User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Gender balance

Ratio of newly registered female to male editors on English Wikipedia over time

As the globe turns into International Women's day, you may be interested to know that the gender balance for new, preference identifying, editors has been showing a steady, if somewhat volatile, increase. The average percentage of new editors who currently identify as female in their preferences, over the last 18 months is 21.22%.

The graph shows a slightly different statistic: the ratio of female-to-male (new) editors, again using only those identified in their preferences. Here, of course, the ideological target would be 100%, rather than 50%, but the relationship is not linear.

While by no means certain, it is likely that this is an underestimate of the ratio, as females are taught not to gender identify on-line.

The provisional figures this is based on will be available on a Meta sub page shortly.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

About how many new editors identify preference? If it is 50% or even only 30%, these figures would likely be useful. But if it's only 5% or 10%, probably much less so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The % varies over time, peaking at round about 6% in 2012, and decreasing to significantly less than 1 today , strictly speaking of accounts, not editors. Nonetheless the absolute numbers are large enough that the central limit theorem enables us to draw statistically significant conclusions. Full figures are now available. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

This is certainly an interesting stat, and even if we find out it's biased it could be useful in practice (e.g. if the bias is constant as a %age). In general, looking for new ways to estimate participation of different types of users on Wikipedia should be encouraged: we need to know something about who our editors and readers are. But I don't buy into the CLT working here. The folks who answered would have to be randomly selected for the CLT to apply. It, of course, would be nice to have a story on why the selection method introduces a bias. I'm not sure I believe this particular story, but it might work like this: most male editors assume "male" is normal, so they don't see any benefit in self-identifying as male. The only folks who self-identify "have something to prove", so they might be a mix of militant mens-rights folks, feminists, and perhaps even men self-identifying as women (expressing frustration perhaps). In any case bias could be introduced by other means of selection of who reports.

Another means of estimating %women editors might be textual analysis. Women use different vocabulary than men. I'm no expert on this, but ... (with lots of assumptions regarding different ages, nationalities, etc) if you could analyze the text on user pages or user talk pages and split a sample of active editors into categories identified as women, as men, and likely a group that can't be identified by vocabulary. Of course you could get a lot of people angry at you doing this! My stats are getting rusty (and I've never worked with textual analysis) but it's probably done using discriminant analysis or factor analysis. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: is the ratio reported in the graph above is F/M or F/(F+M)? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The graph is, as captioned, and mentioned in the text, F/M - which I find the more useful figure. The average percentage of 21.22% is F/(F+M), reported here because that is the way the figure has been reported historically, and in which the WMF/Sue Gardner/Jimmy set targets. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Just an aside about this, this is an article in today's Phnom Penh Post about Khmer Wikipedia and a campaign to get more women's and women-authored articles up.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Website currently off-line, http error 522.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• These numbers are in rough alignment with a recent stat given at the December 2014 WMF metrics meeting involving results of a survey conducted of 96,000 Wikipedia users in 11 countries of the so-called Global South — conducted in 16 languages (pg. 62). A total of 47,000 people ended up completing the survey, which ran both on desktop and mobile platforms. The survey showed that 21% of readers and 20% of contributors identified themselves as female (with another 2% declining to identify either as male or female and 1% selecting "other.") (pg. 64). There is definitely a gender gap but it appears to be something in the neighborhood of 80m:20f rather than 90m:10f. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Women's Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, in honor of International Women's Day, at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco, March 8, 2015. Photo by Jim Heaphy.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a large number of edit-a-thons taking place all over the world this weekend. These are opportunities to do two things - welcome new editors in connection with International Women's Day, and write and improve biographies of notable women, and articles of interest to women. My wife and I will attend one such event in San Francisco tomorrow. (Sorry, Carrite, as I know that you distrust all that emanates from San Francisco). I have expanded one woman's biography today, and am drafting another woman's biography that I hope to move to article space tomorrow. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, for the trend chart. The key is to welcome and assist new editors who are here in good faith, and also for experienced editors to edit in good faith to address our well-documented systemic biases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have always believed that welcoming and assisting new users is important, I am not convinced that it will make a huge difference to the gender balance, since we should retain a significant number of additional male editors - which of course is a good thing too.
• Addressing content issues is another matter, and, despite two pieces of good research, one where we still are in a state of ignorance. The proposed new "views per page" which attempts to distinguish between human and automatic page views will help with this.
• I hope to have a preliminary list of ODNB articles on women uploaded shortly - if anyone is looking for something to do, there will be many red-links and a lot of additional information avaiable onmost of the blue links.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• Thanks [{Ping|Carrite}} for mentioning the "Global South" report, and you are correct that the editor numbers align generally with this result. There was a survey of Internet use in the US "way back when" (i.e. around the time of the WMF/UN University survey that gave the 12% figure still cited today) which showed that readership in the US was even split M/F (and that the figures WMF/UN had promulgated were skewed by selection bias, and should have been around 16%, IIRC).

Consequently it appears that we have two very different models, which I would interpret as follows:

1. In the GN women and girls are as confident in using and enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia as men and boys in the GN, but much less confident in editing.
2. In the GS women and girls are significantly less confident/enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia, but those that do are almost as confident in editing Wikipedia as men and boys in the GS.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• Despite this, Wikipedia Gender Gap activists on the Gendergap-l mailing list continue to propagate the apparent error that the female editor level of English Wikipedia is "around 10% according to the most recent editor survey." To reiterate: no, that is wrong. The actual Gender Gap is approximately 80-20. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Gee Willikers!! Hold on to your hat!!! The various studies agree female editor participation is somewhere in the teens? Well, damnit, just get those good ole GamerGate boys here, I'm a sure they'll have that gap down to zero in no time. AnonNep (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why the Gender Gap Task Force/Gendergap-l is not to be taken seriously. Instead of starting with serious analysis of the magnitude of the problem, followed by testing of ideas of how to solve it, followed by cost-benefit analysis of putting those ideas into practice on a large scale, we time and time again see a facile assumption of the Worst Case Scenario (ignoring contrary evidence), followed by gender war rhetoric and throwing of verbal petrol bombs, accompanied by grant-writing for money-money-money for unproven programs. WMF is complicit in this by allowing the GGTF/GG-l to put the money cart before the analysis horse. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My long standing recommendation for those who complain women aren't *statistically* editing enough, is for those men to stop editing. This has two benefits, first it is clear they have little of value left to contribute, either for the encyclopedia or for themselves and therefore it will move them on to greener pastures. Secondarily, the less they edit, the smaller that statistical gap will be helping to resolve their moaning. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not just the mailing list. The recent panel discussion at WVU used the 12% figure, this article cites 10% (and extrapolates that "over 80% ... are young, white, predominantly child-free men" actually 51% are over 30 for starters). Think Progress cites 13% "according to a recent study", presumably the UNMERIT uncorrected figures from 2010. It is not helped that out article Gender bias on Wikipedia has the 9/1/80 split in a misleading graph.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC).

If one accepts the premise that women feel less welcome than men then it is likely that there will be a selection bias in any group of people that self selects to reveal their gender. It is very possible that the ratio of female editors is higher than it appears due to men being more likely to self identify gender than women. Still, even if you take that into account a rise is still a rise. Chillum 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never weighed in on this issue since it's of no importance to me, which is what I'm stopping by to say: "Who cares what percentage of editors are female?" Even if it is important--which I realize it is to many--you have no way to compile realistic statistics since so many editors do not reveal their gender. I sort of do--by saying I answer to "Grandma" halfway down my user page--but I'm generally referred to as "he." Doesn't bither me a bot. Who knows how many of us don't feel a need to shout, "Hey, I'm a woman; take note!" or, "Over 55 here, woot-woot!"

The hostility I experienced as a new user had nothing to do with gender, but with newbie-biters. Most of the biters assumed I was male. Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as Grandma's question "who cares?", I think we should all care. If Wikipedia editors are predominantly young men, then our content will be predominantly focused on the interests of young men. We won't be a true global encyclopedia. We'll be leaving out many of the topics of interest to say, 75%, of the world's population.

Perhaps somebody can list or link the statistical evidence on Wikipedia's editorship. I probably haven't kept up as much as I should have. But I have the impression that there was an attempt at a census-type survey about 5 years ago, and a couple of attempts since, as well as some indirect type evidence such as Farmbrough's above. And my general impression of everything I've seen is that women make up about 10-20% of the editorship, with a large margin of error in any particular study. Stats is not something we can fake, or decide by argumentation or consensus. Solid work needs to be done. Is there any reason that the WMF does not do a proper survey of a proper random sample? Please forget the old "ask everybody" census-type approach. Trying to get everybody involves too many problems, e.g. selection bias, cost, and inability to resurvey every couple of years. Concentrating on a much smaller random sample of active editors would allow much more accurate work to be done. It would allow updates every year or two, so that we can see if we are making progress. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that "our content is predominantly focused on the interests of young men." I find a great deal that is of interest to me; I just ignore the stuff I'm not interested in, as I assume the young men--and everybody else--likewise do. Yopienso (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's as easy to say our content is focused on Indian corporate spam.... we are not on paper, there is not limit to the potential 'size'.... subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented) is a far more meaningful concept than 'subjects with an article'.... the omissions are what we should care about. Revent^talk 07:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please name a notable woman who does not have a WP article. Yopienso (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to shout, Yopienso. I think you may share a common misunderstanding about the composition of the Wikipedia community. We don't need more female editors because they will create more articles about notable females. We need more female editors because we need to reflect more than just the worldview of young white males. Women may not only have different views on what is important, they may also see things from a different perspective. You've been here for a long time - you know that the same facts can be presented in a number of different ways. If you want to have a neutral encyclopedia, you want to have as much diversity in the community as you can. (By the way, to answer your question off the top of my head, Wikipedia has no biography of Leona Beldini. I'm sure there are many many more, but that's not the point.) Cheers! Mr Muffler (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's mere coincidence there was no response for 24 hours and then a response in half an hour when I raised my voice? But, thanks for answering!

I was responding to the claim "subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented)".

Leona Beldini, notable woman: a petty crook. Hmmm, I guess she may be notable for being bad. None of those crooks are notable (See the lists on the article page.) except those that were independently notable. Deputy mayors don't seem to cut the mustard.Yo Pienso (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After so many editathons to add all the missing female scientists, artists, etc I imagine that there are far fewer missing articles than there were a few years ago. But that is only a symptom of the problem and correcting it does little or nothing to deal with the root cause (the gender imbalance in the Wikipedia community). As for deputy mayors on Wikipedia, I guess being deputy mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey is probably not as notable as being deputy mayor of New York City (like Rudy Washington) or a world renowned city such as Launceston, Tasmania (like Jeremy Ball). Anyway, you asked, so I answered. If you don't want to find out why Beldini is notable, I'm not bothered. Mr Muffler (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the data

Self-identifying female new editors as a percentage of total self-identifying new editors

Since 2001

Since 2004

I'd like to go back to the data—many thanks to User:Rich Farmbrough for making it so readily available. Looking at the data, I'm struck by a couple of things. First of all, I'm not sure that a linear model really fits here. When I tried to reproduce the simple linear regression performed by Rich, the adjusted R² was fairly low, at 0.6484. More intuitively, the data seem to show that female editorship (as measured by available metrics) was fairly stable around 10% until 2009, when it suddenly jumped to ~20% where it has remained. I added a smoothed spline (in red), which again suggests the relationship here is not really linear. These data don't lead me to believe that female editorship is steadily increasing; instead, they lead me to ask: what happened in 2009?

I went back to the data and truncated/removed all of the data points before 2004 (bottom panel). It's a bit arbitrary, but I think it's reasonable since a) the sample sizes before 2004 are tiny, and b) 2004 marked a huge increase in Wikipedia's popularity, readership, and editorship with attendant fundamental changes in the community. Interestingly, the linear relationship becomes much stronger with the truncated data, at least as measured by R², probably as a result of excluding a bunch of 0's from 2001–2003. But once again, the relationship appears to be bimodal rather than linear, split around the year 2009.

The final thing that jumps out about these data is that they suddenly become very noisy around mid-2013. The increase in unexplained variance is really quite striking, since variance was remarkably low up until 2013. I don't know why the data suddenly become so noisy, but this implies that we should be extremely careful about drawing inferences from short-term changes in this metric, since there's a very high risk of over-interpreting statistical noise rather than responding to actual trends.

I don't have much to add to the points raised above about the metrics. Obviously, we're making the very large assumption that the sample of editors who choose to self-identify is representative of the population of editors as a whole. I love the central limit theorem as much as the next guy, but I don't think that large sample size and the CLT can overcome inherent selection and response biases. Of course, there are no better data available, and I hugely appreciate the work that Rich and others have done with what we have—I just want to make sure we're interpreting these data with the appropriate caveats. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I share your doubts about a linear fit, but since my graphing program (Excel if it was on my laptop, open office if it was on my desktop) gave that trend line for free I left it in. There appear to be two jumps. I have posited that the 2009 jump is related to the introduction of edit filters, which meant far less vandalism, and consequently recent changes patrollers being more relaxed. The later jump may relate to things like Teahouse, editathons, coverage of gender balance, etc.

The volatility is curious, but can perhaps be explained by class registrations and larger editathons. If a large number of students or volunteers are following a step-by-step process that includes registering gender, then the gender balance of that class will affect the month it is in. Possibly sock farms might influence them too, but I find that unlikely.

As to the question of whether these are good samples, it is difficult to say, but I can think of one systemic reason it may give a high F/M ratio (classes/editathons), and two to suggest it may be low (desire to avoid identifying as female, to avoid negative consequence, and lack of desire to explore all the preferences options).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

This looks to me as if changes to the Preferences/User Profile entry form (or the relevant help file) may have had an effect. The following was added in early 2009:

"Gender: This option allows you to select a gender (male or female), or unspecified. This option is designed for languages where, unlike English, words, and therefore interface text, can change depending on your gender. As such, this option is not greatly useful for English users at present."

How was gender entered before that? The comment about gender being irrelevant for English can't have been very helpful, either. Does anyone know when it was changed to the present form, asking whether the user would like to be addressed as he/she etc. Wasn't there also a (somewhat discouraging) warning that the information would be public? --Boson (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC) PS: I see there is now a message (in small print) "This information will be public." I believe it used to (somewhere) say something like "... but not easily found". --Boson (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I haven't tracked down the source of the phraseology yet, search doesn't find it in a mediawiki page. I'm checking translatewiki, but there are 24k+ mediawiki messages! Design flaw somewhere I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

MediaWiki:Prefs-help-gender seems relevant, but the wording looks like the old wordning you refer to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

It appears that these graphs misrepresent the proportion of women by at least(exactly?) two orders of magnitude. The graphs' claim that less than .25%, or one in 400, new users self-identify as female rather than male is obvious nonsense. Is this just an axis labeling issue?--Noren (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that the y-axis label should read "proportion" rather than "percentage". These are proportions, so 0.2 = 20%, and so on. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a linear model might be the best one to use here. While you could construct a more complex model which fits the data better there is the problem of over fitting the data. What I would probably do is fit three straight lines, upto 2009, 2009- mid 2013 and mid 2013 onwards. It looks like there are three distinct regimes to the data, making them not really comparable. Is there any reason for the jump in 2013?--Salix alba (talk): 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians should come out of their closets

IMHO the main reason for gender disbalance is not the mythical hostility towards women on wiki (as 95+% of editors do not reveal their gender this factor could only affect less than 5% anyway). The main reason is peer pressure in the real world, there wiki editing is somehow acceptable for male students, barely acceptable for female students, weakly unacceptable for adult family men (considered a strange but harmless hobby) and totally unacceptable for adult married women with family and kids. The idea that a mother of a family spends a few hours a day not earning some wages, not attending for the kids, not tending the home but editing wiki - looks like absolutely atrocious to the society. We need good role model both males and especially females. And we especially need adult professional family males and desperately need happy professional adult females with families. How often have you seen a female wikipedian announcing birth of a child? We must press editors to reveal their identities. Unless special circumstances (e.g. life in a dictatorship couuntry, etc.) editors should work under real names. All Arbitrators/Checkusers/Oversighters should have their real life identity and basic bio revealed. All new admin applications should be accompanied by real names and biographies and, yes, I am sure most !voters would give women especially adult women with families some preferences. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that the 'men' who edit wikipedia are being fed grapes from lustrous virgins as we speak. Could someone remind me why I (p.s. as a woman) would want to reveal my gender when I don't want simply to please some gender identity demagogues of questionable competence and reputation? Why would I ask the same of a man? This suggestion is underthought and uninspiring. Perhaps the childish feminists of wikipedia, who seem to be self-guilt tripping white men need to man up and respect that one of the reasons they don't see many women editing wikipedia is because they wish to turn every woman into a juvenile. Nobody wants to be special objects. This is not acceptable, fundamentally anti-feminist and embarassing to everyone involved. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If I could do it over, I sure wouldn't pick a gender-specific user id or otherwise identify as female. I've experienced the same issues that most people complain of, plus stalking, tagteams, mansplaining, and the endless accusations that my politics, because they are actually congruent with the demographic center's preferences[1] instead of skewed to the right as the major political parties skew in their desperate attempt to garner campaign contributions from moneyed interests,[2][3][4] are somehow out of the mainstream. Male-identifying users with my point of view do not, as far as I can see, have to deal with that bullcrap. EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya lost me with use of the pejorative "mansplaining." Don't be "femhearing" me now... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to aid your comprehension. EllenCT (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean you wiksplained it? Formerip (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you (Ellen) think that if you would indicate that your technical background makes your understanding of clumsy wiki-syntax and arcane wikirules to be complete (wish I could say so myself) you would still be bothered with offering of help? Maybe you could benefit from some opening of your real life background. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I don't mind being talked down to on technical issues because I realize how difficult it is to discern what an editor does not yet understand from a few limited interactions. The reason I use the perjorative to which Carrite objects is because of the several instances where enthusiastic opposition from editors with primary sources on content disputes where I've gone to the trouble to find literature reviews never have involved a single female editor, even when there were female editors on the other side of the issue. If you can show me how to get the guys to stop countering secondary sources with COI-sponsored primary sources, on Talk:Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States for example, then I would be happy to say more about my background and life experiences. But for now, I would simply prefer to not dignify those WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDHT issues with continued engagement, because the enthusiasm without regard for the rules frankly makes me wonder what other rules they are willing to break to suppress the secondary literature's conclusions with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you missed something there, I'm well aware of the pejorative neologism "mansplaining." See: Pejorative. Happy to help. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I ,for one, am certainly glad that I have not made anything about my real life identity very public. And given the lack of concern from the arbcom about the attacks on those wikipedia editors who did have their public lives targeted because of their Wikipedia editing strikes me as solid gold proof that I would strongly advise against ANYONE doing so, particularly women or people with children. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the project as the whole is hindered by unnecessary secrecy over identity of major contributors. Corporations spend billions on so called team-building efforts so to encourage their employees to share their informal lives. Most major charities do the same. They maybe ignorant but not stupid. Currently Wikiediting is seen as a shameful activity suitable only for primary school students (preferably male). This perception hurts the project greatly. Luck of positive role models (particularly adult women) hurts us internally. Difficulty in spotting conflicts of interests arising from the identity secrecy hurts us greatly. I am editing for almost 15 years under my real name, and only once regretted, then some idiot with IP geolocated 10 km from my home was making threats about me. Still under real name helped to clear my name over accusations of COI (some very painful), so in long run was beneficial. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You may consider anonymity "unnecessary". I consider my anonymity on Wikipedia the reason that my family has not been subjected to hateful death threats and SWATTING. When you share personal info with a co-worker you are not sharing it with the whole fucking world that is full of crazies who do things like target Wikipedia editors they decide they dont like.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this principle, and would prefer if physical world factors were excluded from the consideration of Wikipedia editors. That was one of the original goals of cyberspace, if one can remember. To break down the walls of reality and replace them with an open space for everyone, regardless of factors that one cannot control, such as the imaginary constructs of sex, race, gender, and so forth. The internet has not worked out that way, but that's what it was meant to be, and what it should strive to be. This demand for people to make a decision as to whether they consider themselves a woman or a man is offensive and absurd. Many of us, for example, consider ourselves neither. What are we to do, then? This obsession with imaginary boundaries, to translate connotations attached to physical principles into the immaterial digital realm, seems to be an attempt by certain people to hold onto a stability of existence that simply does not exist. Neoliberalism really has accomplished its goal, hasn't it? That is, to balkanise the proletariat in every possible way. Instead of allowing the internet to become a space of pleasure in unity and commonality, it has become an expression of artificial difference, controlled by corporations and other unsavoury groups.

Regardless, I find this whole "controversy", if one can call it that, absurd. The neoliberal authorities that control this encylopaedia have no desire other than to balkanise the proletariat, even in a space that is meant to be based on collaboration. They struggle to enforce imaginary boundaries in a space where those boundaries lack visual representation. More and more, we see this battle playing out. The battle, itself, is exactly what the neoliberal authorities want to see. The more they can divide the proletariat, the less the proletariat can fight back against corporate capture. That's what the heart of the matter is. "Come out of one's closet", and be captured by the camera of corporate surveyors and data-mongers. One must recognise that one is in a corporate space, a space where one produces capital for the ruling class without reaping any benefits for oneself. The producer-consumer, the person who carries the burden of the neoliberal class. That is what this encylopaedia is, of course. A factory for content, data, &c., all of which is produced by unwitting participants for the sake of the gain of a few. We are kept occupied by both producing content and consuming it, and by doing so, entrench their dominance. That's not to say there are no other benefits to the project, and of course those are often the reasons that editors remain. However, until the proletariat can break down the imaginary barriers prescribed by the ruling class as a method of dominance, there can be no true freedom or unity in human singularity. It is our duty, then, to stop this continued balkanisation and madness. It is our duty to say no to categories that do not exist, such as "man" and "woman". It is our duty, then, to defend this space from further encroachment by corporate authorities. It may already be too late, but it does not hurt to be a martyr for one's cause. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• OK, Alex, I'll take the bait. Short answer: no. Long answer: Do we really want Wikipedians to be even more easily doxxed and targeted by online trolls? No.

And if the situation is as you claim and women are ashamed of editing here, requiring them to divulge their real identities would only exacerbate the issues. Many people edit here under anonymous names because they would be ashamed if their real identities were known. KonveyorBelt 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be some accountability for behavior on WP, but with complete anonymity, it will never happen. I edit under my real name and have never had any problems online, but I attribute this to staying away from controversial articles. That's not to say Ive never had problems with other Wikipedians, both male and female, but I pick my battles. I have to laugh at the mansplaining complaint though. Essentially it is a man arguing with a woman the way he argues with other men. In reality, he is treating a woman equally to a man. Seems to me that we women need to develop counter-tactics more effective than demand that everyone act the way we want to them to.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why focus on editors instead of readership?

I don't understand why all the focus is on the low participation rate of women when it comes to editing. Above, someone quotes the statistics that "21% of readers and 20% of contributors" identify as women. Therefore, there is no gender imbalance when it comes to who decides to edit - women are not being scared away from contributing. The same percentage of them who come to Wikipedia to read become editors as do men. Recently the lunch conversation among my coworkers (in a high tech field) turned toward reading habits as kids. Nearly ever male reported reading an encyclopedia for fun as a child, but I was the only woman who did so. Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but along with the statistics, it suggests that if you want more women to contribute to Wikipedia, you first need to get more women to be interested in reading an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. Do notice, however, that the statistic you cite is for the "Global South", in the US, for example, readership (I beleive the question was something like "have you used Wikipedia in the past month?") from a large independent survey showed roughly equal numbers of males and females using Wikipedia. Of course the way it is used may also vary by gender. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit surprised at the disparity in the survey results, though maybe I shouldn't be if the questions were worded very differently. I'd be interested in learning more about the way Wikipedia use might vary depending on gender. Deli nk (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which surveys other people are referring to, but I believe the main survey that showed roughly equal participation by men and women (as readers) was based on a representative sample of Americans (with an online connection and a landline telephone), which incidentally also asked about Wikipedia usage, and was carried out by an established social/market research organization (Pew), while all the other studies were based on "opt-in", self-selecting samples. Personally, I think it would be much, much better if the Foundation commissioned Pew (or another established organization that routinely performs research for people who bet money on the results) to perform a similar survey of Wikipedia readers and editors based on a representative population sample. Doing our own studies with self-selecting samples may be much cheaper but it seems a bit like looking for the lost key in the bushes, in the dark, when you know you dropped it in the road, under the streetlight. --Boson (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I would imagine it would be simplest to add a few questions (e.g. Wikipedia editing: frequency, topic and medium) to an existing omnibus survey on Internet usage. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Pew 2008 research which covered readership was used to correct the Wikipedia 2008 readers and editors survey (and apologies if I referred to that as the 2010 survey elsewhere) by Shaw and Hill in 2013. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Confidential poll right here :)

Throw a coin twice, if the first outcome is heads then write down your sex, if it is tails, then if the second throw is heads write down "male" for your sex and "female" if it is tails. If the fraction of females is pf, and the fraction of males is pm = 1-pf, then the expectatio value of the the fraction of "females" in the answers is 1/4 + 1/2 pf, allowing one to estimate pf. Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Female . Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
2. I am totally confused. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
3. My coin says either "Reply hazy try again" or "You may already have won!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
4. My coin landed on its edge. So...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
5. I think my coin will land eventually, but I'm currently in a very low gravity environment, so this could take years. ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

   And then it will probably bounce a few times and land in a dark corner where it can't transmit the results back to you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

   ^I saw what you did there Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

6. My coin turned into a six-sided die, bounced a few hundred times and landed on Jumanji. Neutron (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
7. How far should I throw the coin? I'd like to get it back if possible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
8. I can't actually be bothered to toss a coin. But, as far as I can see, the bigger the sample size, the more reliable the result will be, so I thought I should at least register a response. Formerip (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I strongly approve of the motivating principles of this poll, but I question whether anyone can know how accurate it is if it's self-selected. Why don't you perform the same poll by asking on, for example, the talk pages of the most recent N editors including IPs, so you can use the responding proportion to evaluate significance, please? EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the NSA could save us a lot of time, and just tell us the answer, already! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Good idea! Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The only information this poll can provide is the sex ratio of respondents (assuming that people understand it, and give honest answers). It can tell us nothing about the ratio for contributors in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my point. If you know the proportion of respondents, you can constrain their population statistics, but not if they are self-selected. I would gladly participate in this form of anonymization if it was taking place on respondents' talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not confidential either. It reveals the respondent's sex with probability 3/4. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This actually depends on the very answer we're after, i.e. the prior probabilities of someone taking part of the poll being male or female. You can easily that if indeed most people contributing here are men, then the poll will be a lot more confidiential for them than for men. We have:

p(answer = f, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 3/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = m, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 1/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = f, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=f|sex=m) = 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=m|sex=m) = 3/4 p(sex = m)

The prior probabilities for the answers are thus given by:

p(answer = f) = sum over sex of p(answer = f, sex) = 3/4 p(sex = f) + 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m) = sum over sex of p(answer = m, sex) = 1/4 p(sex = f) + 3/4 p(sex = m)

The conditional probabibilties for the sex given what someone answers are therefore:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/[3 + p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 1/[ 1 + 3 p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/[1 + 3 p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 3/[3 + p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

So, if the 20% figure for female editors is correct, then:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/7

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 4/7

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/13

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 12/13

The amount of information someone reveils by giving an "f" or "m" answer is given by the drop in the Shannon entropy:

I(f) = 3/7 log_2(3/7) + 4/7 log_2(4/7) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = -0.2633 bits

I(m) = 1/13 log_2(1/13) + 12/13 log_2(12/13) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = 0.3307 bits

I(f) is negative because after you give such an answer your sex is pretty much a tossup while a priori it was a relatively safe bat to assume that you were male. So, giving this answer leads to a loss of information. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Spying and such like

I read the piece on nytimes.com here. It strikes me that on a routine basis, for the average, run-of-the-mill tin pot little African dictator not gifted with access to the NSA data (or even if given such access), it is far simpler just to pull the history page and track down the IPs of editors who do not have accounts, assuming said IPs geolocate to their country. Do you not think this is a far greater danger to the brave souls who you say "discuss their work on everything from Tiananmen Square to gay rights in Uganda" (leaving aside the OR and COI issues) and who "prefer to work anonymously"? If we can get a good idea of who someone is from an SPI investigation, possibly the Chinese government may do better?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you for the birthday present. @Wehwalt: I think the issue Jimmy and Lila are talking about is not who's been editing but who's been reading. The former is by design easy for anyone to tell; the latter is data that, I'm sure, a lot of advertisers would love to have, much less government security services, and that we ourselves do not make easy to get. Daniel Case (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

While that is mentioned, of course, much attention is given to those who contribute, as in the quotes I mention above. Surely editing is an aggravated offense in the eyes of an oppressor?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. I've thought for a long time that we should replace each IP address with a consistent string of random numbers. It's a bit intrusive just publishing the IP address like that. Though it won't stop the NSA from collecting the IP address behind an edit and using it or passing it to a foreign government - which is Lila's and Jimmy's valid concern - anonymising IP addresses on Wikipedia sites would be relatively easy, and if we're paying any more than lip service to privacy concerns, we'd at least do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, that would only protect anonymous editors from entities that don't want to look very hard. One that does can always find the space between the device used for doing the editing and the server where the IP address is encrypted, and look at traffic between those two points for the desired info (And there are a myriad ways to do this, not all of them technological—I wouldn't be surprised if, some years from now, we are once again shocked, shocked, shocked that a government agency we charged with clandestinely gaining access to foreign telecommunications has, after being spanked for ... doing exactly that, placed its own moles in perfect man-in-the-middle positions at major telecommunications providers.

But anyway—the best way to secure the privacy of editors under such regimes where they may not want it broadly known that they're editing Wikipedia is not so much to anonymize their IPs as to grant them IPBE and let them edit through Tor or whatever chain of proxies work for them. I have been involved with editors in places like Iran and China where we have done this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're framing this as either/or. Regardless of whatever else we do, we should anonymise IP addresses - not publish them for all the world to see. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that. Let's get rid of IP editing altogether, not make it easier to sock and engage in POV editing with impunity through an anonymized IP. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes Tim. Let's make every editor identify to the Foundation, too. What the heck; let's pay named experts to write the encyclopedia. Still, while we're waiting for that to happen, let's at least not advertise the IP address of every unregistered editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you contend that editors using an IP are more anonymous or less accountable than those who take a few seconds to create a user id? EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In many ways, IP editing allows more opportunities for unaccountable abusive editing compared to editing as a registered user. For example, if I made consistent inappropriate POV-pushing edits across many articles using my account, other editors would quickly take note and begin to address that behavior in order to put an end to it. However, my home IP address changes every few days, so if I did the same without logging in it would be much less likely that anyone would catch on. My IP address would provide significant anonymity (a Wikipedian couldn't do anything more than determine my rough geographic location within a large urban center). In contrast, someone looking at my account's years of editing history could probably determine (or at least guess at) quite a bit more of my personal information. Deli nk (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If we anonymized IP's by some sort of one-way salted hash function, this would not completely solve the problem of making edits private,and would lead to additional issues

1. There are only 4 billion addresses in IPV4, scarcely more than the number of edits on WMF projects (a factor of 4 or 5 at most). [2.3 bn edits according to the latest data]
   1. It would be easy if you control your country's infrastructure to make an edit with every IP address assigned to the country, and have a complete map. There might be other less obvious methods, like fetching the talk page for each IP address.
   2. Failing that the hashes for a given company, university or state department would be trivial
   3. Even lacking this, the Birthday Paradox would quickly provide a stream of candidates for Room 101.
   4. Given the above we would have to consider if providing a false sense of security outweighs the benefits.
2. We would loose the ability to make range blocks
3. It would become much harder to do sock-puppet investigations
4. School blocks would become harder to work with
5. COI edits from political, commercial and advocacy organisations would be harder to spot

Note that we could not ameliorate these issues by having a class of volunteer users empowered to "see around" the obfuscation, because they would then become a pressure point for the whole system.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

No one thinks this would "completely solve the problem of making edits private".

• Regarding your point 1.1, "It would be easy if you control your country's infrastructure to make an edit with every IP address assigned to the country, and have a complete map. There might be other less obvious methods, like fetching the talk page for each IP address." Does Malawi or Somalia have that capability and competence? What about actors who don't have that control but who are capable of coercing an ISP or its employees, or capable of performing a non-CU sock-puppet or COI investigation (those Wehwalt mentions above)?
• Regarding your point 1.2, "Failing that the hashes for a given company ... would be trivial", how so?
• Regarding your point 1.3, "Even lacking this, the Birthday Paradox would quickly provide a stream of candidates for Room 101" Really? How?
• Regarding your points 2, 3, 4 and 5, these objections could be resolved by adding a new user right to the admin kit that enables an admin to "see around" the hash to the IP address. I don't understand your objection, "...because they [those who can see round the hash] would then become a pressure point for the whole system." Can you explain the last clause? What does it mean?

It's reasonable to weigh up the privacy and safety of our contributors against the comfort of this site's admins, but I see no real inconvenience to the admins here. Your initial point - it's not the complete solution to all privacy concerns - is valid, but it's no reason not to do it. It's akin to Wikipedia moving from http to https. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 11 March 2015 (Add https comment 06:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

I have no idea if Malawi or Somalia have that capability, but I strongly suspect they could buy it, or find someone else to do it for them for ideological reasons.

A typical company might only have a few dozen IP addresses.

Suppose I am despot of a country with 1 million IP addresses. If I get the hashes from 1% of them and I have 10,000 subversives, I would expect to catch 100 subversives.

An admin with the ability to resolve hashes would be open to temptation, seduction, litigation, espionage, blackmail, trickery, bribery and coercion. I would not want to be placed in that position, especially if I lived in certain countries.

I would suggest you gauge the reactions of people who do a lot of SPI, range blocks and so forth, to measure how much of an inconvenience this might be.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Rich is generally correct here - any organization, regardless of size, can easily crack a fixed hash insofar as it is concerned. A mother can individually write down the hashes of all the IPs her computer gets from her local network, a company can make a database of all the IPs in its block, and the NSA will trivially make a dictionary of the world. It would be possible to make a trackless hash if it is cryptographically secure and incorporates the millisecond of the edit; but then a user can't tell one IP from another at all, so you might as well not show any data about who made it. I have the suspicion that WMF doesn't do that (have simply "Anonymous" as the user credit) because they are trying to cut down on the endless stream of IP tracking requests they must get from miscellaneous bureaucrats all over the U.S.

If there's any 'moral' to be taken from the leaks we've seen, it's that if somebody has really been protecting your privacy, either they're hacked and deluded, or they've had to shut down, or they've been thrown in jail. WMF, on the other hand, has moved its servers to Northern Virginia, next to one of the proposed sites for the new FBI headquarters. I commend the WMF for suing; but I would not be at all surprised if they can't tell us why. (Not that everyone in WMF would know, of course)

I should add that I don't recall ever hearing a solid, you can count on it limit to the information being recorded. As we know, it turned out that IPs of people reading articles were being recorded after all, even though we know the potential abuses of that. And the 90 day limit as I recall was a vague aspiration, not a genuine guarantee. So far I've heard no clear, unambiguous statement that those records have ever actually been destroyed, really don't exist, from any time period whatsoever. (cf. [5], [6]: "we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable U.S. law. Non-personal information may be retained indefinitely."; in the universal language of privacy policies, IP addresses are non-personal information. Just because it can send you to jail doesn't mean it's personal!) Wnt (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the reason that the 90 days is "weaseled" is because of backups, decommissioned servers, data in use for a piece of statistical work, and so forth. Provided it is treated like fruit, almost all is thrown out when it gets old, and anything that turns up a little mouldy from being missed is deleted, I don't see that as a major problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

This discussion and others here seem to only focus on privacy concerns and spying; but what about info-war on social media. Military’s ‘persona’ software cost millions, used for ‘classified social media activities’, RawStory, 2011 and more are out there; that's just about the US security forces, there's others to do with the Canadian Conservative Party and police/p.r. company meddling/trolling in Canadian news forums, and lots on Epoch Times about China's similar info-war campaigns. It's disingenuous to presume that Wikipedia is immune from that; in fact aas one of the easiest sites to manipulate and get away with massively distorted content and POV editing, it's thoroughly infected and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence in numerous topic areas that many governments and corporations infiltrated Wikipedia long ago.

And I've learned the hard way lately that there's nobody at WMF whose job it is to control policy violations such as NPOV (in particular) but there's not a few staffers whose job it is to conduct "behavioural controls" who will refuse t to discuss NPOV matters as "not their job" and they "must" keep editorial content separate from behaviourally-defined claims against editors who do try to take on teh sea of POV and SYNTH/OR horsecrap that's flooding Wikipedia; "behavioural problems" and POV campaigns are intrinsically linked, and while it does say in NPOV and the POV fork subpage that such tactics are recognizable as a means to "push POV" i.e. to push disinformation; all I'm getting is a mix of shrugs and sloughing-off any responsibility for NPOV from those who attack me instead for "not playing nice" while never looking at the core POV issues that provoked personal attacks against me from admins who are apparently immune from having to abide by "behavioural guidelines" themselves.....shooting the messenger, and blaming the victim, are the oldest propaganda techniques in the book; as is newspeak, which more and more avbuse of guidelines and policies sounds like, along with numerous NPA-oriented essays like WP:TRUTH, WP:DIVA, WP:TLDR and more; ways to shut people down and to pervert words to mean something other than what they do. Hard-wired into Wikipedia and more and m ore instruction creep and editorial harrassment rather than informed discussion/examination of the POV/SYNTH content that nobody in the higher-ups and those others who have gathered fake authority around them wantz to deal with; and will condemn anyone who raises the issue as "paranoid delusions".....another line from the manual of infowar perversion, as it 'conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is in-your-face, especially when any mention of such activity results in condemnations come straight out of the 'how to manipulate social media' manuals that are known to be around.Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Jimmy, please allow me to simply thank you for your lawsuit against NSA spying. Dude, you rock! Jusdafax 16:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks are due to a lot of people, of course. This was led by the legal team at the Foundation, fully supported by the board, and only ultimately made possible by the community that built the encyclopedia in the first place. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea, while I am all for privacy (see above section) I am very much against WMF advocacy in areas that do not directly affect the WMF supported projects. It is absolutely a matter for EFF and the ACLU, and, arguably Amnesty. But the bringing of the WMF into this suit, and especially in the name of the community, seems of limited value to the project, and quite possibly harmful to the standing of the project and the WMF.

I certainly do not recall any consensus building process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

Please see Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station#Controversy over French language version of Wikipedia article and the related discussions (mostly in French) at fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2013/Semaine 14. If anything similar has been going with the NSA or FBI, the Foundation is most likely completely unable to describe it, let alone consult with the community on the way to proceed. Your tax dollars at work! EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not my tax dollars! (Though there was sales tax on the mains adapter I bought in Washington, so maybe my tax dollar singular.) ACLU and others v. NSA seems completely different. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Yes, thank you Jimmy. The stranglehold that the N.S.A. seem to have is absolutely ludicrous, good grief we should be able to edit without fear of persecution. The stranglehold they have at the moment is doing not only Wikipedia but the whole internet a great disservice, it's stopping freedom of expression for one. It would be a great victory if we won this!--5 albert square (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The French example reminds one of Holmes' comment about the Scotland Yard "Brightest thing about them is their buttons." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Jimbo, I would like to thank you for the lawsuit. Thank you and the foundation for this, I respect all of you guys for being a voice for freedom in the internet. And for the record, the program does affect Wikipedia. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, let's step back a bit... "stranglehold that the NSA seem to have"... oh yes, I forgot that the NSA has been banging down Wikipedian's door and dragged them away to a concentration camp and gassed them. When they do that to a single person then yes, I'll agree the NSA has affected someone's life. Please, oh please, anyone on Wikipedia tell me how the NSA (or any govt "spying") on an American's lives has impacted anyone's life, and please limit it to first hand experiences not "in the news" or "my friend". This idea that some how it is in the US Constitution that the NSA or FBI or anyone (other than the CIA) can not spy on Americans is ludicrous, spying is constitutional as long as the correct legal procedures are followed, which is described and limited by statute, as far as the Constitution is concerned it is open-ended. (The CIA is banned by US law from operating within the US thanks to a holdover of J. Edgar Hoover's protecting his FBI turf, so yes, if they are spying on you, there is a legal problem). Personally, I think Americans are overboard on their belief in their right to privacy and limiting government. A government, as long as it isn't killing people, should be absolute in its authority, the government IS the state. But I'm an old school autocrat. And actually I'm a registered Democrat and EXTREMELY liberal before I start getting hate messages of being Republican or such.97.85.247.26 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the WMF being involved in the suit (except as an amicus curae, perhaps) there are significant issues concerning the first and fourth amendments. NSA are also apparently allowed to pass information to other agencies, effectively breaching the "general warrant" protections. Also it is clear that the NSA is not squeaky clean, their log of internal infractions is extensive to say the least. I believe that there was recently some issue over their failure to keep their data secure too...

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Hmm, I didn't know that people had to die before a lawsuit can be filed. And we know that when concentration camps for the people targeted by the NSA start popping up that a lawsuit will fix everything then, right? No, filing lawsuits before people are actually affected is making use of a strategy called "nip it in the bud". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can register as a member of the Democratic Party. If you are an "old school autocrat," you are not a democrat, plain and simple — it is a contradiction of terms — nor do you reflect the values of the modern Democratic Party (as opposed to the conservative ruling party of the Deep South before Republican realignment). Go ahead and love and trust Big Brother, that's your right, just don't do it in my name. Carrite (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about how much foundation resources will be poured into this endeavor. To the extent the NSA is an impediment to growing the encyclopedia vs. other impediments, it seems rather small and American-centric. The argument in the Op-Ed that the Egyptian author who is afraid the NSA will give information to her government begs the question of which government she fears. Wouldn't WMFs effort be better spent challenging Egyptian law in Egypt so that it's no longer a crime rather than worry that it may find its way through the NSA? The other issue is that a FISA challenge has already failed at the Supreme Court regarding U.S. citizens abroad, let alone non-U.S. citizens. While it might be a noble principle, it doesn't seem to be a practical legal strategy if the Supreme Court considers it settled law. The recent decision to regulate the internet as a Title II utility may even make it more difficult if the government can mandate hardware/software interfaces like they did for pen register/tap and trace. I'd expect that law enforcement and NSA will seek regulatory standardization and compliance through the FCC now that it is a utility and the fight would be better saved for another day. --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but who is paying for the lawsuit? Is this being paid for by the WMF in whole or part? Mr Muffler (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ACLU has taken the case on pro bono, so the bulk of the costs will be with them. There are of course some staff costs on our end, in terms of our legal team, communications team, etc., but I don't have an estimate of those numbers at the present time. I can say that this is not going to be a major deviation from our budget. (I'm not even sure it is a deviation at all; I'm just being cautious.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the first good thing the ACLU has done in a long time. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? I guess the ACLU bringing earlier cases challenging government spying was not a good thing then? Or, y'know, its decades upon decades of support for things like voting rights for minorities, freedom of speech protections, opposition to discrimination...heck, just go read their article; they've been involved in practically every major civil liberties issue in the U.S. for over fifty years. For anyone reading this, if you want to support the ACLU's actions, go donate. As stated above, the ACLU is the primary party paying for this case. --71.104.75.148 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I never heard anything about that lawsuit. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you and the WMF for filing this lawsuit. I contribute to Wikipedia because I believe in making the net sum of humanity's knowledge available to all, and it infuriates me to no end that the NSA is spying on and scaring away people who looks up or contributes information to Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Rich has asked for "FIRST HAND examples" of (government) spying. It's the ABUSE of authority that is the danger. Otherwise, there is nothing to hide. Agree totally with Rich regarding his amicus curiae idea. My 2 cents! SSZ (talk)

Nitpick, it's curiae, genitive of curia.--ukexpat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I made the correction:) Any more correction in those docs here? Are you an alumnus or alumna of NSA? (joking) but feel free to use them in Court in support of your case. it is all STATISTICALLY PROVEN (and has not been disputed by the FBI who has received them)..

My laptop has a life of its own now with the cursor moving in all directions. The computer works fine including the antivirus! Very strange.... a coded message from NSA anyone? lol SSZ (talk)

If the case were lost, would the Foundation be liable for the Government's costs? Would there be risks of a counter-suit? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Tracking of readership

I'm starting a new section for clarity. Jimmy Wales (or a technical person from the WMF), would you please explain precisely what data the WMF collects about which pages a) unregistered users and b) registered users visit, at what times they do so etc. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Every page has a link to the "Privacy Policy" at the bottom, and it has a vague statement on the matter. That's the best that is possible because organizations don't want to commit to precise details then find that some internal problem meant IP logs were kept for a week longer than advertized, or similar. However, that is not relevant to the discussion above which concerns the fact that government-level snooping can easily track which IPs access which URLs at what times. That data would be retained indefinitely and is completely out of the control of whoever runs a website. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, using HTTPS with variable length padding supposedly would make it more difficult for governments to do it that way, though I have my doubts. In any case, privately collected data is much, much easier to use in proceedings - when Texas is prosecuting some unfortunate victim after the precedent of Justin Carter for so-called 'threats' during a gaming session, it's a lot easier to present a list of every time he or she looked up something about guns or explosives if the data was (supposedly) released from a Wikipedia database by a hacker, unnamed police infiltrator with admin powers, or by "accidental posting to a public server". Saying "we were cc'd this from the NSA's secret database" is bureaucratically embarrassing. This is even more the case for prosecutions outside the U.S.

Incidentally, a fun application of IP address release, whether from reading or posting, comes in the context of ISIL. Apparently they have started to take an interest in what citizen journalists post from Raqqa, and have used a malware approach to track down and kill people by their IP addresses.^[7] It should be within Wikipedia's technical capacity to kill some Iraqis, or even start a minor civil war within ISIS, by falsely crediting some IPs with "insider" statements about conditions in the Islamic State, or perhaps as readers of "pornographic" material etc. if that information were to become public, perhaps first getting some expert military advice to choose beloved relatives of relatively powerful people within the city. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My question stands. In any case, the reply could be given as to what the WMF intends to do, notwithstanding errors. Please don't derail the thread - this is not supposed to be part of the above discussion but tangential. I am perfectly aware that intelligence agencies can monitor visited URLs (possibly limited by HTTPS) and that is not what I was asking. BethNaught (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not personally at the present time close enough to the technology to be able to answer this question with the full accuracy and comprehensiveness that it deserves. My understanding, which should be checked against better sources of information, is that the privacy policy allows keeping access logs for up to 90 days, but that in practice retention time is much shorter. The data which would be collected in this context would be stuff like: time stamp, ip address, browser string, url. As John points out, the length of time specified in the privacy policy is longer so as to guard against accidentally breaking the privacy policy with a failed batch job, etc. But I don't know all the current details. Like you, I'm curious, and so hopefully someone from the Foundation can point us to more complete information!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this page, webserver visitor logs are supposed to be kept for 90 days. As far as I know these logs are standard, which means that in most cases they do not record sufficient information (over and above IP address) to identify a user. However the total information may well be enough.

Additional information is usually available to the server (but not generally logged) which may be enough to uniquely identify a user, or at least a machine, provided the machine can be located and tested. And the situation with IPV6 is different.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration topic ban appeal — is sexual assault a "gender-related controversy"?

Jimmy,

I write to formally appeal to you the absurdly overbroad nature of the topic ban imposed upon me by the Arbitration Committee. The Committee has now apparently decided that sexual assault and campus rape are "gender-related controversies" and thus I am indefinitely topic-banned from editing anything related to it — any person who has been sexually assaulted, who has discussed sexual assault, who has written about sexual assault, who has prosecuted a sexual assault, who has portrayed a sexual assault victim on stage or screen, who has studied sexual assault... and this would seem, by extension, to extend to any creative work about sexual assault. ArbCom has effectively declared that victims of sexual assault have become involved in a "gender-related controversy." Is that your intent for this project?

This strikes me, and a number of others, as both a ludicrously overbroad remedy which is unnecessary and entirely unrelated to the Gamergate controversy, and as an extraordinarily-punitive remedy which imposes upon me the burden of examining every single article I edit to be sure that person or topic cannot be connected to sexual assault. Does the ban extend to The Vagina Monologues, Oprah Winfrey, A Time to Kill (1996 film), Lady Gaga, Teri Hatcher, Tyler Perry, Nevada Barr, the University of Idaho, the National Organization for Women or Maya Angelou? Am I required to file a request for clarification before editing each one?

Moreover, what relationship do these articles in any way bear to my alleged "transgressions" relating to Gamergate, and what encyclopedic purpose is served by this ban? What message are you and the Committee sending by banning me from editing articles about people, and women in particular, who have been the subject of repeated and vicious attacks or attempts at overtly-negative and hostile portrayals on the encyclopedia, when everything I have done has been in defense of the encyclopedia's basic policies relating to depicting these people fairly and in a manner that respects their humanity. I await your response. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Jimbo a current member of ArbCom? I did not know that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been denied the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year. It is up to this project's founder now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not wait out the year, which is now ten months? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Construing the Gamergate topic ban so broadly as to cover anything from Elizabeth Smart to Lena Dunham to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (three articles which have literally not the slightest thing to do with Gamergate) is patently ludicrous, that's why. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Wait, so he was explicitly told by a member of the Arbitration Comittee that he could appeal to Jimbo at any time, and now when he is doing so you are complaining about it? That's...inane. Revent^talk 09:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting, not complaining, Revent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rape is not about gender, it's about power. Yet another idiotic decision by Arbtwits. 80.62.197.89 (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Call them "Arbtwits" if you so choose, IP editor 80 and so on and on. But those "twits" stood before the community, with all their edit histories under scrutiny, with lots of competing candidates, and the community elected them. I, for one, followed those recent elections very closely, and am of the opinion that the community made generally good decisions. How often has the community endorsed your ability to judge others as "idiotic"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right to request clarification of where the limits of your topic ban lie, but I think it obvious that the two articles you mention first, sexual assault and campus rape are squarely within the topic ban. The first is in the category 'Gender studies' and the second is in the category 'Rape' which is in the category 'Gender-based violence'.

Applying the same sort of test to some of your hypotheticals might be a very useful guide for you. Most of them are not in categories relating to gender. This guideline may not be perfect, but should help you steer clear of trouble.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And here is the crux of the issue. I have edited neither article you refer to. Rather, I have edited a biography of Lena Dunham, someone who has incidentally written about being a victim of sexual assault, with my edits being principally to remove unfair and slanted depictions of that subject, including edits from an editor who declared that the article subject was "vile and repugnant" and who declared their intent and purpose in editing the article to ensure it depicted the subject's purported "misdeeds, tawdriness and lies". Am I prohibited from editing the biography of any person who has ever been the victim of a sexual assault? Is the fact that a person suffered a sexual assault and discussed it to be considered a "gender-related controversy"? If so, then yes, all of the above articles mentioned might at some point be construed by someone to involve a "gender-related controversy," because all of the above articles involve discussions of sexual assault or might do so at some future point (writers who have written about sexual assault, for example).

Contra your statement, Jimmy, the only "gender-related" categories which Lena Dunham is in are "American feminists" and "Jewish feminists." Are you saying that the mere act of being a self-identified feminist makes that person part of a "gender-related controversy"? Am I prohibited from editing the article of literally any person who declares themselves to be a feminist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I indicated, my guideline may not be perfect. It is abundantly obvious that Lena Dunham is precisely the sort of article that you must not edit, surely you can see that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't "see that." Lena Dunham's life is not a "gender-related controversy." Her good name is not a "gender-related controversy." Rather, she is a person worthy of respect and fair treatment on the encyclopedia. Your project failed her — it permitted an editor with a demonstrated agenda of personal vilification to slant her Wikipedia biography in a highly-negative manner using dubious sources, out-of-context quotes and undue weight on minor controversies. The fact that half of this project's biography of the creator of Girls is taken up by two minor "controversies" fanned by partisan media is demonstrable proof that we have failed her. Rather than address that issue, you choose to target and punish a user who is trying to change the tone and create a more balanced, fair and complete biography of a notable woman. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The above comment sums up everything wrong here. Per Carrite's comment below, Your project failed her clearly show an agenda to "heroically right great wrongs and fight the good fight against legions of infidel invaders". Please, for your own sake, step away from the area and find something else to edit, because you are only digging yourself deeper. KonveyorBelt 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If I am "digging myself deeper" by stating my intent to improve and bring into alignment with policy the biography of a woman which has been intentionally negatively slanted by an editor driven by their personal agenda of vilification and hatred, then you have precisely indicated what this project's true priority is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how do make that assertion -- "feminism" per se is "gender related" beyond a doubt. Writing about a person where "feminism" is not involved is not, however, gender related. In the case of Dunham - yes -- a person barred from gender topics may not edit any claim related to gender issues. Collect (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, gender involves both female and male identity. So, this would make any controversies about men or women covered by such an overly broad topic ban. Also, campus rape occurs to men as well, if that needs to be mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• NorthBySouthBaranof - Here is how that topic ban should be interpreted, I think. Are you capable of editing about a subject tangential to your banned topic impartially and calmly, while maintaining NPOV or are you intending to heroically right great wrongs and fight the good fight against legions of infidel invaders? It is the warriorism that is objectionable, with the clear belief of Arbcom that you need to stay away from certain topics because you slip into heroic-protector-defender-warrior mode. Is this article one of those topics? Is your editing content-related or reversion-of-enemies driven? Ask yourself. Carrite (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • well of course, because defending living people and their reputations and presentation on Wikipedia is not something Wikipedians should be doing. Or should they? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to discuss the edits in question, Carrite. Can you demonstrate how they violate NPOV, or that they were not impartial? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying one way or the other and I actually didn't even look at the article until after I typed the above and still have not looked at the substance of your edits even now, nor will I. I asked you to ask yourself... Red Pen riding his horse in here to join in the fun is pretty much all I need to see to know which way the wind blows... Carrite (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is an interesting discussion. I don't pretend to be an expert or even mildly knowledgeable on this stuff, but I thought a key concept in today's sex and gender literature is that "sex" and "gender" are fundamentally distinct concepts. With that as context, the link between sexual assault (which can be homosexual or heterosexual) and gender seems awfully subjective. Am I missing something? Townlake (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamergaters were ultimately unable to use Wikipedia to assert their views as if they were objective reality. Still, Wikipedia lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. What happens to the next victim of a Wikipedia harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, this project and the ideas of NPOV and BLP are bigger than a handful of content warriors. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that nobody else stepped in to deal with this issue until I did, don't flatter the project to think that other editors can be bothered. Your argument, in so many words: "Someone else would have dealt with this eventually, maybe, honest, sure they would have, trust me, I promise." There would have been no drama associated with these fixes had a now-blocked single-purpose throwaway account not wiki-stalked me and dragged the issue into Arbitration Enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything too bad about taking some of the more specialized debate about the book and putting it into article specifically about the book (being careful that nothing useful gets lost in the process). And cherry-picking part of a quote is almost always bad. In general the article seems better in this form than how it was. I never was one of the people who think that BLP should "trump everything", but I do believe that BLP should trump ... Arbcom drama. Provided that the effect of NBSB's edits are agreed to be positive, I'd say he or she should get a pass on this - not saying the ban is changed, just that this shouldn't count toward it, or negatively impact its appeal or expiration, and if a similar situation happens again, then again there should be a chance of getting a pass if it really was a bad BLP needing fixing. That would just be a way for Wikipedia to show that BLP matters. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century

Now renamed to List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush making claims that anyone who signs a letter is now a "member" of such a group -- so anyone who signed a CPUSA ad in the 30s is now, by Wikipedia definition, a member of the CPUSA!

Asserts through SYNTH that anyone who signs a single letter supported by a group is automatically "strongly associated" with the group. This is all too reminiscent of a practice where people who signed letters for "Communist fronts" were then labelled as "Communists" which I regard as not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and principles. In fact, I consider the compiling of such a list to be contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV off the bat. To be "associated" with any group should require an active desire to be so labelled, not merely signing a single letter. And, in my opinion, this applies to any group, religion, etc. whatsoever - we do have "freedom of association" and having Wikipedia define a person to be "associated" is hubris on the part of Wikipedia. In fact, it was what was done with Americans of Japanese descent who belonged to any "Japanese-related society" in WW II, or to Germans who attended meeting of the Liedertafel societies - this is likely less of a "bad group" but we should not allow Wikipedia to define membership or association in any group. Collect (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion is thattaway -------> ///// Carrite (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of a pointless list as PNAC Ceased to exist in 2006 anyway. Who cares? Nyth63 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility. [8] shows a similar POV at Neoconservatism "Of these, many were from the Jewish intellectual milieu of New York City. and [9] on Dual loyalty: In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors. The debate was heated, with charges of Antisemitism and counter charges being leveled. The controversy continues into the present due to concerns over neoconservatives disposition toward Iran. being used as an edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Submit it at WP:AFD. I would support deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this. I add my post below:

Am I obstinate about "guilt by association"? Damn straight. And when it comes to opposing McCarthy - my family had the same opinion in the 50s when a neighbor of my aunt was caught up. To say a person is "associated with" or a "member of" any group requires strong direct sourcing - not polemics, articles by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, posts on lewrockwell.com, posts asserting "neocon conspiracies" etc. Genuine unquestionable reliable sources as solid as a genuine rock. If you find lewrockwell.com to be a reliable source for claims about living persons being involved in conspiracies, I damn straight will be obstinate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"So here I stand. I can do no other." Collect (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your zeal is commendable ;-) -- but this whole list is so marvelously stupid that it can fall on on its own merits. Whose idea was it, anyway? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. Check out [10] to see their apparent "referred content" which I suggested violated a few policies. Cheers! Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my reputation being sullied in this particular forum shopping. I never created the article, edited the article, nor was it my idea. The above post is a blatant lie. I responded to this request at BLP/N, providing comments and evidence that at least some of the list content is WP:BLP-compliant. My posts to the article talk page pertained solely to improving the article citations so that content could be more easily verified.- MrX 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest complaint follows:

I genuinely do not know if you are purposely 'misunderstanding' sources and rehashing arguments simply to keep the debate going long past its sell by date or not. In my opinion that is the case, if you thought this article would be deleted at AfD you would have sent it there and this would be settled. Yes, I do know you have avoided AfD because if the Community said Merge or Keep you must accept that rather than moving from discussion to discussion. I also do not believe you could write an acceptable AfD since you would need to actually address all the questions put to you earlier. If you really thought the editors here were obstinately maintaining obvious BLP violations you would be asking for DS at AE.Again, you can not write such a complaint because the issues are not obvious violations of BLP. My firm belief is that you figure we will get fed up with the argument and you will then get your way. That, in my mind, is the very definition of Tendentious editing. As I said, yours is not the only opinion that counts. Jbh (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which says that by not going to the AfD I am somehow admitting the list is proper and useful and not violating any policies at all! He also appears to make what most editors would consider a personal attack, alas. See [11] to see the apparent "preferred state" of the article. Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created an AFD nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. GabrielF (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatant forum shopping. Why would you bring this here?

The list existed on the main article for years, apparently until recently. Any of you that don't appreciate why it might still be relevant are obviously are not historians, and apparently lack an interest in international politics and international relations. It was only Collect's refusal to heed the sources that resulted in the List article being created in the first place. The discussion has been going on for about a month now across several forums, with Collect's disposition being questioned by uninvolved editors on a couple.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First -- acquaint yourself with Jimbo's official position that this is an open page, and posts here are not "forum shopping."

Second, become aware that any violation of policy does not become a "non-violation" by simple existence at any point.

Third, note that Jimbo generally does not approve of making personal attacks on anyone here.

Fourth, anyone here may look at the AfD discussion - where it is astounding (since no one supports me <g>), that the overwhelming number of !votes are for "delete." I would have thunk if no one agreed with me that you would have a plurality there - but, mirabile dictu, it rather looks like you might actually in the minority there. Cheers of course. Collect (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

NYPD caught editing articles which present them in an unfavourable light

Jimmy, last year you took to Facebook with this message in which you basically taunt Vladimir Putin for what were largely innocuous edits from Russian government IPs. It now turns out that the NYPD has been caught sanitizing articles relating to innocent people who have been killed by the NYPD. Do you have any message for the NYPD along the same lines as your message to Putin? 83.99.62.203 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I condem such editing and I'm happy when people get caught doing it. In this case, as far as I've seen so far, they were reverted very quickly anyway. It seems unlikely that this would have been an officially ordered act - probably just some employee doing something silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Were you happy when this IP editor's organization was caught doing it? - WilmingMa (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is disappointing. I assumed that the Foundation would hire a far better class of vandal than that. Gamaliel (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First thing to do is to compile the data. I traced this back (via [12]) to an apparent first publication [13] by Capital New York which cites "one of" its sources for the NYPD IP addresses as [14] and links the "range of IP addresses" as [15]. It highlights edits [16], [17] , [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. It also credits [24] to NYPD. It says the complete list is here; looks like it. (I should note that BLP doesn't apply to this data, since, as company privacy policies and the ensuing police raids will assure you, IPs are not 'personally identifiable information'...) Wnt (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a first few pokes it appears that there are many untapped lulz in this dataset. Little things like [25] get a laugh; then also some of the 206.212 people were playing in some very shallow pools, like this, where you can start looking at all the editors and try to... well, violate outing policy, so I'll stop there for now. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess the main difference between NYPD and Putin government is that NYPD is trying (or at least pretend to try) to do something about it. According to the sputniknews article cited by User:83.99.62.203. "The matter is under internal review," NYPD spokeswoman Det. Cheryl Crispin told .... Putin's government is known to finance and actively support internet trolls like stationed in Olgino spreading disinformation and all sorts of personal attacks. The day Putin will do something about it, Mr. Wales might publish an apology Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That Olgino article is pretty interesting (and fairly new). Do you know if they had a branch in the aviation industry? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have reliable sources on their organization, but I guess they do not have a special aviation industry department as it is not a perennial theme of the attacks. It just emerged in relation to PR support for an obviously improbable version of downing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. AFAIK those people just receive an outside order for a theme and arguments they should promote in blogosphere and they start to promote it (often just cutting and paste the text they are suppose to promote). The favourite pastime of Russian bloggers is to google hundreds or even thousands of identical comments from apparently unrelated pro-government bloggers. This way they can today promote a leaked pornographic video of an oppositioner and the next day the flight characteristics of SU-25. BTW I am not aware of their significant presence on en-wiki yet. But I guess we are well equipped to resist possible attacks Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• 

  We're ready to defend ourselves :). Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  

  If anyone can understand the logic here, please do not explain it to me Herostratus (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The New Republic has picked this up... Herostratus (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Considering how much the NYPD brand is worth (I mean, the airport in Newark was selling NYPD CSI shirts), we should definitely apply the standard COI considerations. The NYPD is no longer just a police force. It's a business. As such, it should be treated as one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's easy to get carried away with this sort of thing, because people are so used to being surveilled and judged on every picayune detail, so unaccustomed to being allowed to know anything about a cop. Things shouldn't be that way but we shouldn't let ourselves be lowered completely to our surroundings. So far the edits we've seen don't rise to the level of trying to wipe out black history, or the people's history, or any grand conspiracy. They seem like disconnected efforts by cops to do some editing, as influenced by their POV, about something they know. Of course, there is a big question of whether some cops know better than to use IP addresses, and are marshalled to accomplish more specific ends; as far as I know they still have a Red Squad of some sort, no matter what they call it, and there must be a thousand flavors of agents from around the world hoping to get control over any popular movement nowadays, including Wikipedia. But this data provides at best a faint hope of trying to penetrate to that reality; at face value it tells us only what any sensible person would already have guessed, namely there are some NYPD cops who edit Wikipedia. I don't really want somebody punished for trying to explain the structure of the NYPD in a Wikipedia article (though a COI tag might be justifiable) - it's a lead, not a crime. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't breath.... Law enforcement is always corrupt. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to conflict of interest edits, it simply does not get more egregious than this: [26]. It buries the needle. Rhoark (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually that deletion was a pretty good start for an awful section that could use a major rewrite. For a section that has a forked off main article, it has some serious bloat (as well as pov and synth issues). NYPD has 22,000+ police officers and thousands of others on staff and a few IP edits are likely vandalism or frustration. I dare say that the demographics of WP are likely to be aligned with the Occupy movement as well as Eric Garner (and other high profile police incidents) and I suspect frustration is high in the NYPD when they either know more about a case or feel strongly about it. The fact of the matter is, though, a grand jury heard a lot more about Garner than anything in Wikipedia and refused to indict the officer. Same with Mike Brown regarding both the Grand Jury as well as the DoJ investigation. Yes, it's a COI but let's also not forget that it wasn't to long ago that a WMF employee was editing for pay and not disclosing it. We shine the light on it, but we still allow them to contribute. Depending on whether this was NYPD wifi that connects personal phones/computers to the internet or whether it was government computers will determine discipline. If they have public wifi, like they do at my local courthouse/police department, it may not even be possible to tell if the editors are even associated. I've edited WP while wating for jury duty and my IP would have resolved to the government office. --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Media like to demonstrate COI edits from IPs but actually COI editors who know how to register are significantly more harmful Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

One minute after I create an article - it is put up for speedy deletion

Noank Media. Go ahead Jimmy sit on your hands again and say you can't do a damn thing. Editingstrong (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article:

[spam article redacted by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)]

One minute after I create this article, it is put up for speedy deletion. Editingstrong (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like very thin stuff to me. Since this has become an issue, were you paid to create it, or involved in the company in some way?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't an article. It is however a copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled why http://www.noankmedia.com/ is in Japanese, and had to use Google Translate. It is just as spammy and unencylopedic in Japanese as it is in English.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Editingstrong had plenty more to add to the article before being blocked - I noted this in contesting the speedy deletion, and copied a draft to my talk page (I would appreciate if a registered editor is willing to sandbox it properly). The allegation of "paid advocacy" for a company defunct as of 2010 strikes me as absurd. As for copyright violation, that's not a reason not to have a page on a topic - it's a reason to fix the violation. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a copy of a fuller version of the article at User talk:76.69.72.50 and it fails WP:GNG by a mile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to the article talk page, then. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If this article gets speedily deleted - which it probably will - please recreate it in a sandbox and ask other users what they think before going live. Blather about companies and organizations is invariably tagged for speedy deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

but i do think this is a good example of why new accounts shouldnt be allowed to create new articles in live space. New Account, you want to create an article about a new topic? Great! Go through this guided process off live space to get help creating something vaguely acceptable before you present it to the wide world. Besides being a gentler welcome to potential new contributors, it would also help with the BLP issue (not to mention the spamvertisement issue) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with WP:SCRUTINY

Is that it allows corrupt admins to suppress their critics, as shown for example here. The idea that people should be forced to risk an established identity in order to challenge the actions of others (the IP editor even explicitly notes that I have no fear of scrutiny, I'm afraid of being treated harshly and unfairly).

Many administrators seem to be under the impression that IP editors have no influence here, and are delusional to imagine that they do. Utter absurdity. We are WP:HUMAN, and we make the majority of the edits. Cut off my head, and millions will grow in its place if necessary.

We will not be silenced. We are globally located, we are in the right, and we are essential to the very concept of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". And we will defend editors who log out, for the same reasons that we have never logged in. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Forced to risk an established identity" is exactly backwards. There is risk in editing as an ip number - because your ip number is published. There is less risk in getting an account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the primary risk is being hassled by admins for pointing out when they've done something wrong, including breaking policy and guidelines. And without any redress system other than rigorously rigid procedures where "anyone can't edit" and which have more of those admins-who-will-admit-no-wrong and then go after the person they got nasty towards by doing things like taking up wiki-energy by re-reverting incorrect moves without knowing anything about the subject; so many examples it's futile to quote them all; the ANI board and also this talkpage are full of stories of people who try to address serious content policy (NPOV hugely among those policies) and getting no end of no-COMMONSENSE responses and harassment from people flouting and flaunting guidelines, and using NPAs while denouncing others for personal attacks for criticisms of rationales for a given move or change or content violation.

Wikipedia's many problems come from the supposed "anyone can edit" dictum (though code complexity on templates and webcites is more and more of a barrier to easy editing for those not editing, both in terms of time-wastage but also in being able to view the edit pages without reams of code-clutter...add in sometimes nasty meddling from those armed with admin badges feeling the need to use them, on subjects and language standards they really don't know anything about. But they sure are good at cherry-picking guidelines (though it seems never fully reading them, likewise re NPOV being set aside by people with no concept of the POV issues, and more of that kind of thing; those native endonym RMs that cause so much fuss and hostility towards me last year by those who don't even know the subject matter and engaged in no end of obstructionist behaviour including launching two - no, three - ANIs (four) against me, none of which had consensus to block but I was blocked anyway on a "I don't care about consensus" basis; by an admin who then "went after" the remaining RMs I'd fielded and hostile-closed them.....

The problem is "anyone can be an admin" - and I'm often shocked to find someone misbehaving or a POVite has admin status; likewise people who use WoT/TLDR all the time to refuse to listen to reason/arguments or think, which tells me that guidelines and policy like NPOV are "too long don't want to read" also.

There should be a comprehension/literacy/logic test, and also a knowledge test for tiers or admins; and the underscoring of the bit in TITLE and MOS abnout "if you don't know the subject of a discussion then stay out of the discussion and don't vote on it - that's not the exact wording but it's in there somewhere; and makes COMMONSENSE, which Wikipedia could use a whole lot more than than more "bullies with badges" i.e. admin status.Skookum1 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From the IP users linked deletion of his posts by Future Perfect:

• "I have no fear of scrutiny, I'm afraid of being treated harshly and unfairly, and therefore being unable to edit articles that have nothing to do with the controversy at hand."

Indeed, and it's not just IP users who have to fear that. And when it does have to do with a controversy at hand, admins weigh in about behaviour or technical guidelines who have no idea of the topic and its issues; this is particularly a problem re NPOV violations and more; all Wikipedians are not equal and some are more unequal than others.

trying to encourage more contributions of content from the public-at-large re local history and general history when there's all kinds of uninformed people running around throwing around abuses of guidelines and defending abuses of policy, with the power to "punish" and/or block people who are informed about a subject is not a very welcoming place to invite people into; but I'm trying as I'm currently faced with foreign revisionism of Canadian/BC history and meddling by admins who engage in personal attacks and refuse to discuss the NPOV policy, and damn me for writing about it, when not refusing or dissing my explanations of what the problem is; by people not from the country, who don't know the subject or the sources, and think if an article looks OK visually what's in the content doesn't need looking at...especially if someone who they know does know the material and sources objects, they wash their hands of policy and are just not interested in talking about it or enforcing it (NPOV that is). And not in taking the time to read about it, but instead passing judgment and threatening ANI/blocks on me for daring to raise and apply it.

You did say NPOV is not negotiable..... tell them that. Admins who support policy violations so blithely should have their status revoked; and in one case the excuse that her duties prevent her from discussing editorial content matters and only police behavioural matters (as if the two could be separated, but that's very weirdly in her terms of reference).Skookum1 (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To get back on topic, it would still be interesting to know why 76.69.72.50 was so determined to create an article about little-known Noank Media, even at the expense of risking a block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the issue raised by the IP user and quote by me is the topic; the quality of the article is not the topic, but the way people are treated by the adminship IS the topic.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but why was 76.69.72.50 so keen to create the article? He/she denied being paid to do it, but dodged the question of whether he/she was involved in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, a more collegial approach would be to not only name but notify me that you are talking about me somewhere else, especially if you are tacitly requesting that my adminship be revoked. For context, the concept that is proving difficult here is Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED. Skookum1 does not believe that behavioral questions can be addressed independently of content issues, while that policy makes clear that admins cannot be involved editorially and administratively in the same disputes. I've been encouraging him to pursue dispute resolution, but evidently he doesn't trust it. The conversation at my talk page speaks for itself, at great length. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaningful awards for the collection... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some baklava for you! I like food. Armin Siddiky Romin (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar can i get this ??? Armin Siddiky Romin (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

I've notice a growing trend on Wikipedia where editors only accept mainstream views which is contradictory to the NPOV we have all long sought to establish. The sources provided are not only academic, but also highly notable. I believe you may be interested in participating. I have an RFC regarding this subject, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As anyone who studies the history of the article will quickly notice, it has seen relentless POV-pushing to be recreated for a long time now. At the end of the day, it's still a fringe theory with few reliable sources and zero academic studies mentioning it. Previous AfD and request for comments ended either in merge, delete or without consensus. The term "incel" is primarily known on the internet and used by certain websites, including the "Loveshy forums", dedicated to bitter single men. It is, in more ways then one, problematic, and the sourcing is below the bar. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the article clearly show that is not the case. It has been covered extensively in multiple sources and academia prior to this century. We cover the unusual, the claim that this is not real is just plain false. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The name itself, it has already been established, is an oxymoron as the definition of celibacy is "the state of being voluntarily unmarried and\or sexually abstinent", with voluntary being a vital part of the very definition. As previously mentioned on several prior discussions, the subject would be more fitting to be added to an article such as sexual frustration, which ticks all the boxes for this phenomenon. I also noticed you only notified editors who voted either neutral or in favor of keeping the article of this new request for comment. ;) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Incel or Involuntary celibacy is a blogg. It is not a scientifically accepted notion. User above was pushing for this issue latest in December 2014, when quite a lot of editors agreed that it is no keep. We are now back there again. I find this disruptive. Hafspajen (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"primarily known on the internet" is not equal to "non-notable." Nor does fringe even imply the likelihood of non-notability. (not that I think this fringe--applying the concept of fringe to many psychological or social topics is very risky, as there are not the same objective standards, & what is accepted as reasonably mainstream is subject to rapid change -- & can often merely represents opinion, and sometimes prejudice. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)