to be smart. And it's certainly not a matter of "a little more work, not that hard" to know which medical study is "crap" and which one isn't, except in a minority of cases. You may know enough to discount a non-double-blind study or to discount certain journals, but what medical and statistical knowledge do you have if you need to go deeper, to compare two studies, both double blind, in comparable journals, that come to different results? -- BrianH123 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian, with all due respect, please read what I've written before trying to understand it. I'm talking about areas in which one is an expert. WilyD 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that experts will insist on minor incorrectness such as wording "English is a West-Germanic language" rather than "English is a descendant of" or "English is derived from" or similarly insisting that Futurology be described as "art" or "postulating" (the latter word being very correct yet likely to be obscure in the absence of a modereately advanced study of some related subject, being that postulation may be confused as another word for futurology in practice). The manual of style suggests that an article be directed at the person assumed to have no prior knowledge of the subject. Is this a largely overlooked principle as was once copyright and citation? Where edits are reverted, this principle is rarely acknowledged in my experience, although it is directly in line with Wikimedia principles. ~ R.T.G 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing even remotely incorrect about the wording "English is a West-Germanic language" (even though I would omit the hyphen), just as there is nothing even remotely incorrect about saying "a cat is a mammal" or "Jimbo Wales is a human being". In fact, it would be incorrect to say "English is a descendant of" or "derived from West-Germanic", because, in fact, it is derived from "proto-West-Germanic". Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Florian, obviously you do not mind confusing the man with the monkey and if you would omit the hyphen or add a proto, I would suggest there is something, perhaps remotely, WRONG. High-level gubberish of some sort really (West-Germanic is a group from which others are derived/evolved/descended... !?). The article is up for Article of the Year on the Norwegian and apparently they would differ with you. ~ R.T.G 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrosociology

Dear Jim, Astrosociology is the study of the effect of outer space on human behaviour in outer space or other. It is largely uncovered as one may expect but has a few books, a few sections in old NASA reference books, and gains a few thousand hits on a search as a term of sorts. The Wikipedia article about the subject has been deleted as a non notable topic. I don't think this is a discussion you would involve in but it may be interesting to see what is or not currently notable on the wiki (lol). ~ R.T.G 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like astrology to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrology would be (in my POV) the second astro-related cause of change in human behavior. The first would have to be looking up at the stars in wonder. Alas, this is not a notable effect. (lolol) ~ R.T.G 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can safely say, as an actual astronomer, that looking up at the sky sometimes gives me vertigo because I have some knowledge of what's going on up there. Astrology is bunk, but our conception of our place in the universe influences our behaviour. WilyD 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To say astrology is bunk is both unproven and anyway contrary to our NPOV policy. I too get vertigo looking up at the stars even without a telescope and on the other hand the coverage at wikipedia of astronomy is one of the best sections of the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, Astrology is bunk. This is well established and really beyond serious dispute. Talk pages are also not bound by NPOV, we're free to be rationale, honest, intelligent people here. WilyD 18:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you were born at a certain time in a certain place, the weather affected those around you in a certain way, right? This effect continued for the rest of your life. Weather is most believably under the control of sun conditions, cosmic rays, and seasonal variation. Although predicting stuff like "Today the colour blue will affect you." will be a little too colourful, that is modern. Imagine telling Napoleon "Today you will fall over something blue and have a eureka". He'd knock the shit out of you after a while. There is possibly some sort of basis in adding weather to conditions when trying to outsmart opponents. If you got astrology right before the advent of nice housing, you should be able to predict a few "National crap day"s. Knowledge was a serious game (and still is but if you're not Jimbo or Bill Gates you plumbed out ages ago). When astrology was regarded a science, predicting the future without hearing Gods own words would have got you in trouble, not made you friends in society. They would try anything but they were rarely fools methinks. ~ R.T.G 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that I'm being called upon to defend the very straightforward assertion that astrology is bunk. Yes, there's a (extremely negligidble) yearly fluctuation in cosmic ray intensity, there's also a much stronger daily variation. None of these happen to have anything to do with chance projections of stars in three dimensions onto a two dimensional surface, nor our (fairly arbitrary) choice of what should be a constellation. Whether Venus is in Hydra or Microscopium or Pictor or whatever constellation isn't relevent to your life - these assertions are fairly straightforward to test, and they fail miserably. Randomise horrorscopes and ask people whether they match their experiences - the "correct" horoscopes do not match any better than the controls - very easy experiment - try it. WilyD 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some useful reading in this regard would be our article on Cold reading. It's pretty fascinating stuff.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo - yeah, Cold Reading is alright, but Horoscopes mostly work through Confirmation bias. ;) WilyD 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While the majority of astrologers do just talk bunk that in itself is not proof that astrology is bunk and we certainly do not open the astrology article with the statement that it is bunk. To introduce astrology into our astronomy articles would be as unacceptable as introducing intelligent design into our evolution articles (I personally think intelligent design is much less credible than certain forms of esoteric astrology but as an encyclopedia a subject is surely valid based on notability not on whether it is or is not true. And hey Wily I was talking somewhat tongue in cheek, of course we can debate these issues. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) Squeakbox - I don't think opening Astrology with "Astrology is one of those things that comes out of the south end of a north facing bull" would be appropriate. Just some paragraph which's "Astrology has been tested empirically to see if it's true and ... not so much, no" somewhere or another (probably towards the end). Young Earth Creationism used to handle this really well - I've no idea if it still does. WilyD 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrology and astronomy seems to be the appropriate article. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_astro_sci_pseudo.htm Thanks, WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think terms such as astral and astrology make it difficult to digest a word such as astrosociology as a word for sociology in a space age (such as the topic is supposed to be). Cold reading is a new term for me and although a familiar topic is very good to pull all that stuff together (Jimbos vast experience shines out when he picks one). Everyone, I think, aspires to be a cold reader or magician at some time, as does everyone feel the effects of the space age in society. Maybe even Jimbo would be pickin' praties (spuds) if we relied on astrology for the stars. ~ R.T.G 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Farewell from American linguist

Ok - travelling to Brussels tonight to give this talk having said which my identity should be obvious. In case any confusion, this thread refers. All the best Jimbo. Americanlinguist (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since blocking is what you want for this sock, so you can use that fact to make a point, why should we oblige you? Good luck with your talk, and thanks for the useful positive contributions this sock has made. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing at Wikipedia should be thoughtful, caring, and careful. People do wikipedia no favor by mindlessly reverting edits by anyone who happens to be blocked or banned. "Banned means banned" is bumper-sticker thinking and inappropriate for anyone who wishes to help build an encyclopedia. On the other hand, we do have many banned people who can be counted on to try to waste our time with seemingly correct edits, but that are subtly wrong or biased. So Americanlinguist, may I recommend that your efforts here stay away from areas you were previously warned about and further, for now (while blocked) stick to edits that are not suspicious. If you do, you will have made your point and be unblocked. However, if you revert to old behaviors that you feel are justified but have been warned to stop doing or you make edits that are controversial enough that perhaps they contain errors or bias; then those edits will justly be reverted and you will acquire a reputation as one of those who is just wasting our time and should be blindly reverted from then on. Blocked people's edits can not be trusted as much as people who have not acquired a reputation for inappropriate wiki editing; so edit with that in mind, please, and it can all work out ok. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole concept of blocking and banning is an anachronistic tribal practice that not only predates the advent of the Rule of Law, it's the very subject of the first three laws ever carved onto stone tablets, some 3750 years ago...

Hammurabi of Mesopotamia

These are the first three laws, in their entirety, of the Code of Hammurabi, translated into English:

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

The second law seems bizarre by modern standards. It appears to be the source of the dismissive phrase, "Go jump in the lake." (Compare to the Yiddish expression, Nem zich a vaneh! "Go take a bath! Go jump in the lake!")

There are 282 such laws in the Code of Hammurabi, each no more than a sentence or two. The 282 laws are bracketed by a pukeworthy Prologue in which Hammurabi introduces himself, and a narcissistic Epilogue in which he affirms his authority and sets forth his hopes and prayers for his code of laws.

Note that Wikipedia is not even as evolved as Hammurabi, since Wikipedia does not even do the level of due process required of Hammurabi's first law.

Given that Wikipedia has adopted an anachronistic pre-Hammurabic tribalistic ochlocracy that does not even rise to the level of the Code of Hammurabi, is it any wonder that Wikipedia is the venue of recurring classic liminal social drama that reprises the oldest stories in the annals of human history?

Hammurabi's notion was to advise everyone to go jump in the lake when they are tainted with an unproven allegation.

I reckon the secular cultural practice of absolution through ablution inspired the Early Morning Baptisers of Qumran to co-opt Hammurabi's Remedy into the Mikvah Ritual Bath. Baptismal sin cleansing survives to this day in most Christian denominations.

Of course there was that interlude in the desert where there were no bodies of holy water, so Aaron devised an alternate ritual involving a delightful goat named Caprice. I am rather fond of Caprice, since her story inspired portions of the Passion of Christ.

I find it ironic that a site that purports to offer the sum of all human knowledge is still struggling to learn the oldest lessons in the annals of human history.

So I suggest people wash their hands of Jimbo's anachronistic cult of pre-Hammurabic tribalism, cleanse themselves of the grit by jumping in the lake, and evolving to a more modern and enlightened governance model along the lines suggested by such innovative pioneers as Moses, Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tsu, Maimonides, Thomas Becket, Stephen Langton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, ML King, Thich Nhat Hanh, John Rawls, Father John Dear, Barak Obama, Kermit the Frog, and Barsoom Tork Associates.

Barsoom Tork 01:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.243.57 (talk)

Fundraising banner

Annoy me once, shame on you. Annoy me twice, shame on me. Please at least provide a "dismiss" button so that dedicated volunteers are not constantly disoriented by the irritating fundraising banner that has been added to the top of all pages. Thank you. Geometry guy 10:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently being discussed here also. Regards, --Badgernet ^Talk 11:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If it bugs you that much, My Preferences > Gadgets > Click the second box. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I advised Geometry guy of this on his talk page shortly after he posted here Stepshep. The larger issue is that we seem to have several threads on WP (here, main page talk, ANI and Village Pump off the top of my head) of which none seem to think the banner is quite what the community expected. Yes, Wikimedia needs funds. However there is concern about it's layout, design, impact and the lack of a dismiss option (as "hide" was only partial) for registered editors. Frankly, it would have been easier to tap up Pepsi for six million dollars on the basis of pretty much the same amount of screen space, and we would have probably only had to suffer it for a considerably shorter period of time than this notice is likely to hang around for. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you do not want the banner.Please go my preferences and Browsing gadgets and select Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice.Wikipedia is being run free and a great fashion without advertisement and which any user can contribute.If there is banner which can removed ,I wonder why people are objecting considering the fact that there is a provision to remove it and further despite being widely used.No advertisements are allowed unlike sites which have only a few visitors.The fact the provision to remove it in gadgets was done basically clearly shows that fact that even this only optional.We need to thankful for all running Wikipedia for doing it so efficiently.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They are objecting because the majority of the active community (logged in users) cannot properly dismiss the request and need to find instructions on how to do so. One might also argue that as regular editors (logged in or otherwise) are the main reason for the success of Wikimedia we don't also need badgering to get some money out of us. Bluntly, if we didn't have the active community we wouldn't have the traffic and we wouldn't have the need for more resource to service the traffic. Specifically, I agree the WMF need investment and money. I think many members of the community feel that the site notice (read multiple site notice) could have been designed and implemented more tactfully to balance the need for cash against bashing visitors and editors other the head with this need. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I share concerns regarding the size of the banner. I think that its "pushiness" will drive as many people away as it spurs to donate. – Thomas H. Larsen 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I contribute, I was wondering Jimbo why we need $6 million. I thought it was $3 million. Could you please explain why this amount is needed? It seems rather higher than normal Count Blofeld 14:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the FAQ.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for quote on privacy of stats

Hello, Mr. Wales. Do you think that Wikimedia users' access histories are private, or do you think someday Wikimedia web logs can be sold or free for all, like edit histories are nowadays? The privacy policy is clear on this. The security note, however, wisely says that even now there are no guarantees. May I please quote your reply in an op-ed if I find a publisher (like this one on a related topic)? Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we can and should make a clear distinction between "reading" and "writing" activities of all kinds. Whatever people do on the web which involves "reading" should be private. Whenever I am writing, this can be either private (as in, personal email correspondence or im chats) or public (as in participating in a public space like Wikipedia). I can't imagine that the Wikimedia Foundation would ever have any interest in doing anything with access logs which might make them public.

The security note is something that everyone should consider, not just at Wikipedia, but everywhere. Even if something is thought to be private, even if someone promises you that it is private, if it is digital, it can be made public, either by accident or through maliciousness. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wonderful. Thanks very much for taking a stab at this. I will try to work on it and expect lots of people are. Yesterday I saw that chapter 2 on privacy is on the Web from the book I am reading Blown to Bits (Abelson et al. 2008)—the diagram by Jeffrey Heer of Enron's mail in that PDF is a whopper from about 2004. We'll see what the new U.S. administration brings. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

wp.de

Hi Jimbo, wenn Du Dich nicht bald um Deine verrottete deutsche Filiale kümmerst, dann wird Dir der Laden noch um die Ohren fliegen. Da wette ich 100 Dollar drauf. Und wenn Du schon mal dabei bist, dann schau Dir auch mal die dunklen Empfehlungen aus dem Chat für Adminposten an, - für Leute, die vielleicht mal einen oder zwei Artikel geschrieben haben. Und dann schau Dir auch mal die de:Inzucht unter den Admins an, die überhaupt noch nie gewählt wurden. Das lässt sich nicht mit der Entfernung von zwei, drei Leuten regeln. Da ist eine Grundsanierung fällig. Grüssle 78.49.85.78 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One last hope for sanity

I'm shocked at the results of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 6#Template:User en-gb-5. Is that really what Wikipedia is about? I had really thought this place was supposed to be a collegiate environment where I wouldn't need to deal with being insulted by people I don't know just because I'm an American. I was going to leave but I just wanted to make sure I hadn't lost my mind about the vision of this place. Mintrick (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Censoring talk pages

I recently responded to User:RetroS1mone, who deleted a post by User: 80.237.191.141 from Talk:AIDS denialism, because, according to Simone, it consisted of " libellous remarks". I reverted the deletion, since WP is not censored, and the nature of the post's reliability is something that should be discussed. Another editor, User:SheffieldSteel even went so far as to edit 80.237.191.141's post, which seems to me to be grossly inappropriate. The ensuing discussion is here on Simone's Talk Page and here on mine. S1mone cites WP:BLP, which says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I pointed out to S1mone WP:Censor, which states that "content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed", and that to my knowledge, the post in question was not so judged, in Florida, or elsewhere. My position is that it is better to refute disputed material with one's counterarguments, rather than to have one editor make the unilateral declaration that material is poorly sourced or libelous, and indeed, other editors indeed refuted 80.237.191.141's post. The problem is that 80.237.191.141's post is still deleted, but responses to it are still there, and it has now been archived, which makes absolutely no sense. How can you archive a discussion for future readers if the original post that started it has been censored? I can't understand why WP policy would call for unsourced or poorly sourced material to be removed from Talk Pages, at least before a determination of source reliability has been made. Can you explain why WP:BLP says this about Talk Pages, and what the proper interpretation of this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)

WP:BLP, I interpret that unsourced or poorly sourced stuff about living people should be deleted right away not after discussion on wether a personal website is reliable source. IP editor at AIDS denialism said Robert Gallo is a fraud, Robert Gallo forged lab notebooks etc. also things about Luc Montagnier lying, and the source was a personal website. That stuff got investigated in 1980s, Gallo was cleared in 1990s, no fraud no forgery no lies there needs a better sources then personal website to change it. I deleted the discussion BC the responses did not make sense w/o first comments. I told the people that responded and user Verbal agreed on me it should be deleted. Then Nightscream restored the comments and it went along then and the string was becoming a soapbox and a admin closed it.

When I did the wrong thing pls tell me BC I interpret WP:BLP that violations get deleted and I interpret WP:CENSOR that deleting blp problems is not censorship. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone did the right thing, clearly. Wikipedia is not a place for people with ranting agendas to come and smear people they don't like. I liked the SheffieldSteel refactoring as well. I think Beware of the tigers is relevant here. I think a great way to handle future cases like this would be to remove the BLP attack, and replace it with "An anonymous ip number posted an attack full of inflammatory language, and in the interest of generating a useful discussion, I am summarizing the key allegations in a more neutral way, so that dispassionate and high quality editors can be aware of some of the issues surrounding this topic. A book by Janine Roberts is said to claim that Robert Gallo falsified documents. Does anyone know about this?"

Treating angry lunatics as if they are worthy discussants devalues people who really are worthy. Allowing vicious insults and/or rants from lunatics to stand, as if they need to be responded to on an equal footing with thoughtful objections, makes Wikipedia a less noble place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See, this goes directly to the problem I perceive with this: Who gets to make the determination that a post is a "ranting agenda" or "attack", and how, if not by a collaborative discussion? If it can be established to be an attack, then why can others not be privy to the manner in which it was determined to be such in an open and transparent process? When someone is judged to have libeled or slandered in court, they don't go back and cut out the instance from all the extant newspapers or video clips; it is simply understood that that act remains a part of the public record, and that the judgment will be part of the record too. Jimbo, you say that you would delete the post, and resummarize it. Why? Why not let observers see the uncensored act so they can judge both it and the refutations of it? I also notice that you close your suggestion with a hypothetical question put to the public regarding the Janine Roberts book (which is what the editor mentioned, and not a website). But if you admit that you're not familiar with the book, how then can you conclude that the post is a ranting attack without substance? Shouldn't the info in the book be reviewed for verification purposes before such a determination is made? Nightscream (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't conclude that the book is a ranting attack without substance. And what people should do is refactor, including a note that indicates what happened, and I did not suggest deletion of the revision (so that only admins could see it) nor oversight (so no one could see it). I just suggested editing and refactoring it and explaining what happened. Anyone who needs to see it can go into the history, and if someone feels that the original removal was too hasty, it can be brought back. This is a wiki, not a message board, and that's what transparency means in a wiki - the history is there. I think it is a bit odd for you to suggest that this is "censorship" or that it is a removal of anything "from the public record".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a judgement call and different people will make different judgements. Normally it is good to discuss something before deleting it from a talk page but there are exceptions. Please read the "Talk pages" subsection of the "Non-article space" section of WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, and it just brings us back to my question: Who gets to determine if something is "poorly sourced" or not "worthy", and how? I'm glad to see you say that normally it is good to discuss something before deleting. Can you give the criteria by which it should not be? I know you said different people will make different judgments, but that's a descriptive statement, rather than a prescriptive one, as it does not explain the basis by which S1mone or anyone else deleted/edited the post can be judged to be valid in this case, and therefore, what the basis would be in future such instances. If no one can give solid criteria by which such actions can be unilateral, then I think the BLP policy should be amended to include discussion as a qualifier. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream: Who gets to determine if something is "poorly sourced" or not "worthy", and how? I hate to sound too academic, but I am of two minds on this subject. On the one hand, we have WP:REDFLAG which tells us that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Fair enough. That policy seems to work well with mainstream subjects, especially scientific subjects, where material is not hard to come by. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, after all. Our job is to describe "mainstream" debates, not engage in them. And if some scientific point presented as "fact" appears to fall outside of the mainstream (see WP:FRINGE), we tend to avoid giving it undue weight in an article or any consideration at all. The policy makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, I've noticed also how WP:REDFLAG and WP:CONSENSUS have been (mis?)used by editors who seem curiously keen to remove anything unflattering about a subject, too, for -- dare I say it? -- political purposes. An example: The Washington Post and (say) another newspaper report XYZ. An editor places the citation(s) into a BLP. If they are flattering, partisans won't object. If they're not-so-flattering, partisans will immediately cite WP:REDFLAG and try to have the citation(s) removed. Failing that, talk page discussion ensues with the clear objective of "voting" the citation(s) out of the article. The vote -- curiously enough -- seems to last for as long as it takes to get the citation(s) out of the BLP. I used to think this was a good policy, but the more I see it in action, the more I question its wisdom. The Sarah Palin article is a classic example of what happens when political operatives try to game the system on both sides and use Wikipedia as a free advertisement. The winning group seems to be whoever shows the most persistence.

In this case, however, the issue appears to be relating more to "opinions" and not to "facts". Wikipedia tries to avoid any disruptions to the editing process and, to be honest, the top of the disruption list would be a libel lawsuit. In order to avoid a lawsuit, these policies were designed to cut down on the noise and the rhetoric. If these allegations were published in reliable sources (see WP:RS), I can see your point: let's discuss them on the talk page and determine whether the allegations merit inclusion. If, however, they were published by no-name non-credentialed hacks without a publication record or reputation or (worse) put out by these types of authors in obscure publications with no reputations at all (i.e., no write-ups in the press or academic journals or wherever), I can see the wisdom in removing these citations immediately without discussion. I anticipate someone now probably asking how we should determine the "reputations" of the authors and the publications without discussion, and that's another kettle of fish. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it is fortunate it is not that complicated kettle of fish!! WP:RS is easy to understand, self published sources are not reliable, WP:SPS "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." At AIDS denialism a self published book-self published website was used, to say a living person, is a fraud and a cheat and liar and forger. That is not acceptible so i deleted it. RetroS1mone talk 01:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On the question of "who gets to decide": this is a wiki. Who gets to decide is anyone who chooses to join the dialog!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

Hi there. I just wanted to say I enjoyed the conference you gave last Thursday at Universidad de Belgrano and looking forward to seeing you again at Wikimania next year. And the last thing, thanks for making Internet not suck! bcartolo (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I.P. blocking for non-abusers

Hello. Just wanted to notify you and everybody else who monitors this page that AOL ip addresses have been indefinitely blocked. I've used them to edit for 2 years. It would be nice to have edit privileges restored. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which IPs? You need to post the unblock template on the talk page of the IP involved. There are 4 billion IP addresses and we are not good guessers. Thatcher 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "I.P involved". She said she is using AOL (as are 4 million other people). That means her I.P. address changes every time she signs on to the internet - and that is every day since dial-up users also have to have their open when they are not online.Rayvn (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with people, blocking all these IPs *solely* because they are public (I.P edits are anonymous anyway - right? If abuse happens, I.P. can be blocked and appealed later if necessary.) But, I think when an I.P. is blocked for being public a user should still be able to create an account, etc. Some users don't have their own computers - or may have simply forgotten a password. I.P. is irrelevant in password recovery because the password still goes to a personal e-mail address.Rayvn (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Public IPs that are abused by vandals to create accounts and to vandalize will be blocked until the vandal gets bored and goes away. Thatcher 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about vandals. I said, "But, I think when an I.P. is blocked for being public a user should still be able to create an account, etc." If an I.P. is blocked for being public, that means no abuse ever happened. What you statement should have said was, "Public IPs that are abused by vandals to create accounts and to vandalize will be blocked until the vandal gets bored and goes away." Because in that case it does not matter if the I.P. is public or not that it's blocked, it only matters that the notice mentioned that the I.P. is public. An I.P. should not, however, be blocked until this happens, should not be blocked from creating new accounts unless the vandal has tried to create a new account from the same I.P. at least once, and password recovery should never be blocked because a SPAMmer cannot abuse that. What I am saying is that an I.P. should not be blocked until it is abused (and then removed after say 90 days or upon request from another user if more then say 10 days have passed and the user does not seem to be the SPAMmer), because doing anything else serves no purpose other then to annoy Wikipedians and prevent contributions from being made by many people (think of a college for example - there's probably at least 50,000 Wikipedians using those computers). In addition you should make sure never to block an OL (or other dial-up) I.P., unless the SPAMmer is still logged onto Wikipedia when you do it in which case the block can auto-expire in 24 hours, because the next time that SPAMmer uses the computer, his I.P. will be a different one.Rayvn (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)