User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

New essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I do not agree 100% with all the implications, it is a good read, and thank you, Collect. Shipwrights are more accepting of those who swear at the bad things in life and in the world, and at our mortal fate, than they are of those who swear hatefully at and about their co-workers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For my many faults, swearing at co-workers is not chief among them. My chief fault - now and always - has been an unremitting belief that biographies of living persons should "do no harm" - the listing of the advert signers from Duke was a clear case to me. And I wish Gibbs (very arcane NCIS reference for everyone) good luck on his boat, as to all editors who seek to build ships which will sail straight and true. Or for another arcane reference - to those who build and sail Masefield's tall ships, and see WP:BLP as a "star to steer her by." Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the do no harm issue. Of particular ugliness is when someone does not like, disagree with or has other non benign reasons for editing a BLP (or any bio for that matter) and argues non stop for inclusion of negative issues and has nothing else they add to the article. Such editors should be BLP banned and if they violate their ban, then be site banned immediately.--MONGO 16:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Me? I swear at co-workers and my team all the time. In the UK this is no big deal. We try not to be prudes. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the "do no harm" principle cited by Collect is not part of WP:BLP and was explicitly rejected years ago; see Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. He might have a happier time editing BLPs if he didn't have the wrong idea about how to do it in the first place. Prioryman (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I trust your comment about me personally was fully unintentional, indeed. Collect (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" is not (at least not in English) the same as "do no harm". But I'm probably not the right person to try to explain it to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See User:Collect/BLP - I feel strongly that seeking to do harm to any living person 9in any article is contrary to reason for any encyclopedia. How would you regard the actual examples given on that user space page? Collect (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between "seeking to do harm" and including negative but relevant/well-sourced encyclopedic information which might reflect negatively on an article subject. The former is categorically forbidden, while the latter is explicitly authorized by policy, at least in regard to public figures. You continually conflate the two situations, and you tend to regard any effort to explain the distinction as a personal attack—an unfortunate combination of behaviors which partially explains the soon-to-opened ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear that it is intent to do harm which is involved -- just as Hippocrates referred to "intent" - as all doctors do actually "inflict harm" at some point in their careers - it is the "intent" which is barred. For classicists - we should adhere to non-maleficence. I note you also seem to whish to make personal commentary about me, which I deem grossly non-utile - deal with the topic of maleficence and kindly do not try to attack me while doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you're echoing that distinction here. But in practice, you generally fail to distinguish between inappropriate intent to harm and appropriate, BLP-compliant coverage of negative material, and lump both together as "BLP violations". I can find an example right now, in a BLP/N thread that you started recently. The thread involves allegations which are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, yet you insist on characterizing them as a BLP violation. There are innumerable other examples of this failure to understand WP:WELLKNOWN and to distinguish such material from actual BLP violations. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean as in my horridly erroneous belief that List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush was violative of WP:SYNTH? I think the AfD on it pretty much stated my position was widely held. (The closer stated The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.) Sorry - I find your commentary here not to be strongly related to the essay, and possibly more intended to make a point about me personally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but that's quite different from your supposed "do no harm" principle. A BLP may legitimately convey information that is harmful to the subject's reputation - e.g. that they've been convicted of a crime, or have been the subject of a controversy. It's impossible to avoid this unless you deliberately set out to whitewash and skew articles so that they do not include so-called "harmful" information. As WP:HARM says, "doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people." The kind of BLP fundamentalism that you apparently advocate has rightly been rejected by the Wikipedia community. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See User:Collect/BLP for examples of what I consider to be involved. It is willfully desiring to do harm, not the incidental "infliction of harm" from including critical facts about a person, which is what I refer to by "do no harm" - I trust you will concur that seeking to do harm is contrary to any encyclopedic purpose. YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Which ArbCom case is this about? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. The permanent link to the current version in history is [1]. P.S. If you need such info ever again for anyone, try looking in their contribution list. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks! I thought it was about some old case but it's a brand new one, that's why I didn't check myself first. Count Iblis (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mild qualifier - a shipwright who drinks and swears so much that all their co-workers flee their company, won't be able to build much of a ship at all. But a fair point otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't hung around construction dudes much, clearly... Carrite (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as shipbuilders would not throw wood at one another encyclopedia-writers should not throw words at one another. Constructive use of language is important. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WRT the charge that I erroneously stated some material about Rick Scott was violative of WP:BLP one should note that the offending material has been removed by others -- including material removed by MrX at [2], and HughD at [3] and that the current language in the BLP comports with the sources, while the original claim made: Members of Scott's administration directed employees of the state Department of Environmental Protection to avoid using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in official communications, according to four former employees was relevant to that department, but the sources did not make any direct charges about Scott personally ordering anything (other than in one headline which was not supported by its article). In short, what I said was a BLP violation is no longer in that BLP. Glad to assist in remedying a substantial and certainly accidental misapprehension there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a good essay, an reflective of the first of the five pillars. That said, Wikipedia is also not written by one person. Contributors must work as part of a team, which requires social norms. Maintaining those social norms may sometimes come at the cost of losing contributors. We should be as accepting as possible when it comes to social norms, but some semblance of order must be maintained. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The material that I removed this morning was inserted this morning, three days after your post on BLP/N. I removed it because it inappropriately linked to copyrighted content, not because it violated BLP policy, which it doesn't. The content in question (last two paragraphs of the climate change section) is now substantially similar to how it looked three days ago when you opened the BLP/N discussion.- MrX 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone here can see the changes - and the fact that we do not now assert at all that Scott ordered any ban. Which was the BLP issue if you care to read it. And I would note that I linked to your exact edit - the fact that others violated policies does not seem relevant to the essay which is what is being discussed - is it? (In March 2015, it was revealed that Scott has banned the state's Department of Environmental Protection from using the phrases "Climate Change," "Global Warming" or "Sustainability" in their literature was the claim which violated BLP, by the way) Thank you most kindly indeed. Collect (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. here is the version of the article at the time you opened the BLP/N discussion. Here is the exact wording:

In March, 2015, Scott denied that members of his administration directed employees of the state Department of Environmental Protection to avoid using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in official communications. ¶ Although Scott denies banning the term "climate change" from official use by Florida state officials, there is evidence that a ban exists and there has been one recorded occurrence of a Florida state official having been reprimanded for use of the term. A longtime employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was reprimanded with suspension pending a mental health evaluation from his doctor to verify his “fitness for duty” reportedly after having used the term in the course of his official duties.

Perhaps you would point out where the violating words are in this version, or in the version that you reverted before opening the BLP/N thread.- MrX 21:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reddit IAmA

Just wanted to say, thank you (along with Jaffer and Tretikov) for hosting the AMA on the NSA lawsuit. It's really cool to see a lot of questions being answered, and hopefully a lot of people learn more about it.

For anyone reading this, here's the live Reddit "Ask Me Anything" where Jimbo and company are answering questions related to the suit. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You were fabulous, Mr Wales! Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the goal of privacy for innocent people is a noble one, but to that end this lawsuit seems pointless because of all the other sources of invasion of privacy on the internet, from other governments and corporations to private individuals. And it's not just the internet but surveillance cameras, iPhone cameras, webcams, etc. And if you have a monitored home security system, the company that electronically monitors your home has the potential to have a record of your comings and goings. The GPS navigation in your car has the potential of monitoring where you go. The snoop genie is out of the bottle. It comes down to the individual being careful about what needs to be kept confidential, with limited success.

In one of the Q&A at the above reddit link was the following exchange.

Q — "Let's suppose this lawsuit is successful, and the NSA is legally barred from collecting upstream data. What about controlling/regulating the same sort of data collection by corporate entities, and other governments (e.g., China)? Does a successful outcome here protect privacy only with respect to the US government, or would it affect of influence privacy rights in other contexts?"

Answer from Jameel Jaffer — "This suit is about surveillance by the US government. The ACLU is involved in other efforts relating to surveillance by other governments--see, e.g., this case against the GCHQ in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/uk-mass-surveillance-laws-human-rights-tribunal-gchq. But the truth is that a more global solution to the problem of mass surveillance will require diplomacy, not just lawsuits."

P.S. When I was working on this message, is there the potential for someone connected with Wikipedia or someone who has gotten hold of certain tools, to see what I was working on before it is posted? Also, is there the potential for a user to be tracked by Wikipedia as to which articles and other pages are just visited and not edited? What are the surveillance capabilities of Wikipedia for following users on this site and other sites they visit while on Wikipedia or after they leave the Wikipedia site? Has it been disclosed to users? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While no one can speak for the WMF on this - the software intrinsically allows for such, even if it not used (provided by the web browser IIRC). Almost all search engines, for example, keep track of how people reach any site through their search. Not all that complex, and around in use since the advent of the WWW. Collect (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

query about a notable organization article

Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has just been started - alas it appears to be Coatrack from the Rick Scott article with its current content and sourcing. I find no sign that the organization is generally notable, but the author is the one who filed the ArbCom case against me - so I dare not touch this one. If the organization is notable, I would like to know. Right now its "claim to fame" is its allegation that Florida employees are officially barred for saying "climate change." Including a claim that since Scott does not answer questions about the "ban" that this s somehow "notable" in itself.

I have now been quite successfully harassed from anything remotely connected to politics or BLPs on Wikipedia by the many complaints and noticeboard posts, and even a "proposal" on my UT page that we declare Florida officially a "fringe state" filled with "fringe politicians" with "fringe ideas" which I find a clear case of harassment, alas. In any event, I will not touch this "organization" but think the views of others on its inherent notability may be worthwhile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Making an entire state subject to WP:FRINGE? I mean, Florida might be an epicentre of bullshit, but WTF? Guy (Help!) 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The context was, to my reading I was part of the Wolin discussion, a hyperbolic comment about the use of analogies in a discussion about whether Sheldon Wolin and his concept of Inverted Totalitarianism were FRINGE. Here is a diff [4] of the exchange between Viriditas and Collect leading up to that comment. Jbh (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It was an analogous joke based on Collect's use of similar leading questions in subject headings. As that lengthy, multi-thread discussion shows, Collect does not do well with analogies and metaphors, as he interprets them quite literally. This is one reason (of many), that I find it impossible to communicate with him. And notice, even after it was explained to him that this was a joke on three separate occasions, he is still insisting that it is a real and serious proposal. Clearly, there is more than just a simple reading comprehension problem at work here. He's been repeatedly informed it was a joke yet says above that this is a serious proposal. This is about as WP:IDHT as one can get. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the link leading to the complaint about your harassment of Collect, which was ongoing even after he asked you to stop, which you were doing while he was blocked and now you accuse him of reading comprehension issues, a personal attack.--MONGO 01:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've never harassed Collect, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. You sure are fond of making baseless assertions over and over again sans evidence. Clearly, there is a reading comprehension problem at work; Collect has been informed of the joke and had the joke explained to him, and yet, he still insists it isn't a joke. If that's not a reading comprehenion problem, then it's IDHT compounded by a difficulty reading. I hope this is the last time I have to correct your errors. BTW, repeatedly accusing me of harassment is harassment. And these repeated appeals to Jimbo compound the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This fact that you were not harassing him is why numerous editors asked you to not harass him. I'm going to report them all for incompetence!--MONGO 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. I stopped posting on Collect's talk page before you ever filed a report and before anyone ever asked me to stop. No harassment ever took place. You seem to be fond of making false allegations over and over again. This is similar to saying "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" over and over again, even when there is no evidence. Where's the evidence of harassment? It doesn't exist. Collect said he felt harassed, and you filed a report. So you created the evidence, much like the rationale for the Iraq War. I hope the analogy works for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of harassment was not "created" by MONGO.

It is clear who was doing the harassing, and it was damn sure not I.

I posted See WP:HARASS and stop it now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You posted Thanks, Cullen, but I'm not entirely serious (but I am raising points for discussion). Mostly, I'm trying to keep Collect occupied during his "vacation". Idle hands and all that.... :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) which damn sure looks like deliberate harassment form 93 million miles away. And more than six hours later.

I had not raised your blatant harassment here -- but when a person who is deliberately harassing another is successful, they damn sure should not claim a third party "created" the evidence.

You have been successful in driving me away from Wikipedia. You have been successful in making me feel threatened and intimidated, in taking actions intended to be "noticed by the target", and in seeking to make editing Wikipedia to be "unpleasant for the target."

So when you then attack MONGO as though he were the one at fault, I shall defend MONGO.

You can damn sure intimidate me and accuse me of lying and anything you damn well want, but attacking MONGO for "creating" this charge is one of the lowest forms of debate I have ever seen on Wikipedia - and I have been attacked by the best of them -- remember Ikip at his worst? He would never have sunk that far. I find your accusation against MONGO despicable and vile. And you can add that to your laundry list of charges over the years. Accusing other editors of "creating" evidence is, indeed despicable and I have no fear from you whatsoever.

Yes, you have successfully driven me off - but attacking others is not something I will stand idly by for. To all - cheers, and sail straight and true. Collect (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to have misunderstood yet another comment. I have no idea what you could possibly mean when you say you have been "driven off", as it makes no sense. Our discussion occurred when you were blocked, so you could not edit. Frankly, I really have no desire to interact with you at all because it is impossible to understand you, but I keep getting pinged into these discussions. You misrepresented a comment I made in your initial post here. Why would you constantly bring me up if you thought I was harassing you? In such a situation, people avoid such harassers, they don't constantly refer to and invoke them. I really think you and MONGO are engaging in deliberate baiting and trolling so you can attack me when I respond to your misrepresentations. If you and others would just stop making wild claims and accusations about me, I'm sure we would have nothing to talk about. Enjoy your weekend. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Youre not suppose to tell anybody that I can create evidence! Only myself, Jimbo and a couple others are able to override everyone else's password and make posts using their usernames!--MONGO 13:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This matter is partially being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, I'm not sure what Wales can contribute to this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has recently been beefed up, and it now looks entirely legitimate. Maybe we should contact FCIR to investigate the personality conflict between editors, described above (surely FCIR would do a better job of it than ArbCom).Anythingyouwant (talk)

How to deal with half truths told in the Western media?

As I pointed out here, the mere fact that in the West we have a free press does not always lead to objective news reporting. A good example could be the Iraq WMD issue, our last Wikipedia article before we could have direct access to the truth is a textbook example of how our media can get corrupted, affecting our Wiki articles too. It's not by telling outright lies, rather by telling only selective truths in a tendentious way. The fact that something is wrong with the conclusions suggested by the news reports can often not be sourced from equally high quality reliable sources, or it's based on a critical analysis by some group that may have some agenda so it will be given less weight (already in the media, long before editors here would have to consider the matter).

Usually this problem will manifest itself in hot buttom issues, like the Iraq's WMD was, or today Russia's involvement in Ukraine or Iran's nuclear program. E.g. the fact that the referendum in Crimea was obviously held in flawed way, doesn't imply that the vast majority of the people there didn't want to join Russia, but in the media we usually only read about how flawed the poll was that was held.

In case of Iran's nuclear program, for all the talk about the number of centrifuges how far Iran is to building an nuclear device and what breakout time we would want the Iranians to have, there is nothing whatsoever one can read about how large Iran's enrichment capacity would need to be in order to provide fuel for the Bushehr reactor, if they were to choose to not renew the contract with Russia for fuel deliveries in the early 2020s. This turns out to be a simple back of the envelope calculation that any ten year old can do, but that simple calculation would all by itself tell a story that is in complete disagreement with the suggested story told by the selective mentioning of the facts we can read about.

Then Wikipedia does have the ability to push back against such pressures to some degree but I think is still leads to significant bias in our articles. E.g. in case of Iran's nuclear program, the core issues are covered, but they appear at the end of the article, the polemics are presented in a more prominent way. This reflects the way our media writes about these issues, which is ultimately due to the fact that the free media has to compete with the entertainment industry for the attention of the public. So, Netanyahu telling a scare story will always win from a professor giving a rather complicated assessment of the facts. Count Iblis (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And do you have a proposal as to how we deal with this? One that doesn't fall foul of WP:OR and WP:RS policy? I can't think of one offhand... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed the problem one faces, you don't want a solution to thisn't issue that would also give cranks the opportunity to get in their version of "the truth" as well. We could perhaps change NPOV to SPOV, i.e. giving far more weight to scientific assessments of an issue. In case of the Iran issue, that would mean giving far more weight to what legal experts, nuclear experts etc. have published in papers on this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. I absolutely agree with count iblis on this issue. Wikipedia is becoming unreliable because much of even the so-called mainstream media is biased. In fact, it would be an understatement to say that mainstream media is biased. It is extremely biased would be more apt. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that the media parrots everything that comes out of the White House? Take for instance the ISIS stories online. The media would have you believe that only ISIS engages in sectarian murder, but the Iraqi government has done the same thing. Yet, how much coverage does it get when an U.S. ally does it? In order to boost neutrality we should give more leeway to alternative media. I leave it up to you Jimbo or any other knowledgeable wikipedian to alter our guideline pages. Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And the evidence that 'alternative media' is less biased than the mainstream can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Source analysis, particularly for recent/ongoing events, is a pretty specialized skill set. One which usually requires an area expert or a subject matter expert. Because of how Wikipedia is set up almost all of the results of source analysis are considered original research. This is as it should be because there is no way to vet the skill/knowledge of the editors who want to vet the sources.

Wikipedia is a place where we document what the reliable sources say. analysis is not and should not be done here. As these 'current events' fade into the past we the report other's analysis - people whose knowledge and credentials we can verify. The bias of the news/media is the bias of the encyclopedia because our job is to document not analyze. Jbh (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that source analysis is a specialized skill; it is, however, one which we must do. It is not our function to regurgitate errors made by the mainstream media echo chamber, it is to determine what is objectively true and to present that information in a fair and temperate manner. Unfortunately, controversial topics are frequently populated by content warriors attempting to spin reality to advance political ends, and therein lies the rub. But the abandoned doctrine of "verifiability-not-truth" is best left in the dustbin. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For an excellent example of what I am saying in practice, see for example the way that "reliable sources" are handled by those tending the medical articles. It's not beneficial to recycle garbage churned out by the hacks of the press; even scientific studies are handled gingerly. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If the standards laid out in WP:MEDRS were replicated elsewhere, I'm sure we'd have a more reliable encyclopaedia - but a much smaller one. And somehow I doubt that the WMF would be particularly keen on that, since 'anyone can edit' seems currently to be more of a priority than 'an encyclopedia'. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the question as to who the project is for - readers, or editors? And lowest-common-denominator standards probably make for higher donations (or do they? does anyone know what percentage of contributions come from Wikipedia editors?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I would jump for joy if Wikipedia were limited to high quality academic sources and vetted quality media. If the Daily Mail and similar sensationalistic sources were not used. But who vets the media and what is their POV? If people looked into issues and understood the concept of national narrative, echo chambers and could tell what they are not being told etc. That is just not going to happen because once you try to write rules for source analysis you provide a venue for ever more drama. Proper source analysis goes far beyond NPOV. It means editors must examine and understand their own POV down to such basics as 'my government does not lie' and 'those people I hate might have a point from their perspective'. They would also need to discuss each other's POVs if a frank and open manner and be receptive to having their POV challenged directly by other editors. There would be no simple understandable, rules to fall back on - and most conflicts here seem to be about rules not principles. At best you would end up with SPORTSRS, POLITICSRS, INTERNATIONALRELATIONSRS, WARANDCONFLICTRS etc. each with #CURRENT and #HISTORICAL sections.

Specifying all these 'bestRS' might be possible if the Foundation engaged area experts to identify/specify/quantify the sources for a given area but understanding and applying those rules would place Wikipedia beyond the reach of 'anyone can edit'. That might not be bad, as articles become better they require more specialized knowledge but I do not see it happening. Jbh (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See The Infography.—Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool site! Jbh (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for citing alternative media - there's nothing in WP:RS that says we can't, provided they have an editorial process. I realize de facto that PressTV or RT may get harsher treatment than a comparable British outlet, but that's not written into policy. Even within 'mainstream' sources, almost the first hit I got for bushehr centrifuges is [5], which seems to make this argument, but in reverse; they say explicitly that Iran's potential needs in these cases are to be ignored. It's not at all clear to me that you can't get the information across that you want to, under existing policy, without back-of-the-envelopes. Wnt (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong". This has always been the case with Wikipedia, pretty much by design. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who don't recognise that quote: it comes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by the late great Douglas Adams, describing the Guide itself. And instead of wasting spending time here editing Wikipedia I strongly recommend you to get hold of a copy in print or audio (originally written as a radio series) and sit back and relax with a real treat! Then come back, refreshed, to carry on building this encyclopedia. PamD 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the phrase "Mostly Harmless" gave some of us our first look at deletionists... Wnt (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The last time we trusted the mainstream media we got the Iraq war based on a now disproven theory of WMD's. Now the warhawks want to meddle us into another conflict this time with the 17th largest country in the world. We can start by creating a Wikipedia:List of fearmongering sensationalists in order to discredit these BS warhawks. I'm getting sick of these endless wars. Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The "last time we trusted the mainstream media we got the Iraq war"? Seriously? Trusting reliable sources happens on daily basis on Wikipedia. Every minute of the day I imagine that some editor is providing a reference to one article or another from mainstream media. Wikipedia writes for the long haul, not for the moment. When the WMD argument was disproven, I'm sure that the relevant Wikipedia articles were changed to reflect this understanding. There is no version of an article that is set in stone. As better, more accurate information becomes available (which is usually after some time after the event has passed), this is reflected in the article and its references. I'm sure if you could come up with a better system, that is easily defined and followed by editors with varying levels of language ability and education, I'm sure you could make a proposal at the Village Pump and it would get reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We could avoid publishing anything less than "some time" old. Say, not including anything less than one month and not discredited thus far, would avoid lots of drama. After all, we shouldn't be the "battleground newspaper" which we (too) often are (news & opinion), but an encyclopedia (timeless facts). Except for the "obviously factual facts". Yeah. Will never happen, but would avoid a lot of ficghting and confusion... - Nabla (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While WP:CIR, the policy has to be clear enough that a high school student can understand and follow the guidelines. It should be consistent enough that Editor A and Editor B would come to the same decision regarding the source (and go to WP:RSN if there is a debate about it). Most of the proposals I've seen are complicated and nuanced and therefore are subjective which is to be avoided in policy matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran has not invaded another country in 200 years. And yet U.S. opinion polls view Iran as a threat - [6]. What explains that? Is it the media? Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There probably is need for a free multilingual encyclopedia with extremely reliable sourcing and review by experts. Citizendium failed at this because its cumbersome procedures could not attract the right experts. Another effort might do better than that project did in 2007, but, unlike Wikipedia, it will take the more conventional publication form of top-down control by paid editors. Given the surplus in the WMF budget, perhaps this could be a parallel project--or funding for an independent split--a deliberate split to give the chance to start over.

But the first step is the realization that we should not destroy what we have, and should continue writing the existing Wikipedia by the existing methods, which have in ten years basically transformed information access in the world. What we have works; other projects could work differently and do different things, but they could not do the things we do much better. Our major ongoing difficulty may prove to be our lack of competition. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ DGG: I would say that our major difficulty is that growing quantity of the English Wikipedia data becomes rapidly unmanageable by the handful of volunteers operating with varied competence and expertise ... and what is worse, I can see that this trend goes hand in hand with the growing (and often blind) trust to Wikipedia by the outside world, the mainstream media etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Vejvančický (talk · contribs), That's exactly my point. The current WP can not greatly increase in accuracy precisely because it must also be accessible to open editing by editors with our a wide range of contributors. greatly in accuracy. But the value of open editing is more fundamental to our project than the specific development of content--because our project is a model for the development of other aspects of free culture--a broader and even revolutionary goal that we should not compromise.

It was never actually intended at the start (or at least not realistically intended) that we would be more than a convenient summary without authority. That people use us for more than this, and think we're reliable, was not planned for. I do not think we really accommodate this need art a consistent level. It will take a different project. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but it looks strange when you say that Wikipedia was not planned as a reliable project. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The folks here who like to get to the bottom of things might be interested in Houthis. In the Western media this group generally seems to be portrayed as a radical Shia sect that is trying to spread across all Yemen, even though much of the enclave it controls is Sunni and the area it controls bears a suspicious resemblance to North Yemen, and its founder Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi apparently got in trouble with the central government for advocating South Yemen separatism (the two were joined in 1990). Yet media reports talk about their capture of one of the last regions in North Yemen they don't control as a "strategic city" on the path to Aden (the old capital of the southern part). [7] Now I don't know much about this topic, and am certainly in no position to do original research, but I imagine some folks here could make interesting finds in the existing sources. Are the Houthis sectarian, or nationalist? Are they less than half done taking over Yemen, or nearly successful in establishing northern independence? Are they able to govern some of the heavily Sunni regions in their existing territory? I feel like sooner or later Americans are going to get involved somehow in this fight, which is scary since I don't know a damn thing about it and 99.9% of voters probably know less than I do. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that the media is Islamophobic? Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see where you get that from. Wnt seems to be saying that there is a lot of complexity to the situation in Yemen. There are sectarian and tribal issues that go beyond the simplistic narrative provided by much of US main stream media. That observation can be generalized to most, if not all, of the current conflicts in the world. Jbh (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kuwii hinugu yiri: That wasn't really my point, though it's possible; I don't claim to be entirely above a bit of Islamophobia myself. It's pretty common, really - if you ever wanted to measure, you could see if any of your local supermarkets failed to isolate their PA systems from outside telephone lines during that wave of pranks a few years back... if one slipped up, you could try saying "Allah u akbar" a few times in that deep throaty voice over the intercom, and measure quite precisely how many people are Islamophobic and how many stay inside shopping like normal. :) Anyway, I generally believe we all have biases when writing articles; the question is whether we prioritize bias over what we can learn and share. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we not talk about personal ethnic bias? That is not a constructive avenue to pursue. And that's not what the original topic was about which was how reliable Western mainstream media sources are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Accounts and watchlists

I have six questions (including one double question) about accounts and watchlists.

• (1) How many accounts have been registered on English Wikipedia?
• (2) How many accounts on English Wikipedia have no edits?
• (3) How many editless accounts on English Wikipedia have watchlists?
• (4) How many editless accounts on English Wikipedia have been accessed after they were registered?
• (5) How many watchlists of editless accounts on English Wikipedia have been accessed?
• (6) How frequently have watchlists of editless accounts on English Wikipedia been accessed (individually and collectively)?

—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) and 23:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Idle curiosity - why do you want to know? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to have a better understanding of (a) why people register accounts, and (b) who accesses watchlists.

—Wavelength (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wavelength, I'm pretty sure that the English Wikipedia doesn't collect this type of information, especially #5 and #6. You might have better luck going to the Wikimedia Research pages and see what data has been collected and whether you can adapt what aspects of Wikipedia have been studied by others to attempt to address some of your concerns. If nothing else, maybe you can make contact with someone who can help you out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year

2014 Commons POTY

Hi Jimmy, the 2014 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year has been decided, and it is a fantastic photography of butterflies feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecudaor. Would you like to join me in congratulating the photographer for their incredible photography, (credited as amalavida.tv - Dirección de Información Turística del Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador) and also in thanking the uploader, Russavia, who secured the release of the winning image (and countless thousand others) under compatible free licences, and was so prolific in then uploading this quality content.

It would be a nice act of reconciliation if you would investigate how the WMF can again allow Russavia to resume uploading and editing at some point in the future. The nature of WMF's Global Ban (permanent, non means of appeal) is draconian and is the very antithesis of what the free content movement should be about, at the very least, I would hope you would recognise the contribution Russavia has made and would move to allow him to appeal the Global Ban in some form. Nick (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the WMF need to "allow Russavia to resume uploading and editing"? It seems that he has not stopped uploading and editing. Right now there is a discussion about an account named "EcuadorPutas" which has uploaded hundreds of files just today. Every day there are discussions on Commons about Russavia's sockpuppets. Mr Muffler (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason for anybody to reconcile with Russavia - he's the worst troll who ever appeared on Wikipedia. Anything he does now anywhere on any Wikimedia project is sockpuppeting, further proving that he can't be bothered ever to follow any rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

He can obviously never be allowed back in. Count Iblis (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Russavia being Russavia — the name "EcuadorPutas" means "EcuadorWhores." And on cue there's good old Odder, Fae, Wnt, Abd and friends chiming in to defend our Australian friend and the principle that Commons Iz Not Cenzored, Maaaaaan.... News flash: SanFranBans have got no teeth if the communities don't support them. Trolls are treated well at Commons, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely why should we allow malicious trolls to evade their blocks and bans? This dude had every chance years ago to conduct himself properly, and rejected every chance he was given, just to revel in trolling over and over again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Russavia was nothing but a troll who used Commons before, and, in my view, his ban was long overdue. The very fact that he's still socking shows that he has a complete disregard for our policies and if we let him edit again the same sort of behaviour will ensue. As much as that picture is nice, there were also pictures uploaded with the intention of disrupting Wikipedia.--5 albert square (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Among a great many productive contributions, Russavia may have been involved in a few provocative things, but many people feel he was within his rights on the only issues we think are associated with his ban. The problem is, if the WMF wants to ban people without explaining why, and for what we think is insufficient reason, then why should the community of volunteers, people who don't rate an explanation, take part in enforcing it? Wikipedia was supposed to be open, inclusive, everything on the record, and above all, uncensored, and such volunteer work is diametrically opposite to the reasons why people participate. The present objection to his username seems undermined by User:Pleclown's citation of [8]; in any case, he has not resorted to wholesale trolling in any normal sense - the worst you can really accuse him of is resisting unstated censorship criteria, which of course in every society is the most serious of all possible crimes, but not from the people's perspective. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia was supposed to be open, inclusive, everything on the record, and above all, uncensored", Wrong. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a platform for trolls who seem to think that intentionally offending people for no legitimate purpose is a political act. It isn't. It is nothing but the sort of egotistical attention-seeking behaviour that the rest of us grew out of by the time we started school. If people want to campaign against censorship, fine - do so where it actually matters, and where it is actually occurring. In places where real protests against real censorship have real consequences. Or would actually taking a meaningful risk rather than engaging in facile willy-waving be too much for these individuals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at the center of scores of controversies. Sometimes the good guys are out ahead: Jimmy Wales' recent lawsuit against the NSA. The SOPA protest. The PD-Art tag. Rorschach blots. Muhammad images - before Charlie Hebdo. French spies who want to re-classify their old nuke command bunker. Critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. Jihadist source links. Sometimes they seem to be behind: URAA files. "The Good Old Naughty Days." The Aaron Swartz memorial protest against mass surveillance. And, yes, the inimitable Pricasso, whose pen is mightier than the sword. But always Wikipedia is relevant, and when it stands against censorship, it matters. The principles that convince people to stand against censorship therefore also matter. What doesn't matter is "meaningful risk" - reason wants principles, not martyrs - which is not to say it doesn't exist. There is a great evil rising, the "Internet Referral Unit" with its (at least) pan-European mandate to suppress any political thought it dislikes; working hand in hand with the spies it seeks to be the sole arbiter of allowable thought. It is the companion of spies who think they are gods, warriors with neither uniform nor honor, machines that command men, defense companies who make themselves the root of all fears, and already it expects Wikipedia to take its orders. There is as much real war to be had here as anywhere in the world, and it won't be long now until that becomes too clear. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Russavia is just another front in the "good content contributor, bad person" war, and Jimmy and the WMF have already made their positions well known on the subject. Don't expect anything to change here. KonveyorBelt 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[8] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks." Count Iblis (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender bias in Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia (a new WikiProject) "seeks to bring Oregon Ducks together to collaborate in working against gender bias on Wikipedia".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias in news media

This article can help editors to avoid biased [ˈbīəst] news reports.

• "Can You Trust the News Media?"

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) and 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)