User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by 175.106.47.131 (talk): WP:SHOT; a community ban would extend to your IP address too. (TW) |
so what if I am community banned -- allegations have been raised -- i'm the only one who has done investigation of this -- WP:IAR applies |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
::::Could it be that [[User:Rayan Riener]] does not understand English well and wrote the above post with the help of a machine translation? The user, "Green Zero" (admin), mentioned does seem to have replaced some instances of "homosexual" with "gay:" [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%83&diff=14903386&oldid=14902038 here], but I cannot make a judgement as I cannot understand the language without the help of Google Translate. However, that action was eventually reverted by another editor. Just out of curiosity, are there any articles named "Homosexual Propaganda" in other wikis besides what you mentioned? I know that on enwiki, it redirects to a more neutral section on [[Societal attitudes toward homosexuality]]. --[[User:Tony Tan 98|<font color="#28589C">'''Tony Tan'''</font><font color="#4775FF"><sup>98</sup></font>]] <font color="#000000">'''·'''</font> [[User talk:Tony Tan 98#top|<font color="#177245">talk</font>]] 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
::::Could it be that [[User:Rayan Riener]] does not understand English well and wrote the above post with the help of a machine translation? The user, "Green Zero" (admin), mentioned does seem to have replaced some instances of "homosexual" with "gay:" [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%83&diff=14903386&oldid=14902038 here], but I cannot make a judgement as I cannot understand the language without the help of Google Translate. However, that action was eventually reverted by another editor. Just out of curiosity, are there any articles named "Homosexual Propaganda" in other wikis besides what you mentioned? I know that on enwiki, it redirects to a more neutral section on [[Societal attitudes toward homosexuality]]. --[[User:Tony Tan 98|<font color="#28589C">'''Tony Tan'''</font><font color="#4775FF"><sup>98</sup></font>]] <font color="#000000">'''·'''</font> [[User talk:Tony Tan 98#top|<font color="#177245">talk</font>]] 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Based on their edit history, it's very possible that [[User:Rayan Riener]] has a very limited proficiency in English and contributes with assistance, electronic for very simple things, and a secretary for more complicated things like this request. Their user page is written in third person, like a famous person's profile. If they contribute in other languages, their profile is not linked to their English profile, and being from a region not friendly to their needs, there may be a good reason for this, so I'm assuming good faith. As far as I can tell, Rayan Riener is unhappy with the actions of admins on Ukrainian Wikipedia. It's hard to tell what those actions are, because we don't know his identity there, so I can't track the actual edits. Rayan Riener doesn't have a talk page, and even if he did, I'm not sure he would be able to use it, but it's worth a try if someone wants to do that. As far as "Homosexual propaganda" article, it exists in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. The title reflect the actual term used in other languages and in parliament to write laws for several countries including [[Latvia]]. If they're legislating "Homosexual propaganda" people need to know what it means. In the lede it does a good job of explaining what the term means to both sides, those who do and do not support the idea of homosexuality. And it's written in a neutral tone. Both Russian and Ukrainian articles seem fine in the lede. I can't speak for Polish. In the Russian version, it even explains that "propaganda" is not used in the traditional sense, that it's a combined term. Yes, that's correct. It's a combination of two words that means something different than each word individually. In English "Homosexual propaganda" means something totally different, that's why it redirects. An example of a combined term in English would be "pretty cool" where each word separately means something different. It's also possible that Rayan Riener only speaks English, which would explain his outrage. [[User:USchick|USchick]] ([[User talk:USchick|talk]]) 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::::Based on their edit history, it's very possible that [[User:Rayan Riener]] has a very limited proficiency in English and contributes with assistance, electronic for very simple things, and a secretary for more complicated things like this request. Their user page is written in third person, like a famous person's profile. If they contribute in other languages, their profile is not linked to their English profile, and being from a region not friendly to their needs, there may be a good reason for this, so I'm assuming good faith. As far as I can tell, Rayan Riener is unhappy with the actions of admins on Ukrainian Wikipedia. It's hard to tell what those actions are, because we don't know his identity there, so I can't track the actual edits. Rayan Riener doesn't have a talk page, and even if he did, I'm not sure he would be able to use it, but it's worth a try if someone wants to do that. As far as "Homosexual propaganda" article, it exists in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. The title reflect the actual term used in other languages and in parliament to write laws for several countries including [[Latvia]]. If they're legislating "Homosexual propaganda" people need to know what it means. In the lede it does a good job of explaining what the term means to both sides, those who do and do not support the idea of homosexuality. And it's written in a neutral tone. Both Russian and Ukrainian articles seem fine in the lede. I can't speak for Polish. In the Russian version, it even explains that "propaganda" is not used in the traditional sense, that it's a combined term. Yes, that's correct. It's a combination of two words that means something different than each word individually. In English "Homosexual propaganda" means something totally different, that's why it redirects. An example of a combined term in English would be "pretty cool" where each word separately means something different. It's also possible that Rayan Riener only speaks English, which would explain his outrage. [[User:USchick|USchick]] ([[User talk:USchick|talk]]) 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
{{u|Rayan Riener}} I have to edit here as an IP because [[User:Russavia|I am community banned here on English Wikipedia]]. But let me address some of the issues you have raised here. For the record, I am queer myself. :) |
|||
I have discussed the issues you raised above with some editors from Ukrainian Wikipedia, and in no particular order, the following needs to be raised: |
|||
# [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%83_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%96%D0%B2&oldid=15133722#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.BE.D1.85.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8F_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B2.D1.96.D1.80.D0.BA.D1.83 A checkuser on Ukrainian Wikipedia] found that you have been "abusing" multiple accounts. In addition to your Rayan account, you also were using [[:uk:User:Kvitka Cvit]]. Whilst this in itself is not a problem if you are creating content, like I have, where you ran into trouble is..... |
|||
# at [[:uk:Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати_на_вилучення/18_вересня_2014#.D0.9A.D0.B0.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.B3.D0.BE.D1.80.D1.96.D1.8F:.D0.9F.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.8C.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B8_.D0.B3.D0.B5.D1.97|this category discussion]]. |
|||
# on Wikipedia, we don't tend separate "gay" or "lesbian" from "LGBT" topics. Simply put, human sexuality is a complex subject and LGBT covers-all. |
|||
# many of the comments in that discussion from [[:uk:Користувач:A1]] are, I agree, totally unacceptable. Being a board member of Wikimedia Ukraine, A1 should take stock of what they have said there and think whether some of their comments were appropriate (they are not!), and perhaps Wikimedia Ukraine members should think whether his comments truly are representative of Wikimedia projects. |
|||
# the articles you mention which were deleted, there are several issues: |
|||
## [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B0&action=edit&redlink=1 This] was deleted for being a copyvio of [http://pprosvita.at.ua/publ/z_istoriji_ukrajinskikh_grabliv_kijivska_katastrofa/1-1-0-116 this]. |
|||
## [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C_%D1%96_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%83%D1%94_%D0%9D%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C&action=edit&redlink=1 This] was deleted for not being notable. It is available [[:uk:Користувач:Kvitka Cvit/Говорить і показує Нікополь|here]] and it simply isn't notable. |
|||
## Likewise [https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92_%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%A0%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0&action=edit&redlink=1 this] was deleted for similar reasons. It is apparently a yaoi manga by [[:uk:Камо_Набако]], whom himself does not appear to be notable. |
|||
## There were several other deletions of non-notable garage bands and the like. |
|||
## There were also several machine translations of articles. Don't use machine translations on articles, do natural translations. |
|||
# Apparently you sent invites to over 100 editors on Ukrainian Wikipedia inviting them to join an LGBT WikiProject. Whilst a project for LGBT subjects would be an excellent idea, it's apparent that posted invites to random editors, many of whom have not shown an interest in editing those subjects. Targeted invites to editors whom had shown interest in those subjects would have been a better idea. |
|||
On the general issue of so-called gay propaganda, I can attest that [[:uk:Пропаганда гомосексуалізму]] is an absolutely horrific article. We need to remember that Wikipedia is the sum-of-all human knowledge, not just the sum of all Ukrainian knowledge, or Russian knowledge, or American knowledge. It is similar to [[Gay agenda]] here on this project, in that it does not present a worldwide view of the subject, and yes, all of these articles could do with a lot of work. Just be sure to aim for neutrality when editing and cover all points of view from a worldwide viewpoint. Good luck. [[Special:Contributions/175.106.47.131|175.106.47.131]] ([[User talk:175.106.47.131|talk]]) 10:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==OMG!== |
==OMG!== |
Revision as of 11:22, 15 November 2014
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
![]() | He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis. |
![]() | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
(Manual archive list) |
quacking duck |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jimbo, don't you think the One Young World article could use some improvement? For example, it mentions the Dublin 2014 event as if it is still in the future. Also, there is not a single word of criticism about the organization. Do you think that reliable sources have never critiqued the organization or its programs? - Stylecustom (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Why did you encourage Gamergaters to write their own version of the Gamergate Wikipedia article?
[1] What is your end goal with this? Integrating it into our article? KonveyorBelt 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Err yeah, gotta admit that doesn't look good. An explanation would be good. Were you being sarcastic? serious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was being completely serious. There are a great many complaints about our article, and at least some of them are from people who are not raging lunatics. There have been some specific complaints about behavior, and again not all those complaints are wrong nor are they all from raging lunatics. The specific wiki that I pointed people to is a pro-gamergate wiki, and it's a legitimate challenge: if there is a complaint that the Wikipedia entry is in violation of Wikipedia policies it will be useful to see exactly how.
- On twitter, a writer from Slate (a notable publication, obviously) is complaining as well that his views have been unfairly represented in our article. There are repeated complaints that don't strike me as completely wrong that there is a double standard for sourcing with sources which are anti-gamergate being given a pass where they would be challenged as mere blogs if they were pro-gamergate. That's obviously a point worth discussing but (a) twitter is not a very helpful medium for having a serious discussion and (b) the level of drama on the Wikipedia talk page is not going to be helped if I just tell them to bring their concerns to the talk page.
- So it seems to me that the challenge is a solid way to move things forward. If they are able to produce something that independent and thoughtful Wikipedians agree is validly better than our article in some respects, that will be useful.
- For me, when people say "Valid mainstream sources are being ignored or misquoted in the Wikipedia entry" I take that very seriously - but it's hard for me to fully evaluate it if the complaint goes no further than that. I'd like to be shown how those who think our article is bad would improve it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, I'm totally on board with that reasoning, but if the goal is to have it be integrated into the Wikipedia article one day, maybe in the future having them create it in a sandbox area on-wiki would be better? I only mention this because I know that the edit history is seen as part of satisfying the BY portion of the CC-By-SA license, so I don't know if that can get tricky when pulling content from Wikia to Wikipedia. Either way, I have to agree that inviting a bunch of SPAs to a talk page doesn't usually help a situation out, and having them come in with fleshed-out ideas of their ideal wording and sourcing is I think not a problem. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 14:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can think up some positive reasons but the troll potential and the possible bias among editor's opinions outweighs them all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- If there is troll potential, that'll be an issue for the admins of that wiki to deal with. I'm quite sure this is better than me inviting a mass of single purpose accounts to come to the Wikipedia talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably to see how they'd phrase some things, and the possibility to add to the article currently here if found within wiki policies/guidelines. When you've spent all the time looking at the article on Wikipedia, and not having any attempt to see what the other side would've characterized certain events as, you get a skewed perspective. I'm happy with Jimbo's decision to do such, as it has the benefit of offering the other side the way to contexualize and centralize what happened, and Jimbo a way to see if there are any legitimate things that could be added to the wiki page. Additionally, Wikipedia is fragrantly complicated and convoluted. Wikia very much isn't, especially the newly created wikias, and would probably lead to broader participation as a result. The semi protection on the GamerGate talk page also probably doesn't help. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that 4chan isn't going to take full advantage of this. Its a good idea yes but can have some bad results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just strikes me as incredibly divisive and polarising. Oh well, let's see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is divisive and polarising at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Errr, you don't see how two articles in parallel could be polarising.... rather than, say, discussion on one article here...? Umm, yes it can and will. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also want to add that if it adds to the controversy, Jimbo could get involved in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is divisive and polarising at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just strikes me as incredibly divisive and polarising. Oh well, let's see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- shrug* If they can come up with something useful and usable, more power to them... and if not (and it will be very clear if not) then they will clearly demonstrate why the article needs great attention from experienced editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Err yeah, gotta admit that doesn't look good. An explanation would be good. Were you being sarcastic? serious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article at Wikia couldn't be worse than the one here that's guarded by 5 guys burger and fries. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article is actually looking ok (aside from been written by people with no wiki experience) it doesn't make any negative claims (unless you count extreme cynicism of anti-gg's reports of harassment) but it needs A LOT of work and sourcing. I foresee sections of it being used but at the moment it is full of trolls and unsourced opinion. Retartist (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- And if that's all it ever becomes then serious Wikipedians (like me) who have no personal interest in the issue can feel more comfortable that allegations of a small cabal of abusive editors (frequently mentioned in complaints are Tarc and Ryulong) are controlling the article to the detriment of Wikipedia are not very persuasive. And if they come up with an article that is well-sourced, neutral, and contains information that ours has omitted due to bias - then Wikipedia can be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- More constructive might have been suggesting they talk to journalists and give their side of the story...and if aforesaid journalists write new articles, then they are in reliable sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...which is another approach, not necessarily "more constructive," just something of a different nature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- What Cas Liber is aiming at is the fact that we have very, very few reliable sources explaining Gamergate's perspective; pointing at marked-up screenshot imgurs and random YouTube videos isn't going to give us anything new to work with there. A large percentage of the issue is that Gamergate supporters believe there is some grand media conspiracy to silence them while the mainstream perspective is that Gamergate's claims have been examined and found wanting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comparing the two approaches (just a first thrust at this):
- Advantages (of "talk to the press" approach):
- An eventual report in the press may be used as a WP:V type of source directly, avoiding, for instance, a second step cleanup like the one (still needed) for the Pajot source (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 55#Phasing out the forum)
- Disadvantages of "talk to the press" approach:
- Time delay: it is incertain if and when reporters may decide to publish anything on the subject. Do we want to keep a Wikipedia article in kaboots for a day that may never come?
- When such press publication appears it still may have WP:RS issues, compare e.g. [2] which resulted from such "faction talking to the press" approach, and did not result in an external source that was of much use for the Wikipedia article it was discussing.
- When such external publication appears there is more risk of uncertainty that we really get to know what the insiders may see as an equilibrate article, and which third party sources they would primarily rely on.
- Advantages (of "talk to the press" approach):
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think the fourth disadvantage of the "talk to the press" approach is that, when there are claims that journalistic integrity is a significant component of the gamergate controversy, there then becomes distrust in the neutrality of articles appearing in the press on the subject.
- I applaude this suggestion of Jimbo's. I feel that much work is needed on the article, to try to reconcile it with the large number of sources on the Internet which apparently contradict it, yet do not appear to be the work of raging lunatics. This could be a significant step forward in that direction. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comparing the two approaches (just a first thrust at this):
- What Cas Liber is aiming at is the fact that we have very, very few reliable sources explaining Gamergate's perspective; pointing at marked-up screenshot imgurs and random YouTube videos isn't going to give us anything new to work with there. A large percentage of the issue is that Gamergate supporters believe there is some grand media conspiracy to silence them while the mainstream perspective is that Gamergate's claims have been examined and found wanting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...which is another approach, not necessarily "more constructive," just something of a different nature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- More constructive might have been suggesting they talk to journalists and give their side of the story...and if aforesaid journalists write new articles, then they are in reliable sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- And if that's all it ever becomes then serious Wikipedians (like me) who have no personal interest in the issue can feel more comfortable that allegations of a small cabal of abusive editors (frequently mentioned in complaints are Tarc and Ryulong) are controlling the article to the detriment of Wikipedia are not very persuasive. And if they come up with an article that is well-sourced, neutral, and contains information that ours has omitted due to bias - then Wikipedia can be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article is actually looking ok (aside from been written by people with no wiki experience) it doesn't make any negative claims (unless you count extreme cynicism of anti-gg's reports of harassment) but it needs A LOT of work and sourcing. I foresee sections of it being used but at the moment it is full of trolls and unsourced opinion. Retartist (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article at Wikia couldn't be worse than the one here that's guarded by 5 guys burger and fries. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Initially I was supportive of this idea, but now I don't see it ending well. Let's assume a best case scenario - 1000's of people get together and produce a mostly NPOV pro-GamerGate article, some of which might be used to better balance the one we have. Is this what they were after? Because I'm fearful that they believe that they have been offered an opportunity to write their own version of the article which may be used as a replacement for the one here, and, in all honesty, I don't see that happening. (Reading through 8Chan, that appears to be the least of what they believe they can achieve with this article). Assuming that they do write a decent article, what do you see as happening next, and will that be enough? - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Jimbo Wales: If parts are copied over, how are we going to attribute it? Retartist (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (not Jimbo Wales.) By linking to the history of the Wikia article in the edit summary when you add or paraphrase the Wikia content into the Wikipedia version. When you make changes to the WP article that are inspired by the Wikia article, even if you're not using their text, you should acknowledge the source somehow; maybe by linking to the relevant version of the Wikia article in the WP edit summary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- A clear case of Jimbo once again outsmarting himself. All this does is further the divide on Wikipedia with systemic bias. As if the harassed and those that abhor such tactics won't take stuff like this as a slap in the face. Meanwhile, most reliable sources have the 'issue' well documented, despite the large troll infestation. Jimmy should next visit 8chan and /b/, to invite them to start writing articles about women. Dave Dial (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Jimbo Wales: If parts are copied over, how are we going to attribute it? Retartist (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
A possible broader picture: distrust of primary sources
What may be (one of?) the underlying issues of this is Wikipedia's difficulty of dealing with WP:PRIMARY sources:
- Official policy (WP:PRIMARY) is to be extra careful when using primary sources;
- This often turns into wholesale "distrust" of primary sources: avoid them, scoop them out with a bulldozer, well, who wants to put time and effort in being "careful" when a nuclear option is so much more simple?
My take on this is that articles can't really become equilibrated, a.k.a. WP:NPOV, when primary sources are barred entirely. Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but I think Jimbo is concerned about this too.
Compare current efforts at:
- WT:NPOV#WP:BALASPS to get the WP:BALASPS section of that policy on a better track, balancing what sources have to say about themselves with what what others have to say about them.
- Template talk:Primary sources#WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB caveat, the template being currently an indiscriminate statement in favour of the "nuclear option" on primary sources, overriding policy (not only WP:PRIMARY, but also WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB). My Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2014 which (with a minimal community interest in the topic) seems to have consensus to at least make the template no longer contradict policy, is still awaiting implementation.
(My interest in this was spurred by the ACIM issues, which still seem far from being solved) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Francis, as it appears you're not entirely familiar with the Gamergate matter, we have to
entirelyalmost entirely reject primary sources there because it involves a number of highly-sensitive claims made about living people, and we're simply not going to repeat anonymous bloggers' claims about people's personal lives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)- Oh, I'm completely unaware of Gamergate, never heard of it, and didn't even click the links in this talk page section (my bad). Re. "we have to entirely reject primary sources because it involves a number of highly-sensitive claims made about living people", well, *that* kind of assertion I can interpret immediately, and without knowing *anything* about the Gamergate content matter, to be contradicting current policy: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP (see most applicable section links to these policies in what I said before) — note: we're talking crucial "core" content policy here, not some accessory guidance open to a wider interpretation for implementation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
(A somewhat older involvement in this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I should qualify my statement with "almost." Yes, there are a very few places where primary sources might be usable, where a person is saying something uncontroversial about themselves. But the vast majority of primary sources are entirely inappropriate for articles related to this issue. WP:BLP is core content policy, not "accessory guidance," and it ensures that we don't become a vehicle for republishing scurrilous, unfounded or outright libelous material about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, gee, you didn't have any problem using primary sources to smear my name when your inference was completely false and you were apparently trolled (I don't read 8chan/4chan/reddit, don't get email and certainly don't participate). Then you refused to retract it. Didn't stop you from reposting a primary source that is completely wrong though. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of a hypocritical liar.[3] --DHeyward (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was specifically listing WP:BLP as one of these core policies above. Well, anyway, if you could concentrate more on which primary sources (and which material contained in them) are eligible for use in the Wikipedia article on Gamergate (which would be a positive implementation of WP:ABOUTSELF — the non-BLP part of this — while being watchful to avoid WP:BLP issues, I suppose), instead of throwing it all out based on a misreading of WP:BLP, I think you'd be taking a big step in the right direction. And Jimbo's invitation (which to me reads like: create a primary source free of BLP issues and we'll see what we can do) is collaborative to that effort. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- There really aren't any primary sources so eligible, because the whole thrust of Gamergate is centered around making allegations of wrongdoing by identifiable living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that much I understood. But going from "(virtually no) primary sources so eligible" to finding out and exploiting what *is* eligible per Wikipedia policy is the change of mindset that would do a lot of good here imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- There really aren't any primary sources so eligible, because the whole thrust of Gamergate is centered around making allegations of wrongdoing by identifiable living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I should qualify my statement with "almost." Yes, there are a very few places where primary sources might be usable, where a person is saying something uncontroversial about themselves. But the vast majority of primary sources are entirely inappropriate for articles related to this issue. WP:BLP is core content policy, not "accessory guidance," and it ensures that we don't become a vehicle for republishing scurrilous, unfounded or outright libelous material about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Reorg
The above is an interesting experiment but what the Pedia should do is re-think its organization (which would address due weight, and have the side benefit of cutting out most editorial dysfunction): Merge the article into a paragraph of Video game culture and let the rest of the winds blow elsewhere (or blow themselves out), at least until the academic studies come in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see a similar state of denial regarding validity of sources in that: in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "academic studies" is only one of many sets of possible sources (and even then, usually primary regarding the actual study results).
- Once there are enough third-party reliable sources on a topic it can have its separate article (call it "notability" or whatever: insider primary sources play no part in establishing a topic merits its separate article)
- Once there is a separate article, insider primary sources can and often should be considered to build the article content in a NPOV way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Denial of what? Deny a platform for personal opinions and tabloid fodder is what we do. (And academic studies of a social movement are not going to be a primary source -- its not a medical study). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I meant, the denial to see primary sources sanctioned by policy (or in the variant, sources outside scholarship) as valid sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Use of primary sources is problematic centering on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, especially in the SYNTH and DUE aspects - that's not "denial", that's "understanding of" There are also often WP:RS problems in that there is no editorial control, nor reputation for fact checking/accuracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I meant, the denial to see primary sources sanctioned by policy (or in the variant, sources outside scholarship) as valid sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Denial of what? Deny a platform for personal opinions and tabloid fodder is what we do. (And academic studies of a social movement are not going to be a primary source -- its not a medical study). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedian of the year
Mr. Wales, you've named Ihor Kostenko (from Ukrainian Wikipedia, deceased on Euromaidan) Wikipedian of the year for 2014. Are you going to send his award ($5,000)) to his family? Regards.222.187.222.118 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Russia plans alternative version of 'Wikipedia'
"Analysis of this resource showed that it is not capable of providing information about the region and life of the country in a detailed or sufficient way," the state news agency RIA quoted a statement from the presidential library as saying. "The creation of an alternative Wikipedia has begun."[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 159#Russian alternative to Wikipedia (April 2014).
- —Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Homophobia in the Ukrainian Wikipedia!!!
Hello. I'm open gay Wikipedian from Ukraine. I want to report a homophobic activities of some administrators and patrol Ukrainian Wikipedia. Present direct and indirect discrimination. Related articles LGBT renamed, removed or changed beyond recognition and biased their content. LGBT friendly accused of "advocating LGBT"! There is even an article on a similar topic that is unique only in the Russian Wikipedia and is unrelated to common sense and the rules of Wikipedia[5]. Wikipedia Wikipedia, homophobes administrators and patrol called a "collection of information" and promote "non-traditional values." Homosexuality Article in Ukrainian Wikipedia entitled "homosexualist[6]." And Article hey do not have any relation to the topic of the article. There napsyano of MSM and that gays - spread the AIDS disease. User A1 promotes orthodox attitudes to homosexuality and phaye information on how it relates to LGBT church in the paper, which is irrelevant[7]. The new administrator Green Zero[8] has deleted many categories and articles on LGBT issues. particular category of gay writers. Me and other LGBT participants repeatedly verbally humiliated publicly. Addiction is especially thorough and biased. Although we attempt to write quality articles as possible and have contributed enough respect. That our existence they and other homophobes recognized as "LGBT propaganda." I and other LGBT Wikipedian very simple somehow affect this entire situation because this is unacceptable - it bullinh and in direct violation of not only LGBT rights in Ukraine but also the rules of Wikipedia! Thank you! Please help! --Rayan Riener (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Rayan Riener: Bystander here. I have added a POV template to the first article you linked to. Although I do not speak your language, Google Translate shows that the article is not very neutral. Could someone who speaks Ukrainian read the linked pages and tell us about them? --Tony Tan98 · talk 03:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another bystander here with no opinion about content. The title of the first article is "Homosexual Propaganda" [9] so it's reasonable to expect that there would be non neutral information there. There's a different article called "Homosexuality" [10] that seems a lot more reasonable to me at first glance. If this is a content dispute, has it been addressed on the article talk page? I know the language, but maybe not as well as a native speaker. This example [11] is a proposal to rename the article. The title is not ""homosexualist" like is being claimed. The proposal is to rename the article from "Societal attitudes toward homosexualism" to "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality." The discussion on the proposal talks about how the words related to homosexuality are not native to the Ukrainian language. All versions of the word are adaptations of English. So the discussion is about what's the right word to use "homosexuality" or "homosexualism."
- According to the user page, User:Rayan Riener claims to know Ukrainian, so my question is why are they not on the Ukrainian WP addressing this on the talk page there? What is being claimed in this English request is not reflected on the article. "There is even an article on a similar topic that is unique only in the Russian Wikipedia" --- I see the same article in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish, and they're not recent, they've been there for years. I don't know if Rayan Riener is fluent in English, but this request makes no sense to me. USchick (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Could it be that User:Rayan Riener does not understand English well and wrote the above post with the help of a machine translation? The user, "Green Zero" (admin), mentioned does seem to have replaced some instances of "homosexual" with "gay:" here, but I cannot make a judgement as I cannot understand the language without the help of Google Translate. However, that action was eventually reverted by another editor. Just out of curiosity, are there any articles named "Homosexual Propaganda" in other wikis besides what you mentioned? I know that on enwiki, it redirects to a more neutral section on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. --Tony Tan98 · talk 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Based on their edit history, it's very possible that User:Rayan Riener has a very limited proficiency in English and contributes with assistance, electronic for very simple things, and a secretary for more complicated things like this request. Their user page is written in third person, like a famous person's profile. If they contribute in other languages, their profile is not linked to their English profile, and being from a region not friendly to their needs, there may be a good reason for this, so I'm assuming good faith. As far as I can tell, Rayan Riener is unhappy with the actions of admins on Ukrainian Wikipedia. It's hard to tell what those actions are, because we don't know his identity there, so I can't track the actual edits. Rayan Riener doesn't have a talk page, and even if he did, I'm not sure he would be able to use it, but it's worth a try if someone wants to do that. As far as "Homosexual propaganda" article, it exists in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. The title reflect the actual term used in other languages and in parliament to write laws for several countries including Latvia. If they're legislating "Homosexual propaganda" people need to know what it means. In the lede it does a good job of explaining what the term means to both sides, those who do and do not support the idea of homosexuality. And it's written in a neutral tone. Both Russian and Ukrainian articles seem fine in the lede. I can't speak for Polish. In the Russian version, it even explains that "propaganda" is not used in the traditional sense, that it's a combined term. Yes, that's correct. It's a combination of two words that means something different than each word individually. In English "Homosexual propaganda" means something totally different, that's why it redirects. An example of a combined term in English would be "pretty cool" where each word separately means something different. It's also possible that Rayan Riener only speaks English, which would explain his outrage. USchick (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Could it be that User:Rayan Riener does not understand English well and wrote the above post with the help of a machine translation? The user, "Green Zero" (admin), mentioned does seem to have replaced some instances of "homosexual" with "gay:" here, but I cannot make a judgement as I cannot understand the language without the help of Google Translate. However, that action was eventually reverted by another editor. Just out of curiosity, are there any articles named "Homosexual Propaganda" in other wikis besides what you mentioned? I know that on enwiki, it redirects to a more neutral section on Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. --Tony Tan98 · talk 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Rayan Riener I have to edit here as an IP because I am community banned here on English Wikipedia. But let me address some of the issues you have raised here. For the record, I am queer myself. :)
I have discussed the issues you raised above with some editors from Ukrainian Wikipedia, and in no particular order, the following needs to be raised:
- A checkuser on Ukrainian Wikipedia found that you have been "abusing" multiple accounts. In addition to your Rayan account, you also were using uk:User:Kvitka Cvit. Whilst this in itself is not a problem if you are creating content, like I have, where you ran into trouble is.....
- at this category discussion.
- on Wikipedia, we don't tend separate "gay" or "lesbian" from "LGBT" topics. Simply put, human sexuality is a complex subject and LGBT covers-all.
- many of the comments in that discussion from uk:Користувач:A1 are, I agree, totally unacceptable. Being a board member of Wikimedia Ukraine, A1 should take stock of what they have said there and think whether some of their comments were appropriate (they are not!), and perhaps Wikimedia Ukraine members should think whether his comments truly are representative of Wikimedia projects.
- the articles you mention which were deleted, there are several issues:
- This was deleted for being a copyvio of this.
- This was deleted for not being notable. It is available here and it simply isn't notable.
- Likewise this was deleted for similar reasons. It is apparently a yaoi manga by uk:Камо_Набако, whom himself does not appear to be notable.
- There were several other deletions of non-notable garage bands and the like.
- There were also several machine translations of articles. Don't use machine translations on articles, do natural translations.
- Apparently you sent invites to over 100 editors on Ukrainian Wikipedia inviting them to join an LGBT WikiProject. Whilst a project for LGBT subjects would be an excellent idea, it's apparent that posted invites to random editors, many of whom have not shown an interest in editing those subjects. Targeted invites to editors whom had shown interest in those subjects would have been a better idea.
On the general issue of so-called gay propaganda, I can attest that uk:Пропаганда гомосексуалізму is an absolutely horrific article. We need to remember that Wikipedia is the sum-of-all human knowledge, not just the sum of all Ukrainian knowledge, or Russian knowledge, or American knowledge. It is similar to Gay agenda here on this project, in that it does not present a worldwide view of the subject, and yes, all of these articles could do with a lot of work. Just be sure to aim for neutrality when editing and cover all points of view from a worldwide viewpoint. Good luck. 175.106.47.131 (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
OMG!
Beeb always used to link to Wikipedia ...Do they not know Wikipedia's arcane rules means is more accurate? Stacie Croquet (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
David Auerbach
Are messages like this what you had in mind when you extended the olive branch?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)