User talk:Jimbo Wales

For inventing the cookie jar

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} has given you a cookie for inventing the cookie jar!

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions/advice please

Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref> ”

I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI ..." (emphasis added). This statement is absurdly mild. What doubt is there that it would be a conflict of interest? That is what conflict of interest means. As for "discouraged", isn't it clear that an admin who used admin tools or authority at the behest of some third party would be de-sysoped? This proposed policy would acknowledge that Wikipedia admins are for sale, which I certainly hope is not the fact. This is crazy. —Finell (Talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what it means to do an admin action at the behest of a third party. Asking an administrator "Please block User X, he is a vandalism-only account, here is the evidence." seems fine to me, especially since it would be up to the administrator to indeed determine the validity of the person's claim and then take responsibility for it themselves. @harej 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issue, harej. The discussion is about an admin exercising admin authority in exchange for payment. —Finell (Talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Asking an admin to "block User X as a vandalism only account, here is the evidence, and here is $10 for the blocking" is definitely not kosher. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not kosher even if User X really is a vandalism only account. —Finell (Talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition that today, without adopting a new policy, an admin is permitted to accept payment in exchange for exercising administrative authority or tools. This shows how easy it is to slide from the idea that allowing paid advocates to edit Wikipedia is alright, to accepting the idea that it may be OK to bribe the police. —Finell (Talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Finell offering blocks for payment. I also agree that, even if there's not literally a place in policy where this is explicitly stated, it is so well-understood that de-sysopping would be pretty much guaranteed, and overwhelmingly supported by the community.

The only grey area I can see is this: what if there's a general Wikipedia-related engagement (for instance, providing a training in Mediawiki software) and, related to the subject matter involved with the engagement, the consultant (an administrator) sees a case of obvious vandalism, that happens to be against his client's interest. Would a block be acceptable under such circumstances? I would say "no," but I also wouldn't consider a violation terribly egregious.

What about if the administrative button in question wasn't the "block" feature, but the opportunity to see a deleted version of an article, in order to explain to the client why it was deleted? On that matter, I'm not so sure. Curious what any or all of you think. -Pete (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid needs help. It started as a summary of existing policy, however there is no existing policy, therefore all attempts to tighten the language have been strongly resisted. The above text ("[admin payment]...is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI") shows the flavor of recent versions of WP:Paid. A group proposing restrictions on paid editing has started WP:Paid editing/Alternative text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the language is off: the problem with paid adminning is NOT that it's a COI, it is betrayal of trust, which is ever so much more severe. There are lots of things that would be betrayal of trust that the policy doesn't have to mention explicitly; "COI" is a euphamism for bribery in the case of admin paid to use admin powers to do a specific thing requested by the payer, such as unblock X user.

No how, no way is it acceptable for an admin to take payment or receive compensation of any sort in exchange for performing a particular administrative action (including advocacy edits, edits to protected articles, using their admin status to support an agreed upon point of view on noticeboards talk pages, private conversations, etc). It would be a huge betrayal of trust, and if caught doing so intentionally, and they are "found guilty", they should be de-sysopped permanently and also banned from WP for a duration.

The suggestion that it might be allowed or allowable is so revolting, that I almost think admins ought to now be required to give and every few years re-affirm an oath of office of sorts, and specifically promise they will never do such a thing. --Mysidia (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a betrayal of trust, but the specific betrayal is a conflict of interest, as that term is used in ethics. An admin has a duty of loyalty to Wikipedia to carry out administrative duties and use administrative authority and tools solely in the best interest of Wikipedia; when an admin is paid by someone else to achieve some other objective, the admin has a conflict of between the bests interests of Wikipedia and the interests of the client or employer who is paying the admin. In law, if you have a duty to a person or organization, you are not permitted to assume a duty to another whose interests may conflict with the person or organization to whom you owe the original duty; if you do, the conflict of interest is called a breach of trust. —Finell (Talk) 04:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely Mysidia, and you have said this more eloquently than I could have. We might as well say that there is no policy against murder - this is true, no one has ever written it down, because it is obvious and plain. This is why I object and will veto (yes, veto) any purported policy that says something as wishy-washy as this. We need very strong statements that certain things are a total and complete violation of trust and what it means to be a Wikipedian, and the current wording fails that entirely. Much of what has been written on this page is of value - there are complex questions about what it means to edit, when you have a job and a potential conflict of interest... but the core principles are actually very simple and obvious to most people. Johnuniq, I haven't read the alternative text yet, but I fully support people working to codify what has always been obvious, rather than allow for a subtle shift in policy based on specious "there is no policy against it" logic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder is considered a crime so I think we're safe on that one. So ... what would be an accurate and NPOV statement. That page has being developed as a summary not a proposed guideline. You have said yourself that paid editing is a misnomer and I agree. Work on banning paid advocacy, strengthen existing policies, drive well-meaning paid editors underground so only the actual problem editors are dealt with - these are the basic building blocks I've read that seem to hold promise. Please avoid characterizing my work as specious logic, I may be thinking down the road a bit but frankly people look for loopholes to justify what they wish to do. If we have no policies against what they are doing then blocks are quibbled about and lengthy debates rage on because ... we have no guidelines and policies to suss out the issues. I'm fine if we state all paid editing is wrong and those who do so will be blocked as long as we actually have that covered somewhere so when people who ask to be unblocked contest we can point them to the relevant policy page. Moving forward ...

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic.</ref> ”

I've read through the the two major cases and previous threads on this and various other writings. I'm not looking for new policy, I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do contribute to Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text if you don't like "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining." Actually everybody is invited, but we're asking that editors follow a WP:1RR policy. Smallbones (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, again, with the statement, "Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining ..." On the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page, the first example under the heading "Misuse of administrative tools" is "conflict of interest", which paid admining plainly is. (The notion that there is no existing prohibition against paid editing, at least in the sense of paid advocacy editing, is belied by the long history of sanctions against editors who violate the COI guidelines.) Also, what other policy page has statements like, "Although there is no policy prohibiting blah blah"? The policy page normally is the policy prohibiting blah blah.

Wikipedia:Paid editing is being written and edited mostly by a very small number of editors, and is of poor quality. For starters, the two hat-notes at the top of the page contradict one another. The first begins, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) The second hat-note contradicts the first in this run-on sentence: "Note: This page is not a policy or guideline, it is an attempt to summarize existing policies and guidelines that relate to the general topic of paid editing." (Typographic emphasis omitted.) Since the premise is that there is no existing policy about "paid editing," and this proposed policy(?) page doesn't purport to create a policy, where is this project going? Further, the page is influenced by the viewpoint that it is permissible to win a content dispute by disrupting the opposing editors' Internet connection (or by an admin blocking the opponents' IPs addresses?) because that does not violate 3RR or any other specific prohibition. The page also treats community approved incentives on Wikipedia itself as part of the subject of "paid editing," along with being paid by an outside party to influence Wikipedia's content. This proposed "policy" page is a mess, and the whole thing is destined for the scrapheap, in my opinion. —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo: I urge you to ask a few board members, arb comm members, or stewards, who actually know something about Wikipedia's policies, to look in on this page, before something embarrassing is adopted as policy by "consensus". —Finell (Talk) 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the conflicting hatnotes I've removed the "proposed" one as consensus has been that we are summarizing existing rules not proposing anything. The reason the page is a source of disagreement is that our current rules aren't as clear. Even in the recent dysop case and RfC there was disagreement if paid editing is blockable in and of itself. We are a long way to proposing anything and I rather doubt the page would be among the first proposed changes to existing rules. -- Banjeboi 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward ...

“ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is seen as a COI as well as a violation of community trust; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining is seen as problematic.</ref> ”

I'm looking to accurately reflect the current status. If this version seems wanting or inaccurate what should be changed? -- Banjeboi 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist propaganda inside wikipedia 2

It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing above in "about communist propaganda inside wikipedia". User:DIREKTOR and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism & other communist propaganda articles in wikipedia. May I repeat that he is only the tip of the iceberg (a huge iceberg made of many communists spreading their propaganda inside wikipedia). I am afraid that wikipedia can become a useful instrument of the communist groups in the internet.Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to start with dispute resolution. I'd start on the talk page of the relevant article. I would suggest you refrain from namecalling and focus your comments on improving and defending the quality of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To perhaps re-iterate what Jimbo is saying, being a Communist or having Communist sympathies is not illegal or even disallowed in the USA and the majority of the rest of the world; it is this little thing called democracy and freedom of choice that everyone in those parts is quite keen on. It sort of happens in Wikipedia, too. Now, there is a possibility that other editors are violating the projects policies and guidelines - and there are processes available to determine if that is the case. You should attempt to engage in some of them, and in the meanwhile resist labeling those whose edits you disagree with in terms you consider derogatory. Namecalling may mean that both your complaints may not be taken as seriously as they might... and you may be sanctioned for being persistently disrespectful - to the point of being disruptive - and get your editing privileges removed for a shorter or longer time. Please consider your options and your approach regarding other peoples sensibilities and beliefs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Floyd here, I agree with Mr Jimbo Wales & LessHeard vanU that this is not the place to debate this, although there does seem to be in many of the wiki articles concerning the former Yugoslavia the exact POV of the of old League of Communists of Yugoslavia (especially the Josip Broz Tito article). It also could be said that they are dated and belong in the Cold War era, and need updating. I’ve personally decided to take these issues back to Talk pages and move on from there. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't fix something that is not broken

Wikipedia is a huge success. Traffic statistics tell the real story as opposed to polls or news stories. By any objective measure, Wikipedia is one of the top 10 websites in the world.

A recent poll on Cnet.com asks whether users prefer Wikipedia or Britannica and it was a 50/50 result. That is completely bogus. The real web traffic statistics tell us that people prefer Wikipedia at least 1000 to 1 over Britannica. People will often say one thing in polls and on the news, and in the real world do something else.

As far as requiring edit to be supervised by "experts" or "trusted individual" before being accepted, Don't do it. Of course, talk show hosts and the news make great fun about it, though the reality is that people still trust and want the current state of Wikipedia, because of it's speed and flexibility. Trying to control edits is trying to be more "respectable" or "professional" like Britannica, and that is exactly what people do not want.

The way I see the options are

1) Bad content is put on Wikipedia and remains there for less than 1 day 2) Good content is prevented from being put on Wikipedia for 1 week to 1 month

I would rather take the risk of a short stretch of bad content versus a long stretch lacking good content.

How would you have handled the death of Michael Jackson? No amount of hand selected experts would have been able to handle that flood of edits and the information would have been delayed for weeks before we could find out what was going on.

Wikipedia is a genius idea. Please don't try and make it more like the old centrally controlled systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.239.38 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson article was explicitly protected for over an hour to confirm the rumours of his heart attack / death first. This shows that a) protection of articles to get edits checked by trusted editors and to maintain a more stable version already happens, and b) that this system does work fast when really needed (the info was not delayed for weeks, it was added less than two hours after the first unconfirmed rumours were published). Considering that we are an encyclopedia, not a news site, this worked as good as one can hope for. Fram (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP agrees with you that the system works but feels that we don't need this.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, but flagged revisions don't work fundamentally different to protected pages (in my opinion, it will work faster than protected pages, and the dit history will be more correct), and I don't see why flagged revisions would have e.g. delayed the MJ death to be included for weeks (and as long as the report of his death was not included, it was still an article on a living person). So basically, there are some valid arguments against flagged revisions, but the arguments used by the IP are not among them, and the MJ example was particularly wrong. If there will be a backlog on flagging revisions, it will be either on the more obscure articles, or on contentious articles. High profile articles are watched by many people and will be watched by many flaggers as well. Fram (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions are just another little illusion of safety, but I guess it's about time it happened. Wikipedia as the premier croudsource project has been dying for a while, with exclusionist editors excluding not only content but other authors. Long gone are attempts to include poorly-written material through revision; the almighty revert button has become the order of the day (or the last two years, anyway). It's just another step in the direction of The Encyclopaedia That A Few Select People Edit And Police. Nevertheless, there's no way to stop it, and I can't blame Jimbo and the Elite for living up the straw polls: if Wikipedia wants to be an accepted source, they have to give a fundamental illusion of reliability (even if it is to the detriment of the project despite giving no reliable benefit). C'est la vie. 128.61.23.121 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The myth should be busted that this is being sent down from on high. IPs can't create articles, they can't edit protected pages and in some section of WP they can't vote, and this would be a scandal were it not for the fact that it costs nothing to register, so there is nothing stopping any IP editor from registering and joining one of the "Select People", not that the list is a short one. I'm on that list, why? Because I registered and began editing, and more than anything that is what Wikipedia is about, and anything that makes editing easier can only be goods for the project. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Jimbo and crew have long supported and endorsed this result, and it is his support that makes an extremely contentious issue bound for enactment. There have been dozens of straw polls on the issue, and it was only a matter of time before everyone got tired of it (as did I). You also mistake other issues. IPs cannot create articles, but newly-created account can anyway. Only semi-protected articles cannot be edited by IPs and new users; protected articles cannot be edited by any normal user. Semi-protection is not terribly common and generally exists as a temporary measure for articles which are experiencing a wave of IP vandalism. And if there's one pet peeve I have here, it's voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote. "Voting" exists ONLY for the sake of considering the number of supporters withing a stagnant debate. Voting is only ever considered in ANY way if the consensus discussion has come to a standstill, and IP votes are not considered only for concern about socks. And as for registering, some of us still cling to the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, not just those who tout barnstars and edit counts as trophies. 128.61.23.121 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles, high traffic articles, which are permanently semi-protected meaning that IP editors can never edit them, and will never be able to edit them. It was a long time since Wikipedia was truly an encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", and as for the "barnstars and edit counts", I find being registered is more useful when it comes to editing because it affords extra tools such as a watchlist, access to recent changes and the ability to more fully participate in community discussion because I can be easily identified, whereas IP editors are not necessarily one editor (in the case of school or library shared IP addresses) or they are one editor with many addresses (as in the case of dynamic IPs). And if you look at the poll you will see that Jimbo did not participate and the flagged revisions poll, where Jimbo expressed a preference, failed. Sometimes you need a vote, if only to point the naysayers in the direction of consensus. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bah. The New York Times articles and most of the others out there are rather misleading: so much so that I took the time to write a whole blog post as a primer on the subject. Anyone concerned that flagged revisions is about to lock down Wikipedia in the next few weeks ought to read it and get their facts straight. :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The NYT report would only be confusing to non-Wikipedians. My contention here has little to do with any misunderstanding of the feature, but rather the lack of surprise at the ultimate result. Were the current plan iced, I'm certain it wouldn't stay down for long. It's a matter of human psychology, really. Zero-risk bias meets social identity theory and bears a rather unsightly child. I just came around to see the firestorm that appeared last time the gradual denigration of Wikipedia caught the near-sighted eye of the omnipotent news media (and in that I was sorely disappointed). Everyone seems to have just given up caring. I have been told that Wikipedia has ceased to grow, and my own experience would not contradict this. As for Darren, I don't concern myself with permanently-semiprotected pages. They receive enough traffic that I am unlikely to have much to contribute aside from grammatical corrections and phrasing improvements. But the semi-protect sure does keep pages from being replaced with "nigger nigger nigger", doesn't it? And that watchlist is really wonderful if all you ever do is sit around waiting for people to touch your perfect edits so you can lay down the revert hammer. But if you want to improve articles, well, it doesn't really do... anything. Except maybe remind you of the ever-growing list of articles you have touched and don't have time to put more work into. And then you get a permanent talk page to police where you can receive requests from others to work on this or that article (which you really don't care about and don't have time to edit) or discuss what you think of some other editor instead of actually editing. Oh, and I can be identified with some biased view of what I think. Oh, and I can use some fun little userboxes to categorize my life! Goody! As far as I'm concerned, registration is a burden filled with absurd "perks" (like changing my signature to a name and snarky comment) and benefit only in the eyes of paranoid users utterly convinced that all experienced editors have usernames and this one must just be a really strange kind of sockpuppet who doesn't use the actual username to sock with. But I digress; Jimbo's talk page is hardly the place to discuss the benefits of registration. If you'd like to discuss that issue further, you can leave a message on my talk page, which will be available to me well beyond the time that the discussion dies. 68.211.252.201 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (Same editor as the second IP above)

Userpage of User:WebHamster

I stumbled across this user page at User:WebHamster, and was wondering if you were aware of it? Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? Zhebius (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been talked about. See archives. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think the user should be indef blocked for offensive behavior, and the page speedy deleted. I think if policy has overlooked this, then policy should be updated accordingly. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's you that ought to be indef blocked for offensive behaviour, not this user. For your "If there isn't a policy to suit, then just make one up" attitude. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that the "article space" in Wikipedia needs to be vigorously defended against attacks on free speech per WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't believe this policy gives the right for individual users to post pornographic images of children on their personal pages. I also wish to raise my concerns that this page may breach California law where the servers of Wikipedia are situated. Zhebius (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it breaks any laws, and I think concerns about the law miss the point. I don't know what you mean about "pornographic images of children" - I doubt very much if that has anything at all to do with this. For me, the relevant point is that it is simply not collegial, offends some people needlessly, is unnecessarily political, etc. I think it is wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia and reflects negatively on the project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimbo, the discussion is also at my talk page. →javért ^breakaway 04:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am in no way affiliated with WebHamster. I went to look at his user page, and my first thought was, "Well that's just not appropriate, at all..." Then my mind went to "WP is not censorship." Still not appropriate though. I suggest that the image be 86'd. What's the harm to the project? If there is room for such a contingency, please inform me if it can be executed. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm staying out of it. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich, you may wish to review Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster. (I don't agree with the display of the image in userspace, but unfortunately the community seems to think it's ok). I note that since that MFD, W.H. has kindly included a direct link to his talk page in his signature, so people don't get the image shoved in their face on the way to his talk page. –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)