User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Wikipedia retaining what pages you visited indefinitely?

I just clicked on the banner and was not at all pleased with m:Data_retention_guidelines. I had been under the impression that Wikipedia did not make a practice of tracking user reading history at all. But according to the policy, not only do they retain it 90 days, but they then can retain it indefinitely by "anonymizing" the IP addresses by "encrypting" the "most specific" part of the IP address, a process which they admit may not actually protect identity. Now I understand that UKUSA is the supreme law of every land (even in EU, for all the new consumer-end censorship in the guise of privacy that will only affect the peasants), but how did things go this quickly from the situation where it was supposed to be untracked to the point where it seems entirely plausible for an agency to subpoena all the Wikipedia queries for the past ten years and crack the trivial encryption to target one or a million specific users based on their interests? Wnt (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

To spell that out, meta:Data retention guidelines includes:

Unless otherwise indicated, we retain the following types of data for no more than the following periods of time:

Data type: Articles viewed by a particular user

Origin: Provided by a user

Examples: A list of articles viewed by a logged-in user

Maximum Retention Period: After at most 90 days, it will be deleted, aggregated, or anonymized

That was added by LuisV (WMF) on 11 February 2014 (diff). That is an enormous change to privacy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That wording suggests that the data doesn't even need to be anonymised. WMF could opt for "aggregation" instead, which presumably (?) could just mean migrating or tagging the data. Formerip (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we perhaps now re-brand our wonderful website to something with a more homely and comforting feel to it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, share concerns here. I reviewed the new privacy policy in connection with a matter I posted at the Wikimedia Forum and was absolutely gobsmacked to learn of the pages visited log. A couple of years back, in connection with a request from an activist in the ongoing Arab Spring of the time, I was asked about this and enquired of an administrator about the situation. The reply was that naturally this information was available at engineers' level, but was not routinely logged for individual users. Plainly that's not so. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hush now there is a lot of money to be paid from selling medical search data to insurance companies. John lilburne (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

:) Bugger! I've been blown. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it. My most recent understanding of current practice may be out of date, but the last I knew, we were logging 1 out of every 1000 pageviews requests and retaining it for just long enough to run some aggregation statistics, i.e. a couple of days or a few days at most. Note well that the policy about what the WMF *may* do necessarily has to involve a much longer retention time than what the WMF *will* do, just so there isn't a privacy policy violation if a cron job fails to run for a week or something of that nature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I should explain that my reaction here is shaped by some of the things I don't believe in:

• Random numbers. See Random number generation#Backdoors. As with a person randomly selected for random screening by the TSA, you never know.
• Encryption. The policy claims that "Encrypting or removing/masking the most specific portion of IP addresses" is sufficient to protect users. But we know too well that every encryption key is at great risk of being divulged (most likely because someone will show up with a subpoena and ask for it, but it could be by hacking, surveillance, even brute force). Long term storage of encrypted user data will eventually be long term storage of public user data.
• Security through obscurity. Things like the anonymity of partial IP addresses, "Sanitizing user-agent strings", and so forth are a model for near-perfect user tracking. Even sock-hunting admins, who must be the worst private eyes on the Internet, can track people by a partial IP address and lay charges of various wiki-crimes against people whose identity they have deduced. The NSA is a bit better than that, and given partial IP and user agent string and a continuous list of browsing times and interests I would expect them to have an essentially perfect log.

Now I realize it is unrealistic to suppose that the omnipotent gods of international intelligence would really ever be denied access to our browsing history, no matter how many guarantees are given, but what alarms me about this privacy policy is that it sounds like it's hanging out an open for business sign not just for them, but to every civil and criminal lawyer who wants to go fishing. With these records acknowledged and their existence legitimized, there is no reason why they can't start filing papers, cracking codes, and lining up access dates for whatever reasons they may have. Examples would be a prosecutor looking for proof that a child's few threatening lines in an online game (cf. Justin Carter) were accompanied by ominous sounding research, a Third World police department tracking whether someone they beat and warned against writing an article about someone was still keeping an eye on its content and potentially trying to access via VPN, or a celebrity's lawyers looking for proof that someone is "obsessed" with their client and keeping track of daily developments. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A few other things worth noting: the lack of discussion of these things previously may reflect the fact that the discussion was formally closed February 14 at the end of a month-long comment period, and three days after the diff cited above. Also, the policy contains additional exceptions that system backups may contain data for five years (this is the nominal timeframe in Feinstein's bill [1], the one people said they opposed, and presumably would be openly imposed on companies if the NSA delegates data retention officially), or other exceptions as noted on that page (the classic change at any time privacy policy), or in any inadvertent case. What's unusual is the lack of any provisions about when data is released - most companies say that they only share your data with business partners, advertisers, or any government agent who talks about a warrant (not that they have one, or could get one, but that they think they might want to get one). Wnt (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another good reason not use an account here. 188.27.81.59 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the policy to suggest they wouldn't keep similar data about IP addresses. Giving an account name does provide an additional bit of information; however, a serious police or spy agency operation would link the IP addresses to names in most cases anyway. The point is, once the database of who looked up what is created in any form leaves it possible to decipher who after the fact. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

IPs can change regularly though, so it's not such an issue as a permanent username. Thanks, Matty.007 19:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that we protested against this feature as early as May 2012, i.e., exactly two years ago, to no avail. Saving this data is against European data-protection law because it is not at all necessary to do so. <sarcasm>I understand they are working hard to make editors go away from Wikimedia projects lately</sarcasm>. --Aschmidt (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• So, just to comment on the logged-in reader data bit: I find that kind of baffling. I'm not sure why it's an example because we don't currently do that. I deal with the request logs a lot (both the sampled and unsampled ones), and there's nothing in them that would distinguish a request from a logged-in user from a request from an anonymous user - let alone tie it to a specific logged-in user. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So far I've seen reference here to three types of records of pages read being stored: the 1 in 1000 statistics Jimbo mentioned above, the creation of a welcome page as soon as someone logged-in browses to a new project under SUL, and the updating of watchlist entries to note which revisions were made after the last time a person logged in. So far none of these seem to create - nor to explain - the sort of long-term storage of accesses that the privacy policy authorizes, but with the policy such as it is we aren't really promised there aren't others. I know that Jimbo has said before that he was unaware of any national security letters, but by this point it seems almost unfathomable that Wikipedia wouldn't have received one when so many lesser-known sites have, and I have to wonder, if they had received one, how much could someone unknown be pushing for policy to adapt to better serve its dictates? Wnt (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Study of WP's Health Articles

Predictable but interesting bit that's been doing the rounds of the internet this morning. New study involved scientists looking at Wikipedia's articles on the 10 most costly medical conditions, and concluded that 9 / 10 of them contain errors. Kudos to the editors of our concussions entry for keeping it spot-on. (Times coverage BBC coverage) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see more explanation of their methods:

• They appear to have had two reviewers pick out every assertion from an article and fact-check them against peer reviewed literature. However, they say they have "blinded" reviewers for some reason. I am reminded of some disputes recently over remote viewing and whether the experiment would be called pseudoscience if any cues exist that potentially would reveal which data is which.
• They assess concordance with the literature as pulled out by Google Scholar or PubMed. But it's not clear which literature. If this is truly an automated, blind procedure, does that mean that papers funded by pharma companies in obscure journals were used for comparison?
• I haven't figured out how the P-values are arrived at, or what the data in Table 3 means. Concussion, the article they approved of (it says that in the paper text also), has 40 24 22 26 62 50 for the numbers of concordant and discordant assertions under three categories of assertions (based on whether reviewers found similar assertions). With no lack of discord, why is that the good one, and not hyperlipidemia where one reviewer found no discordant assumptions?

Bottom line: I regard the systematic test done here of article quality to be an untested procedure. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

After having glanced over this, I think I have to agree w/ Wnt here that quality of study is dubious. Looking at the authors' credentials leaves something to be desired. As a big supporter of the BBC, I'm a little disappointed they should do such shoddy reporting.

Love the fact that in the BBC piece they say "Up to 70% of physicians and medical students use the tool", while in Time they say "50 percent of physicians admitted using Wikipedia as a reference". Is that a discordance or a dissimilar assertion? NickCT (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice analysis, guys. I wish they elaborated more on their methods. In regards to the contradicting percentages, looks like BBC grabs their up-to-70% figure from the study itself, which cites three other sources. Meanwhile Time grabs their 50%-figure from here, which cites another separate study. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish the folks at Time and BBC were a little more discerning in their analysis. It doesn't seem like either really took time to pull the study apart. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Retraction Watch will publish a retraction.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

See this discussion on WikiProject Medicine. The paper is so fundamentally flawed it "is utterly meaningless and isn't worth the electrons it's printed on". I suggest if any other newspapers contact Wikipedia for comment on this piece of trash "science" that they be pointed at that discussion and some of our lead editors involved. Perhaps then the journalists might learn something about how actual science works and that publication in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make something true. -- Colin°^Talk 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Weird - they equated "mental disorders" with major depressive disorder....hmmmmmm Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: - We categorize it under Category:Mental and behavioural disorders, no? I guess on this point WP and the paper would be making non-dissimilar assertions? NickCT (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So? mental disorder =/= major depressive disorder...the former includes schizophrenia for starters. Also why does cancer convert to lung cancer? Also "Trauma-related disorders" could include...umm..trauma to...say every other part of the body as well as the head...hmm? Just comes across as fumbling and arbitrary. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I wanna see their raw data. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the most frustrating part of all this is that the points of inaccuracy haven't been revealed, so nothing can be done to correct them, if they are wrong. At that point it just seems irresponsible. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

They wanted to look at the 10 most costly "conditions", presumably Wikipedia's information on these is deemed to have a bigger impact, for good or ill, than 10 random conditions. However for 5 of those they had to choose an article representative of the condition, as we don't have an article with that title. For example [[Back problems is a redirect to Back pain.

I look forward to seeing the data from this report analysed by WikiProject Medicine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

For convenience, these are the ten reviewed articles. (The one reportedly without errors is in parentheses.)

• Coronary artery disease
• Lung cancer
• Major depressive disorder
• (Concussion)
• Osteoarthritis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Hypertension
• Diabetes mellitus
• Back pain
• Hyperlipidemia

—Wavelength (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have emailed the corresponding author regarding major depressive disorder - we'll see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of Wikipedia articles, consider the following excerpt from the Verifiability policy,

"Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."[2]

Seems like this is useful advice also for readers of health articles in Wikipedia when they are using the information for their own or others' health. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a time when people didn't think that Wikipedia would be as good as Encyclopedia Brittanica. The fact that now someone is trying to show that Wikipedia is measurably worse than peer reviewed scientific literature, and we're disputing it (with some good reasons), is really a sign of how well the editors have done. That said, I have always regarded Wikipedia as essentially a search engine, its articles meant to provide a detailed map of a topic for the purpose of navigating to the right primary source. It is unfortunate that some make such efforts to push out primary sources, especially in this subject area; but even when going through an unwanted intermediary, you still don't know the topic really until you see the original experimental data. Wnt (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

But primary sources are of little use to us, because experimental data needs to be replicated before it can be considered to be in any sense reliable. When the results have been replicated by separate teams and a review paper has been published then it becomes interesting for us. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a tabloid, reporting on individual experiments, something that many seem to find difficult to get their heads around. Eric Corbett 13:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a pattern developing where otherwise respectable medical/science journals include papers that are outside of their expert domain and thus fail to apply the same rigour when reviewing them for errors or fundamental design problems. Here we have a paper that is little to do with health or medicine but instead about comparing two forms of literature for agreement. I caution the editors of such journals to think carefully about including "for fun" such trash science as we see here. The consequence is that Time magazine reports "A new study has found that Wikipedia entries on the costliest medical conditions contradicted the latest medical research 90% of the time." That sounds far too much like we get 9/10 of all our facts wrong. -- Colin°^Talk 12:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. And let's be perfectly honest, peer reviewers aren't always completely, or even usually, unbiased anyway. Eric Corbett 13:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A crucial point here is that the paper appeared in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. If you take a look at our article on osteopathy, you will see that they are not likely to be entirely neutral in the view of Wikipedia -- in other words, they have something to gain by discrediting us. Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than review our articles on the general categories of disease listed as the ten most expensive - (Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, Mental disorder, etc.) - the authors selected an article on a specific disease within each of the ten categories. This leaves me wondering how they chose the specific articles to review. They had hundreds to choose from in the categories "heart disease" and "mental illness", for example. Nothing in the report betrays the selection criteria.

I see there has been significant conflict on some of our osteopathy-related articles over its characterisation as a pseudoscience, and the appropriateness of describing practitioners as medical doctors. At least one of the authors of this report is very comfortable with our norms and policies. If any of the authors have edited our osteopathy content (particularly anyone involved in the article selection process), or have edited any of our articles reviewed in their study, I think readers should know.

There is a lot more to criticise in this study, including the choice of reviewers (internal medicine residents and interns with no necessary expertise in the topic reviewed), and the failure to publish the actual claimed errors so others could check their assessments; but it is no worse in terms of quality than most of the studies into the accuracy of our medical content. Of the many such studies conducted, only a small handful passed the quality cut for inclusion in Cokoli et al's comprehensive 2012 systematic review of the academic literature addressing Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The admission that "we used physicians-in-training rather than content experts as reviewers" is quite insulting really. It would be like being told your degree exam paper is going to be marked by A-level school kids who have been given a couple of the latest student textbooks. -- Colin°^Talk 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that anyone who knows how to critically appraise scientific literature will be either shocked or amused that this particular paper was published. Of course, very few science journalists know how to critically appraise scientific literature. The methodology used in this paper to appraise Wikipedia articles is likely no more reliable than a coin flip (although it is much more complicated). (I say "likely no more reliable" because the authors did not provide even the minimal information necessary for simple statistical tests of the reliability of their data).

If someone flipped a coin 400 times and told us that the results indicated inaccuracies in our medical content, I don't think we'd take them very seriously. Let's be clear: that's exactly the strength of evidence here. Of course our medical content has immense room for improvement—I've spent my last 8 years on Wikipedia beating that drum, and trying to actually make a difference—but this paper doesn't add anything useful to our understanding of Wikipedia's quality or how to improve it. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we expect to see an extremely diluted version of this study in the Journal of Homeopathy? . . . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians' reaction to outside criticism sure is predictable. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

True, they often resort to lazy ad hominems, sort of like... well, sort of like you just did. There's always hope for a thoughtful discussion of an actual issue, though. Look, there are plenty of good reasons to be critical of Wikipedia's medical content—this paper just isn't one of them. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The study itself is weak -- it had "assertions" from each article examined by two interns. Meaning the statistical correlation is not known as they do not state how many "assertions" from any given article were examined by the D.O. interns (only totls found as "concordant" or "discordant" ), what the "assertions " were for each article, and whether any current peer-reviewed journals covered the topic and precise assertion questioned. (Lastly, we did not check the assertions in the peer-reviewed sources, a limitation that may prove important because peer-reviewed sources are often not in agreement. is a caveat a mile deep). Nor is any concrete measure given of the nature of the "discordance" between the Wikipedia articles and the truth given. I personally think Wikipedia should have a clear disclaimer on all medical articles (and have stated so in the past), but this study is not of very high caliber either. It may also be of concern that Osteopathy and other medical disciplines are not always "concordant" either with each other. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In the paper they note that April 25 2012 was the day they checked the articles. Looking at coronary artery disease on that day, Hasty states "Wikipedia’s article states that family history is not an important risk factor in the disease, but according to Hasty’s study, “Multiple studies confirm or support the importance of family history of CAD in determining a patient’s risk.”" - however the article on that date does not say "not important" but "A family history of early CAD is one of the less important predictors of CAD.".....so not too different from, say, NHS page, which has it in a second tier of risk factors. ...I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions on that one, but looks to me like that was not a good example of this "discordance". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

They basically invented a new way to measure the accuracy of medical text and then only applied it to Wikipedia. We have a single data point which says nothing. If they would have applied this method to a textbook, emedicine, or uptodate than we would have had a useful comparison. This paper current just says two things 1) the peer reviewed literature does not agree with itself (no surprise here) 2) the peer reviewed process is not necessarily useful as they were able to get their paper published (also no surprise). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As MastCell, James and others point out, the study has some quite fundamental methodological issues (unfortunately that's not altogether uncommon in the peer-review literature). It really doesn't tell us much about the quality, even in that very specific "Top 10" page sample. On the other hand, the message to the public not to rely on Wikipedia for "medical advice" (per WP:NOTHOW) is a perfectly helpful one, imo. For instance, we're not the kind of site that provides useful diagnostic red flags to alert the public when to consult a doctor. Nor are we outlining patient choices, as such. If I've understood correctly, what we are setting out to do is to provide reliable encyclopedic information to help people anywhere understand a bit more medical topics and conditions, including ones which, for a variety of reasons, may be of personal interest to them. 86.181.67.132 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it ironic that the study produced no useful information about the quality of Wikipedia but itself provided plenty useful information about the quality of the journal it was printed in. Is there a word for doing that: where you set out to criticise another but end up embarrasing yourself? -- Colin°^Talk 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Kicking an own goal? A critical fumble? (from gaming) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasty's paper is utter bullshit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have looked through the paper. It does not give enough detail to understand the point it is trying to make. The detail of discordance is not quantified: are we out of date, running ahead of the evidence, mis-representing the sources? Have "lunatic charlatans" tried to push crank ideas, have "pharma shills" tried to push their expensive treatments? As several people above have noted, the article does not give enough detail to be useful in any meaningful sense, and if it were a Wikipedia article we'd have a gigantic {{citation needed}} tag on it. Which is a shame, as keeping health articles up to date and reality based is a constant challenge given the input of cranks, hacks, flacks and of course Randy from Boise. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus"

Jimmy, as you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people says:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question.

Our article on Jodie Foster says:

Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation.

But Jodie Foster is in the categories "LGBT actresses" and "LGBT entertainers from the United States". This seems to be a clear violation of the policy. The justification for this is a discussion on the talk page. Actually several discussions, but it is claimed that one discussion ended in "consensus" that LGBT categories should be added to the article. I bring this to you because I do not think that a few people in a talk page discussion should be able to overrule policy. The discussion was not specifically about interpreting the policy and many of the comments show that the policy was not being taken in to consideration.

I was blocked for trying to remove these categories. One of the admins who declined to unblock me commented "I'm pretty sure that marrying somebody of the same sex counts as self-identifying". I hope you will disagree. I understand that Wikipedia editors think it is important to label and categorize things, but I think that the policy places a very reasonable limit on that activity. Sexual orientation and religion are complex and personal things that are best left to the individual to declare. Some people will we think it is silly for Jody Foster to be excluded from LGBT categories. I hope that you will tell those people that Wikipedia does not decide people's sexual orientation. 69.196.171.23 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the question asked above is a reasonable one, the one about marrying someone of the same sex. As marriage is, pretty much, a voluntary thing, when an individual engages in a behavior like what is generally referred to as a "same-sex" or in this case "lesbian" marriage, then that voluntary action itself qualifies as a form of self-identification in the eyes of most. Also, if she has been clearly described by reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as LGBT in some way, that in general meets our crieria for such description, I think anyway. Again, if you wish to disagree, I think it would help if you indicated what alternative standard of proof you would consider acceptable. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

John, I would accept what the policy states - "self-identification". Nothing less. 69.196.171.23 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If she is/was in a same-sex marriage, that counts as self-identification in my book. Unless you're assuming it was done for tax purposes, which seems a worse thing to be accused of. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong position on this, but I'd point out that there isn't necessarily a contradiction between "Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation" and the LGBT cat tag, because "LGBT" isn't a "particular sexual orientation". It's an umbrella term, which is also frequently taken to apply to people who don't strictly fit any of the letters in the acronym. It may be either incorrect or impolite to label Foster a "lesbian", but the same doesn't **necessarily** apply to "LGBT". Formerip (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be completely at odds with what the policy says. She has not self identified as lesbian or as bisexual or as transgendered. 69.196.171.23 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood what I wrote. LGBT can be, and often is, used to apply to people who are not L, G, B or T. It can include, for example, transvestites, people who identify as straight but have sex with people of the same sex, people who identify as androgynous or third gender, and so on. I've even seen it used to apply to the heterosexual partners of gay and bisexual people. On that basis, it may not be unreasonable to say that someone who enters into a same sex marriage has identified as LGBT. Formerip (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I did understand. You don't seem to understand what the policy simply and clearly says. 69.196.171.23 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I haven't seen anyone making any accusations. 69.196.171.23 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No. As discussed in the closed-as-consensus discussion on the talk page for that article. LGBT is not something one person self-identifies as being, nor is it 'lesbian or gay or bisexual or transgender', rather it's inclusive of all and broader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Agreed which FormerIP, and also point out that this is a matter of basically no importance to me as an editor personally, that I don't have an opinion about this one way or another. While I appreciate the IP's response regarding what the IP personally considers sufficient, that still leaves open the question of definition of "self-identification," and that I have not received a useful response there. I assume that this matter has also been taken to the WP:BLPN, which is frequented by editors more familiar with applying BLP to articles. And I also note what FormerIP's point above seems to indicate. I remember reading that a young former New England Patriots punter, happily married with two kids, has been an active LGBT advocate, and that he could on that basis, presumably, be included in one or more LGBT categories, even though there has never been, that I've seen anyway, any indication that he was anything but what might be called a liberal or progressive heterosexual. If the IP is Ms. Foster or someone closely associated with her, I think their best next step would be to contact WP:OTRS. Otherwise, the IP's time might be well spent in proposing changes to the existing BLP policy pages, where they might be more likely to produce quicker responses. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

John, being an "LGBT activist" is a very different thing from being an "LGBT actress". You seem like a smart guy. Why would you throw that red herring into the discussion? 69.196.171.23 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The policy is VERY clear, self identification is not by an action of any kind. A good example is Tom Daley. The source for such self identification needs to be very strong. We are not here to "out" people or label them in any way. If the desire to label someone is greater than the need to be accurate....you stand in conflict of interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Who's inaccurate? A Gay marriage is what it is. Her marriage is a legal state, which she, the subject, has openly identified she is in. [3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I don't care what your biases are. Just getting married is NOT a self identification. "I am gay" "My partner and I are a same sex couple" these are self identification statements and only a statement is "self identification" period. Nothing more and nothing less.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Your biases are irrelevant -- you don't get to determine how people come out or reliable sources use language. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. If the source lied or exaggerated it is not reliable. But if the subject made a clear statement it is a self identification. As I said, we are not here to label people.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't have a clue, evidently. What source lied? You just imagine there's a magic formula for what she says that only you will accept, but there is no reason to put your biases on others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, but I stand by what I said. You are not here to right great wrongs or make claims about others that have not been verified through secondary sources that show the subject to have clearly self identified. If you don't like that there is always the choice to just not edit the article at all. I suggest that.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever? That demonstrates your level of thought. We follow the sources. Not what you make up to be the proper way for her to say something. If you have to denigrate the reliable sources to pretend they don't say what they say, then you should take your own suggestion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A same-sex marriage does not mean that someone is necessarily gay or lesbian, but what it does mean is that they are not straight, and that then puts them in the category of LGBT, which is really defined by what it isn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This. Alanscottwalker, calling same-sex marriage 'gay marriage' doesn't automatically make anyone who enters into one gay. But it would seem to put them under the LGBT umbrella. I'm really shocked that this has become this huge thread which is quite needlessly located on Jimbo's talk page. There was a consensus, and even people like me who'd rather have left the whole question alone need to accept and abide by it. At this rate I expect to see the IP OP donning the Spiderman outfit for an ascent of the Reichstag any day now. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. For all we know anyone married to anyone else may be the rare asexual marrying another who is a friend, or they could be marrying for immigration status, or it could be a reverse beard and anyway, why are we identifying people as anything here? We don't categorize heterosexuals so why do we categorize anyone else's sexual orientation? I suppose you might say we categorize what's more defining, less common, but being gay or bisexual is hardly uncommon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We are applying the ordinary meaning to what she herself has stated [4] [5]-- your speculation on meanings has no place. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. Could the Virgin Mary have been a lesbian, if as some believe she never engaged in sexual activity during the course of her life? Who knows? The question here seems to me to relate to marriage, which as a lifelong bachelor I may not understand that well. So far as I know, it is legally generally accepted that people in a marriage relationship have unless otherwise specified agreed that their sexual conduct, if any, will be exclusively within the marriage. Doing otherwise is generally considered grounds for divorce. The questkon here, which I admit is at least maybe a bit murky, is whether such legal matters are themselves grounds for categorization. Would a person dismissed from work as a juvenlle sex offender, after a presumably thorough, if not governmental, review qualify in some sort of relevant category? Do independent legal rulings qualify as sufficient for categorization? Also, I suppose, if someone volunarily agrees to baptism within a Christian or other church, is that baptism grounds for saying that they are members of that religious body? I honestly don't know if BLP deals with such extraordinary matters, or even if it would necessarily be required to. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty simple. Don't over think it. If someone has a sex tape showing them doing "the deed" with another of the same sex...is that a self identification? No it isn't and I think everyone should realize this. We are not a scandal rag. We are an encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was baptized as a Catholic....but I do NOT self identify as a Catholic.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I should have specified that I meant someone who has recently, presumably as an adult, received baptism or some other form of religious initiation, and where that baptism or religious initiation itself has been discussed in independent sources. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

John, why are you asking questions about "juvenile sex offenders"? What does that have to do with Jody Foster or the policy under discussion? 69.196.171.23 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Curious to know what AndyTheGrump says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

On this matter, I think that we should report only what Foster herself says about her identity. A same sex marriage in this case is a well-referenced fact, and people can draw conclusions if they wish. This exemplary person has chosen to say no more, and her choice should be respected. We are not a celebrity magazine, and frustration by some editors at her silence is of no importance. We are an encyclopedia. I vigorously support our BLP policy requiring explicit self-identification on matters of religious identification, sexual orientation and gender identity. Let her be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)@Nomoskedasticity: I've been thinking about this, though I have to say that I'm still undecided. On the one hand, Foster seems not to have made any direct public statement regarding her sexual orientation - but on the other hand, a marriage (any marriage) is a public declaration of a relationship. Though not quite in 'is the Pope Catholic' territory, it would seem difficult not to interpret a same-sex marriage as a public acknowledgement of Foster's sexual orientation - or at least, as an acknowledgement of one of the possible 'orientations' covered by 'LGBT', though we should avoid asserting more than the evidence supports. Frankly, I think that Wikipedia would be much improved if we didn't have this obsession with lumping people into arbitrary categories that often obscure more than they illuminate - though we may well be stuck with them until society as a whole finally comes to the same conclusion. And meanwhile, I'd have to suggest that if placing Foster in a LGBT category on the basis of a same-sex marriage is a violation of WP:BLPCAT, it is hardly the worst violation, and I have grave doubts that Ms Foster would be offended by it. I have to suggest though that the truth is probably that it really doesn't matter that much either way. Our readers aren't stupid, and they are quite capable of making their own minds up about such things, regardless of what we say - the presence or otherwise of the category is unlikely to cure the prejudiced of their ignorance, and neither is it going to add anything significant to the sum of human knowledge. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

John Carter might want to review the work of Laud Humphreys, who has a rather informative body of research on whether married men restrict their sexual activity to their (female) partners. The notion that one can read sexual identity (or even orientation) from one's marital status is woefully ignorant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, actually, I don't know that I ever explicitly made the point you are asserting I made. So far as I can tell, was "So far as I know, it is legally generally accepted that people in a marriage relationship have unless otherwise specified agreed that their sexual conduct, if any, will be exclusively within the marriage. Doing otherwise is generally considered grounds for divorce." I acknowledge after the fact that masturbation and other forms of autoeroticism are probably not considered grounds for divorce, but engaging in explicitly sexual activity with someone outside of the marriage is so far as I can tell still considered grounds for divorce, and presumably a person who is married generally does not wish the marriage to end on the basis of a for-cause divorce initiated by the other party in a marriage. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - but one can say the same thing about reading sexual identity/orientation from other public assertions. Which would logically imply that one didn't treat them as necessarily valid either, and accordingly abolished the categories entirely. Which might well be a good idea... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Being in a different-sex marriage doesn't make you straight, but it does mean you were (at least at some point) not gay. As a pansexual, I might marry a woman or marry a man, and all the fact tells you is that I am excluded from the categories of "gay" and "straight" respectively. For those excluded from the straight category (by marrying a same-sex partner), that would then make them LGBT of some variety. Oh, and to rebut an earlier point, I believe asexuals do also come under LGBT nowadays. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Different-sex marriage is conclusive proof of non-gayness? Really? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there are marriages of convenience between opposite-sex couples who may in fact be gay but wanting to present a suitable facade to avoid public scorn, but it seems quite ridiculous that anyone would enter into a same-sex marriage for the same reasons. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly - but there might well be other reasons for a marriage of convenience. I've seen it suggested that in the UK at least there might be tax advantages in such arrangements, and then there are is always the possibility of marriage as a way to get around immigration law for instance. Ultimately though, we will have to acknowledge that anything that people can do, someone will probably do eventually just out of random wilfulness. And I've seen quite enough 'straight' marriages entered into for entirely inappropriate reasons to convince me that 'gay' ones wouldn't be immune from similar stupidities. In Ms Foster's case this seems highly implausible - but that is no reason to make sweeping generalisations about who might or might not fit into one arbitrary box or another... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but I'm not sure this affects what we should do. Sometimes people are dishonest, but this can also include people lying about their sexual orientation. We can't really write an encyclopaedia using the basis that it is impossible to ever be sure about anything. Plus, the whole basis of the "self-identification" rule is BLP. If a straight person lies about their sexual orientation or enters into a sham gay marriage, it would be a little absurd to think of ensuing misunderstandings that make their way into a WP article as "BLP violations". Formerip (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion until now seem to have lost sight of the part that comes before the "can we put her in this category?" question - the question of relevance. Is the proposed category actually relevant to the subject's notability? Ms. Foster is a noted actress, she has been notable as an actress for a long time, well before her sexual orientation ever became a matter of public interest. Does her orientation have any relevance to her acting career? IMHO the answer is a clear "no" - thus adding a sexual orientation category (of any variety) is not justified. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, that isn't the way policy is generally interpreted - if it were, quite a few categories would be much emptier, though the compulsive shovers-into-arbitrary-boxes would be rather unhappy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not arbitrary where there are sources (who use the words) but sure if the category is un-useful than it should be deleted. We judge relevance and 'of note' by following sources. No person is just a single anything, however. She's not just an American, nor just a director, nor just a producer, nor just an expatriate, nor just someone in a gay marriage, nor just someone who has come out, nor just an award winner, nor. . . just an any single thing. Categories are merely tools for research, otherwise they should go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is like asking whether an acupuncture practitioner should be categorized as a pseudoscientist. Whenever we have to philosophize and debate "Is an A a B?", it's time to have a Category:A and a Category:B. BLPs should always go in the specific category, not the inferred one. That way we can put a note at the top of Category B saying how it is defined and that A may or may not be included. For example, we could have Category:Actresses in same-sex marriages and write at the top of Category:LGBT actresses, "Sexual orientation of actresses is defined here by expressed identity. Therefore some actresses in same-sex marriages may not be included." We should not forget that the category pages, for all their flaws, at least allow us to give this guidance rather than making these decisions out of sight. At least in this year I'm sure that a same-sex marriage of just about any actress is still going to be notable and covered in the news, not just as a marriage but specifically as a same-sex marriage. Wnt (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh? In what way? An acupuncture practitioner is arguably a faith healer without the deity, like a homeopath; this is not in and of itself pseudoscience, it is the exercises in confirmation bias published as "studies" that are pseudoscience. Foster, on the other hand, is in a same sex marriage. That's not a grey area: to be in a same-sex marriage when one is not gay, would be really quite exceptional. However, it's a trivium. I draw an analogy with Joan Armatrading. She is gay, but does not wear this on her sleeve, she is not a lesbian singer, she is a singer who happens, in her private life, to be lesbian. In such cases I think it is inappropriate to include these categories. I understand that LGBT editors are keen to claim their own, but this is not really an appropriate way of approaching biographies. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If we were expand this self-identification issue to other issues, the logical end of that would be that BLPs would need to be based on autobiographies. Count Iblis (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very special case because of the history of persecution that led people to be in heterosexual marriages yet "come out" as homosexual. Religion has at times been similarly contentious. I would actually favor a category name more like "Actresses who have described themselves as LBGT", to be clearer about the definition used there, but provided a note is placed at the top of the category that explains the definition we've used, that's good enough. The key here is to bring categories closer to "verifiability not truth"; we are showing the reader what we have managed to document, not what really is in some pure sense that may not exist. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I might even go a bit further to create a category of "Recent ...", which might more specifically indicate that BLP is a potential issue. Also, honestly, as we already have any number of foo by century categories and the like, it would not be out of line to have specific categories for living or only recently dead people. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to make clear that "identifying as LGBT/Gay/Lesbian/&c." is very different from merely acting in a homosexual/bisexual manner. There are many people who engage in what could be called "homosexual" behaviour who do not identify as "Gay". "Gay", and its other counterparts, are particular constructed forms of identity that do not merely entail same-sex sexual/romantic desire. They have other connotations and meanings which many who engage in such behaviours do not identify with. Not all "people with same-sex sexual/romantic desire" identify with the "LGBT community" or "LGBT identity". RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tools

Here are some tools I found at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, that might help in tackling this issue:

• {{categorization of people disputed}}
  links talk edit

I added this template to the two LGBT categories featuring J.F. It would be wise not to remove these templates from these category pages until the dispute is resolved or until J.F. is no longer listed in them. The template directs to the J.F. talk page, so I'd say: discuss there (or re-open the 1st RfC). Note that for inclusion in a sensitive category (as all subcategories of category:LGBT people are, see template on that page) the consensus needs to be very strong, in fact some sort of unanimity, besides being in line with WP:BLP. Failing that, the discussion can only close on no consensus to categorize in the sensitive category. It's clear the dispute isn't over yet, so discuss until it is.

• Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while (etc.)

There is no need for the category to include questionable entries.

• Check whether you can solve (part of) the problem by making a better category definition

Moving up a few steps in the category tree I see (category:LGBT people):

Articles about notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians.

See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and the individual articles for the justification for their inclusion in this category.

I think there's some room for improvement there... (e.g., not related to this discussion, someone declaring his gender identity as being in line with his gender at birth is not excluded from these categories... go figure the sloppiness of the inclusion criteria). See WP:COP#Clearly define the category. (update: done --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Move this discussion

Unless there are strong arguments to the contrary I propose to shortly close this section down and move it to Talk:Jodie Foster. A community-wide RFC just concluded, if you want to overturn the results of that RFC, the only reasonable path is ANOTHER community wide RFC, which should be held there. We can start a new thread at Foster's page - however it should be focused on framing a new RFC vs debating the merits of the past discussion. If you want to do THAT, then open up a formal review to see if the reading of consensus was correct. But 69's approach of edit warring was the wrong way to go - there are reasonable positions on both sides of the fence re: the reading of BLP here. In any case, given we just had a big discussion about this, continuing it here is a form of forum-shopping, and many participants in the discussion at Foster's page likely weren't aware of this discussion. Hence, the proposal to close it and move it, now that this page and editors here have been informed of the debate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors wanting to improve the inclusion criteria of the LGBT people categories might be directed at Category talk:LGBT people if further discussion is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but category talk pages get little traffic. I'd suggest instead WP:EGRS if people want to improve categorization guidelines more generally for LGBT people, and Foster's page for yet more discussion about her categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Obwankenobi, although I think maybe starting a second RfC as a BLP policy RfC might be a better idea. Wnt's proposal for categories for individuals in same-sex marriages might be a good idea, although I wonder how many articles would be in that category and not obviously in others. I think having the policy deal explicitly with actions, like recent adult baptism, which seem to explicitly indicate a personal characteristic, would be beneficial. I suppose the same might apply to people who have in some way "officially" joined a political party, to the degree that such is actually done and in those cases where one by law can only be considered a member of one party, if such actually exist. Here in the US, it qualifies someone to vote in that party's primary for the next election, but may not necessarily mean that they necessarily are supporters of the positions of that party. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:EGRS is the main guideline for categorization of this type, so discussion about a possible wider RFC on LGBT cats should be held there IMO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to hear what Jimmy has to say about this, but you are welcome to start another discussion somewhere else. Since the discussion is about Wikipedia's policy on living people the obvious place would be on the talk page for that policy. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Matter of appreciation, but I go from the idea that talk pages of policies and guidelines are about discussing updates to the respective policies and guidelines.

When there's no incentive of improving these policy and guideline pages (as seems to be the case here, just applying them in the right manner): they're not usually a noticeboard on how to implement the guidance. Besides, the other guidelines quoted above (WP:COP, WP:EGRS) can also be implemented, so which policy/guideline page would be optimal?

But shurely I'd be interested in hearing Jimbo's thoughts too. On another page I just linked to m:The Wrong Version#Involving Jimbo, I like to think he'd have a gentler view on the current discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I find the wording of the policy to be very clear. Others (who wish to add LGBT categories to Jody Foster's article) disagree with my straightforward interpretation. If the discussion results in a change in practice then the policy's wording will need to be changed. And the usual thing to do would be to remove the categories until any such discussion is completed. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this one could work too: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Go by reliable secondary sources

I thought that, as an encyclopedia, we go by what reliable secondary sources state. Reliable secondary sources say that Mrs. Foster came out at the Golden Globes - just looking at the first "tier" of sources - [6], [7], [8], [9]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Came out" as what, though? If there had been any subsequent comment by Foster which either confirmed or denied those statements, then I think it would be clear that we might favor those. But, as I've seen elsewhere early today, on an unrelated issue, it can be and sometimes at least is the case that even the most reliable secondary sources can sometimes oversimplify some matters or miss a particular point of differentiation. Also, and I suppose part of the issue might be, I don't know, exactly what Foster's self-identification in general is. If, for whatever reason, she does not see herself as a female, then she might, not unreasonably, not see herself as engaging in behavior which might be homosexual among females. Maybe. Having said that, I really would love to see the guidelines and policies actually address specific, unusual, instances of this type, because it can get really, really easy to overthink these matters and wind up confusing oneself. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be ignoring the reliable secondary sources - "Jodie Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" - title of the Fox News piece. "The Oscar-winning actress publicly came out as gay in a speech at last year's Golden Globe Awards." - BBC. Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And you appear to ignoring the ambiguity of what she stated. Everyone else seems to have gotten upset by that very fact. Just because fox news tries to spin this as an outright outing.....it ain't. Get over it and let us move on to writing an encylopedia based on the actual secondary sources......that actually have their facts "straight".--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And the NYTimes? And the BBC? And ABC News? Where is your source that she didn't come out, exactly? The previous source used to describe the ambiguity was [10], which wrote ".... during which she publicly acknowledged being a lesbian before a worldwide audience." Provide your sources for this alleged ambiguity, please. Hipocrite (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the sources that were already supplied and if you can't figure it out perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How freaking much does it take to make people understand that a self identification is NOT what other sources try to spin, interpret or just lie about. Get over it and move on!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The point of dissent seems to relate to what it is that Foster came out as. None of the sources cited seem to be of an academic nature. They seem to be using one or more words which have a clear meaning to the non-specialist community in place of what seem to be a broad number of more clearly defined terms used in the relevant academic community. Those terms seem to include heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, omnisexual (maybe), and I have no idea how many others. The fact that, so far as I can see, those nonspecialist news sources seem to be using the terms they use in a non-specific way in place of what might be considered the more accurate, technical terms, does not mean that their painting with a broad brush should be counted as accurate. Yes, I know it is extremely unlikely that Jodie Foster will be the subject of an article in an academic journal relating to LGBT rights anytime soon, and that it is likely to remain the case that the reliable sources which do discuss her will use terms in a non-technical, potentially misleading way.

For any who might have some sort of conservative or religious orientation, the use of the non-technical term "God particle" to describe the Higgs boson comes to mind. The fact that nonspecialist sources could be seen as indicating that the Higgs is God does not mean that is what the academic world actually thinks. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

But she herself said "coming out" about herself.[11] What's the point of trying to deconstruct what the accepted meaning of that language is, unless you just want to claim that she does not know what she is talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no self identification as a gay or lesbian that I see at all. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Period? What's reliable sources when you got "period" as your opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this confuses you but that wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. There was no self identification...period.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So you claim, without you having any reliable sources, of course. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh for god's sakes, this is so stupid. OF COURSE Jodie Foster is gay. Next subject... Carrite (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Really....and just how did you come to that conclusion? Whether she is or is not is not up to us to state in Wikipedia's voice of authority. This is the very argument being offered up. What we may have an opinion of falls short of what the sources are actually saying or what Foster her self is claiming. Lets not put the cart before the horse.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Mark, I think the point is that people expect this statement to be applied with a healthy dose of common sense and a realization that categories exist for the purpose of navigation, not for the purpose of putting articles into precisely and rigidly defined pigeon-holes, using the most restrictive definition possible. We assume that bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are Christians, even if we've got no documented evidence of the words "I self-identify as a Christian" have ever crossed their lips. The action of being ordained is sufficient for "self-identification". We similarly assume that people who have said that they publicly "came out" and who have publicly entered into a same-sex marriage are (some form of) LGBT. The actions of "coming out" and getting married is sufficient for "self-identification". Self-identification is not necessarily restricted to speaking a specific set of words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • "Sorry" but the term "coming out" is not a self identification and your analogy about Bishops is way off. Seriously. We have standards. Stick to them.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think either side in this controversy can make a reasonable case. My preference is ... (No way am I going to get involved in this!) —Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Copied from above for clarity:

I just want to make clear that "identifying as LGBT/Gay/Lesbian/&c." is very different from merely acting in a homosexual/bisexual manner. There are many people who engage in what could be called "homosexual" behaviour who do not identify as "Gay". "Gay", and its other counterparts, are particular constructed forms of identity that do not merely entail same-sex sexual/romantic desire. They have other connotations and meanings which many who engage in such behaviours do not identify with. Not all "people with same-sex sexual/romantic desire" identify with the "LGBT community" or "LGBT identity". RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, Today (UTC−4)

Why is not being discussed on the article's talk page? Moreover, what we should really do it change the categories themselves! Make them more inclusive. LGBT is an umbrella term, not literally just lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy?

Jimmy, I didn't start this discussion so that the same tired arguments could be reiterated on your talk page. You understand that this is about more than just Jodie Foster. Some editors add categories to identify people as "one of us". Some editors add categories to identify people as "one of them". The policy right now draws a line about where that game stops. Speak up before that line gets erased. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And how would the personal opinion of Jimmy Wales be decisive in this matter, I ask? Carrite (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything that states Jimbo's opinion would be "decisive in this matter" in anyway. But some people respect his opinion and that is all this seems to be asking for...his opinion. Of course Jimbo may also be wanting to stay out of this. If I were smart that is what I would have done. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo responds

I have not studied the case of Jodie Foster in enough detail to have a legitimate opinion about that issue. But I can speak about my own experience in a way that I think is relevant in this context. For a time, I was categorized in a category of either Athiest or American Atheists (I can't quite remember). I objected to this. I would object to it again if it came up again, because I think it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. Atheism versus religionism is not an issue that I campaign about and including me in such a category would mislead people even if in some sense it might actually be true. (Notice that I'm not saying - not because my own beliefs are uncertain, but because I wouldn't want anyone to take this comment, which is about Wikipedia, as an excuse to add me there!)

I think many categories run the same kind of risk. Unless someone actually self-identifies publicly as belonging to a category, we should be very careful about adding them to that category. I don't know enough about Jodie Foster to know where she fits.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have had precisely the same debate in respect of Joan Armatrading. Wikipedia can cover the facts, but we are not here to allow every interest group to claim their own through categorisation, since this does not allow for any nuance (in the way that list articles do). Guy (Help!) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. You're right about the atheism category - in general the rule is WP:DEFINING as well as WP:EGRS. Someone like Richard Dawkins should clearly be in that cat, but I doubt RS regularly say 'Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and noted atheist, today said...' So for the vast majority of people, no matter their religion, we don't categorize them accordingly since it's usually not an important part of their public life nor discussed in detail in reliable sources. LGBT is treated slightly differently - all it takes is public self-identification to merit the 'gay' tag. As for Foster, it almost seems like a custom-built set up for a Wikipedia battle - rumors have plagued her for years that she was gay, and then finally in a public speech she admits that she came out long ago and mentions her relationship with a woman, but she - whether on purpose or not - does not use the word gay or lesbian, and never says 'I am a XXX'. Then you add the winner-takes-all aspect of categories (eg you're either in or out) and voila, wikibattle royale. The debate here has been raging ever since. And then she marries a woman, adding fuel to the fire. Plenty of reliable sources have claimed she had finally come out as lesbian as a result of her speech, while some editors here state that she could be bi, or could eschew labels entirely - we simply don't know and we cannot trust newspaper's guesses in this matter since they have no means to fact-check short of asking her, again (Foster would regularly stipulate that questions from reporters about her sexuality were off-limits). The compromise arrived at in the RFC was sort of like 'she's said enough to put her in the LGBT tree, but we won't categorize her as a lesbian as that's a step too far' My guess is until she comes out with a clearer statement (which is unlikely as she's guarded her privacy for 40 years and I don't see a press conference in the future) this will go on and on and never be settled - as you can see a recent community wide RFC is now being disputed. I think we should just refer the whole thing to the WMF editorial board. Wait, does that still not exist? :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI regarding the Information Society Project

Mr. Wales, there is a major WP:COI violation regarding the Information Society Project. The project's former executive director (Dr. Laura E. DeNardis as User:Drled) apparently edited it as well as editing her own article (Laura DeNardis) despite being warned on her talkpage to not do so. What is your view on this? Ripberger (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Drled (talk · contribs) last edited Laura DeNardis in August 2012 and is inactive, and has not been notified of this discussion. The August 2012 edits are entirely innocuous and not worth mentioning on any noticeboard, let alone here. Their last edit at Information Society Project was in February 2012, and again was fine. If you notice something that warrants attention please use WP:COIN. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what Jimbo thinks of this. A person is automatically notified when their username is blue-linked. There is no need to manually notify her. However, I will leave her a message notifying her of this discussion, if she is still around. Ripberger (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My position is the same as always. I frown very strongly on such things. In many or most cases it starts with someone not knowing any better. But once people have been warned, I have little sympathy for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The Information Society Project was mentioned on the Foundation's blog [12] and User:Drled did plug her book on Wikipedia as recently as December 2013 [13]. Just thought you would like to know. Ripberger (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Question to Mr Wales

El novio de Lila Tretikov, la nueva Directora Ejecutiva de la WMF, Wil Sinclair ha estado activo en una de las listas de correo de Wikipedia en días recientes. El asunto de su participación en Wikipediocracy salió a flote, y aún cuando todo el mundo es bienvenido a participar en tales foros sin más, durante el transcurso de la discusión, lo siguiente salió a la luz.

En MyWikiBiz, Wil ha dado una aprobación así:

<Wikipedia> is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I personally thank him for that.

Ésta aprobación ha causado algo de fricción en la lista de correo, aunque, sinceramente, la gente puede aprobar a quien quiera. Pero señor Wales, le pregunto:

1. ¿Cree usted que esta dinámica que está encarando la WMF es interesante?
2. ¿Tiene consejos para el señor Sinclair?

P.D. I apologize for asking in Spanish as I can not English very good, someone can do translating for me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.39.143 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Mr. Kohs saw a nice testimonial blurb and used it, fully aware of the irony. It's nice that now the issue has abated on the mailing list in question there is an IP willing to stir the pot up again here, in whatever language. We wouldn't want the drama to go away now, would we? Carrite (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

HA HA HA!!! I was gonna make a joke about this being from Australia and it turns out it was!!! Nice troll. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What irony? I'm not associated with the WMF, and I was very sincere in what I said as an individual contributor. Self-policing isn't usually effective, in my experience. Also, Greg can and will not be ignored away. In fact, he should be seriously PO'd with me that I've made his job harder, because he has taken some advantage of stealth in the past. Eventually, if there is some newsworthy situation at WP, it will get out. If we listened to Greg, we have a better chance of finding out about it before the problem becomes so large that it will have a material affect on all Wikipedians. AFAICT, he enjoys it. It all boils down to: Greg is incredibly good at finding WP's problems, so if we're open to criticism, why not take advantage of that? And there you have the "what's in it for Wikipedia" argument. :) 204.11.226.135 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Google right to be forgotten form

Hi Jimbo, please could you give your opinion on the form Google will offer enabling people to have personal data taken out from search results? Thanks, Matty.007 09:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on the actual content of the form? Or on the broader issue? I think the specific details of the content of the form are not that important - I'm sure they will modify and update it over time to serve the purpose as well as they can. It's the purpose that I object to. Google is in a very tight spot - there is no appeal from the ECJ and so they have to comply. My own view is that Europeans should be deeply upset about this ruling, not because privacy is unimportant, but because this ruling is incoherent and ill-considered. (I take no position at the present time on whether it is consistent with European law. That is, I don't yet know if it is wrong because it misinterprets the underlying law, or wrong because the underlying law is wrong. I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the WMF is not in Europe but is the law something we at Wikipedia should be worrying about? Do you forsee it eventually being used by (European) article subjects to massage their image here? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The attention of thoughtful editors is requested.

A discussion is underway that would benefit from the thoughtful consideration of the widest possible cross-section of Wikipedia's editing community. This page is known to be monitored by the exact class of editor that would be of the greatest benefit to the discussion by their participation. All are openly invited.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)