User talk:Jimbo Wales

Re: Just a thought and to open a discussion

[1] Would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to run geotargeted (to the US) neutral "get out the vote" banners at the time of the US election? Just to focus on whether or not it would be appropriate for us as a community, note that it would be perfectly legal for us as a 501(c)(3) charity as long as it is not suggesting to people which candidate to vote for.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

No Jimbo, you made a speech at the 2016 Democrat convention.[2] Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, who are the Democrats 2016 nominees for president and VP later had a "session" on Quora.[3][4] which you are an investor in.[5] Emily Goldstein (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That argument seems utterly irrelevant. Jimbo suggested an action as a community, which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have gotten much support (I blame the Republicans' fondness for voter suppression and low turnouts). Virtually everyone weighing in on this matter, for or against, has some political opinion or association. Frankly, it seems like you're crossing into "WP:opposition research", trying to come up with personal data about a contributor rather than discussing the idea itself - you might want to try a slice of that trout yourself. I think that the geotargeting is a bad idea - Wikipedia should serve the same knowledge to all - but I think that we could have one line in the ITN template for upcoming elections that links (via clickable national flags) to articles on each nation's imminent elections. Wnt (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous respondent on the matter of casting aspersions over the OP. However, it's probably fair to note that Jimbo has two remaining ties here that at least potentially give him special influence: his founder bit and his Chair Emeritus status. As for the latter, I'm not sure it means anything more than being a former chair - have other former chairs had this status conferred on them? Is it an official designation endorsed by the WMF or a self-given epithet? In any case, (1) I can see where Emily is coming from, (2) I believe that encouraging voter turnout would be A Good Thing(tm) and in the spirit of IAR if nothing else, and (3) I looked at the previous lengthy discussion and saw that there was no clear consensus in favour of the motion. Samsara 16:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with en:WP putting up a banner on Nov. 8 geotargetted to the US. In the previous discussion there were many "but we don't do other stuff" arguments. I don't consider those to be real arguments - folks who want or don't want to do other stuff should just have those discussions elsewhere and make their decisions about those specific issues separately. If there are people who think any vote is "a vote for the establishment" or similar theoretical considerations - they should feel free not to vote, but as a practical matter a "Please vote in today's election" lets people know that they have a real choice to make. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• We need to keep Wikipedia apolitical on its face, pro-knowledge, pro-facts, pro-rationalism, and pro-enlightenment under the surface. Building a world filled with intelligent human beings is subversive, braying about the latest political cause or cheerleading for getting out the vote is not. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Braying"? "Please vote in today's election" is a simple apolitical request. I'll suggest a two line banner "November 8, Time to Vote; U.S. Federal Election". I'd say "you're braying like a donkey," but you might take that as being political. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There's an equivocation here of impartial and apolitical. In a flattering light, with a favourable wind, and a bit of a squint, "Please vote in today's election" might be considered the former; it is not, however, anywhere remotely within crying distance of the latter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is hard to be pro-knowledge, pro-rationalism, and pro-enlightenment without also thinking that it would be a good thing for our readers (who will tend to be all those things much more often than those who don't read us) go out and vote. Words like "braying" and "cheerleading" don't seem to be particularly helpful in terms of thinking about this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It is, however, possible to be pro-knowledge, pro-rationalism, pro-enlightenment; to think that it would be good for our readers to go out and vote; and still think that it would be wrong for us to use this platform to explicitly encourage them to do so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Living in the UK, I have drafted and deleted this post multiple times for fear it may cause untoward responses. I hope it does not. I have a concern that placing some sort of "please vote" just before the US elections will not help the view that many hold that WP-Eng is US-centric and US controlled, and not sincerely considered to be a global project. I wonder how people would be reacting to this if the question of placing a banner was raised after the US elections. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful remark and for your thoughtful concern - it is a valid one, and one that I share.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

When they say 'geotargeted' they mean the banner will show up for people in the US only. This doesn't eliminate the perception that it is US-centric, but it does minimise it to the people who are aware of it. Of course the real problem is that at this stage it is just as likely to encourage Trump supporters as Clinton. And no one wants Trump supporters to actually vote. We all saw what happened with Brexit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"We all saw what happened with Brexit" - yes, democracy triumphed over bureaucracy for a change; though what relevance that has to Trump/Clinton is beyond me, unless you are indulging in a bit of retrospective politicking. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not. Short-selling bureaucracy is almost always a sucker bet. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In a sense, democracy triumphed in that case, but I think it would be hard to argue, Martin, that the world would be worse off if the kinds of people who like to get informed about the issues by reading the details voted more often. You might be of the view that Brexit was a good idea and that well-informed people should have been for it, of course. (Not many will agree with you, but that's actually irrelevant to both your point and mine.) I am always much happier with the result of any democratic vote if I believe the electorate is well-informed, even if I personally do not agree with their decision. I do have grave concerns about the outcomes of democratic votes when the people have been lied to and the issues muddled with mindless fear-mongering. This is not unique to the US presidential election, nor to the Brexit vote - it is possible (and common) in all democratic societies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As I see it three things are needed: (1) get the voters out (and yes we should "want[s] Trump supporters to actually vote"); (2) ensure the voters are better informed; (3) ensure the media are reliable as a source of information (I take it as a given that the political parties are biased). Back in the '70s and '80s when I had more free time I was actively involved in politics issue (1) was a point all three main parties agreed upon. Tellers tend to be fairly friendly to each other and pass the time between recording voters in continuous chatter! Issue (2) is a harder nut to crack. I could name places where "tribal voting" is such an issue that Caligula's horse would be elected if it wore the right rosette. Maybe I'm getting old and cynical though, after all I voted in the first Euro-referendum, and both sides were being "economical with the truth" over that one also. So the get back to the grist: "no one wants Trump supporters to actually vote" is plain wrong, morally and literally. Linking it to Brexit as if both were evils that could be avoided if we stopped people whom we disagreed with from voting is simply anti-democratic. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought such geotargetting would only increase perceptions of WP being US-centric in populations outside the US. Would we want to see headlines such as "Wikipedia sends a message that can only be read in the US"? Has geotargetting ever been done before by WP-Eng? This really should not be happening unless it is the start of a process that is continued for all general elections in which WP-Eng can be read, something I think would cause major headaches. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Geotargeting seems to be done on a regular basis, though not for elections AFAIK. In one case I asked for an announcement for folks in Pennsylvania to take photos of each municipality in the state (less than 400 to go out of 2565 munis!) Geotargetting is not exact, we got a few folks from Maryland asking what was going on. But the banners are easily dismissed and even more easily ignored, so I don't think anybody should get upset by seeing one of these.

As far as "no one wants Trump supporters to actually vote." Wrong - though they don't share my views, it would be wonderful if there was a huge turnout, say 80% of registered voters rather than 60%. This would let people know that we actually have gotten the government that we've chosen, given limited choices. Of course all elections offer limited choices, so perhaps we can then focus on the changing the system of presenting the choices in the election. Or perhaps we could focus on changing our individual choices to be more realistic. This is not entirely theoretical. Perhaps after the election one party might say "We got a record turnout of our base and still couldn't win. Maybe it's time to broaden our base." All-in-all a large turnout is good for everyone. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding election info to "In the news"

I think of myself as favoring the general idea, but I would oppose both geotargeting and "Please vote". There is no need to give commands to readers, and there is no need to play games where different readers are introduced to different ideas. It wouldn't do me any harm at all to know if there's an election upcoming in Nepal or Bolivia; I'd feel miffed to be left out by some machine, and that's even not being an absentee voter from one of those countries. All I want is something like:

In the news

The ATR 72 involved in the crash Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Brazilian state of São Paulo, killing all 62 people on board. Sheikh Hasina resigns as the prime minister of Bangladesh following anti-government protests, and Muhammad Yunus is appointed leader of an interim government. Following a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland. The United States, Russia, and their respective allies agree to a prisoner exchange of 26 people. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Summer Olympics timeline Recent deaths: Miguel Ángel Gómez Martínez Jon McBride Susan Wojcicki Kalatiku Paembonan Taberon Honie Galboda Gnanissara Thera Upcoming elections:

On this day...

Note this is a visual mockup only - the flags each need a specific link set to a relevant article about the country's upcoming elections, and the Portal:Politics link isn't really very useful either, and I didn't actually check what non-US countries have elections soon so those are totally random flags, but you should get the idea. We can have this - not just now, but ongoing. In fact, at this point my best hope to get this through I think is to wait until AFTER the political warriors have retreated to try to make this proposal, to benefit some other country which, hopefully, has a chance to pick a better leader than the U.S. will. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Basic endorsement Elections are inescapably upcoming major news, so it makes sense to include them in that section in the weeks immediately preceding. There would then be a need to determine eligibility, e.g. an election in Moldova (3 million people) or San Marino (32k and one of the oldest democracies) vs. one in Uttar Pradesh (200 million) or California (37 million). Samsara 07:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I think displaying ongoing elections in general in that way is an excellent idea. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 08:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In my mind I've been going back and forth regarding this approach. On the one hand, it has the purpose of getting out the vote, which doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. On the other hand it is informative in a general way because it is displaying a type of upcoming notable event, viz. elections. If one argues for it on the basis of the latter, then why should it be limited to elections as the only type of upcoming notable events to be displayed, if that's the case? Some examples of other types of notable upcoming events at various times in the future are religious holidays, sporting events, etc. Also, by the same logic as encouraging people to vote, we could encourage people to observe their religious holidays, support their sports teams at upcoming sporting events, etc., which also doesn't seem appropriate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I also like user|Wnt's idea of a flag. This is informative and totally neutral. I think the many comments in this thread about whether a "go and vote" statement would be neutral or not is indicative that many would perceive it not to be a neutral statement, and so should be dropped. As for which countries elections should be flagged up, our Country article states there are 206 sovereign states. Given that many countries have several years between general elections, this does not seem like an overly arduous task for those sufficiently motivated to keep this up to date. If it is problematic, we could fall back on covering only English speaking countries on the basis this is WP-Eng. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A good idea, but so is what Jimbo has suggested. No reason we can't have both. It's just elementary civics, not "braying" or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The geolocate seems like an indecent liberty to be taking with the reader. If we do that, the next thing you know we'll be serving up versions of our articles with "PBUH" after Muhammad if they call in from the Middle East, or leaving out disturbing feature articles about human centipedes if they call in from a school. If there's one thing we should have learned from the past 15 years of tech being pushed at us, it's that dumb is beautiful. I don't think people appreciate what a privilege it is - one soon to be sorely missed - to go into a market and have a price on the rack that doesn't change depending on who looks at it. You really think you can order a can of cola out in public for $1 where the facial recognition software can spot you, and get a whole bottle for 68 cents inside when the machine knows you're a sucker? It's like that. Wikipedia isn't a sleazy for-profit site that is spying on your preferences and selling them and trying to tailor what it covers to match your prejudices - it serves one text to everyone, one truth to everyone that people have to bicker over as people, and it's up to you the reader to adjust your preferences or your URL if you want some other truth. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't go along with the "next thing you know" line of argument because things don't happen unless we want them to happen. We are not zombies or automatons. It's not as if a Supreme Court ruling has been handed down, creating binding precedent. It's just a simple civic act. Strikes me as innocent. Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Why not encourage voting? After all, the more people voting, the lower the (reported) percentage for Trump and Clinton will be, despite all the work Wikipedia has put into protecting the Clinton coterie. SashiRolls (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

E/C Core, please could you clarify whether you favour this "simple civic act" to be a one-off for the US election, or whether it would continue for other countries subsequent to the US election? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd do it for every country in the English-speaking world during national elections. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Core. How do you (and others) feel about referenda? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We could also have a banner saying "turn your computer off! save the planet!" every time a Goldstein whacks a big brother with a virtual trout. but that would lower productivity :) SashiRolls (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I still disagree about these two issues. First, as a reader I'd like to be reminded when elections are coming up, but that is even more true about elections in other countries than in my own. I mean, I know when the election in the U.S. is - the others, I just get news articles after the fact that Ivory Coast is rewriting its constitution, etc. Often as individuals we'll ignore those stories, but if we decide to join the discussion -- in advance, before our mass media mentions it -- we might bring in facts that people in those countries probably haven't heard from their media, just as folks from quite a wide range of more sensible countries could educate Americans about health care policy. That kind of scholarship and cooperative international pursuit of the truth is Wikipedia's golden opportunity, instead of some traditional GOTV campaign. And the other thing is simply I see no point in a verbose command that people vote. If you put up a country's flag and mention the word "election", people will be reminded. What is the point of getting on your high horse and telling them to vote? They already know they ought to vote. They might benefit from a reminder, and they very well might benefit from the article the reminder links to, but they won't benefit from having somebody preach at them. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt:Can you please articulate the harm this proposal would do? I'm talking about the original one thrown out for discussion. Apart from "slippery slope," is there anything else? Coretheapple (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it really is a matter of the "slippery slope" to me - nearly everyone who goes on any slippery slope says they're not going to fall down, but they usually do, and afterward they'll make fun of you for ever believing it wasn't about getting to the bottom, and tell you to accept you lost with grace. I'd go so far as to say that geolocating visitors for any reason is already a slippery slope that should not have been started down in the first place. Yeah, I know, what if someone wants a meetup in their area? What if someone wants to serve a GOTV message? What if someone wants to get paid to run those stuffy notices out of the "official notices" section of the newspaper, or decide whether letting Syrians read an article about encryption violates export restrictions? I think this is one step further in the wrong direction. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I already get notices on occasion concerning wiki-conferences in my area. Doesn't bother me. I assume these are not sent to everyone, just to accounts in a certain area. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. if it's any consolation my "better idea" isn't getting any better of a reception at Wikipedia talk:In the news, alas. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a "get out and vote" message, we did something similarly US-centric with SOPA, why not the presidential election? Surely it's more important than SOPA would have been. Everymorning (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please could you explain what was done in this instance. By the way, coming from the UK, I had to look up what SOPA was! DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, we had a banner up to oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act. I do not see this as US-centric. WP-Eng follows US copyright laws and given that the bill was to make copyright considerably more complex on WP, I see that banner as being WP-Centric and absolutely OK. Another editor gave us the example of a geotargetted request for images of a particular area. That sounds like a perfectly sensible way of using the technology. I would request the same if I wanted photos of Somerset where I live. I can not pretend that I understand why a "Get out and vote" statement would be pro/anti Clinton/Trump, but clearly, other editors do perceive this as a problem. If this is the case, then I feel a WP statement would be dabbling in external politics and should be avoided for the time being. I think the one thing many of us would agree on globally is that this US election has been extremely polarising. Given the heat that is being generated both on and off-Wiki, my feeling is that no decision on banners or statements etc. should be made until the US election has finished. We can then discuss this with more objective mind-sets. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you've got it right when you wrote, "Given the heat that is being generated both on and off-Wiki, my feeling is that no decision on banners or statements etc. should be made until the US election has finished. We can then discuss this with more objective mind-sets." --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That is one of the less thought-out statements I've read recently. You don't establish fire procedures after the burn has ravaged your town, you do it before. Samsara 23:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow - what is the fire that is going to ravage WP-Eng if we do not put up a banner saying "go out and vote" in the next 7? days? DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My comment addresses the logic content of the statement, no decision [...] should be made until [after]. Samsara 00:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That message [23:56] inadvertently supports waiting. Also, note the number of elections that have taken place since the inception of Wikipedia that haven't had vote banners in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Samsara 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean that this suggestion for a vote banner has come up in previous years and didn't get consensus? Maybe you have a link? Anyhow, I wasn't thinking that there was a consensus against a vote banner in previous years, only that not having a vote banner on Wikipedia has not caused any problem AFAIK regarding "the burn has ravaged your town". (This burn phrase reminds me of the term "truthful hyperbole".) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Why won't wikipedia do geo-targeted "Merry Christmas"-banners? 174.22.247.50 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that endorses a particular religion, whereas "go out and vote" is neutral. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Most people in the United States celebrate Christmas in some form, not all connecting it to religion, but rather saying, for example, that it is family-time or tradition of some sort. At the same time, there are people who do not vote for religious reasons. A banner encouraging people to vote endorses those religious convictions that are not opposed to voting while lobbying against other religions and telling their followers that they should convert - which is a case that could be made, but honesty would have one say that it is a religious stance or statement. 174.22.247.50 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Note [6] and take one of these [7]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Geotargeted Christmas messages would be an illustration of a very steep slippery slope. I mean, if you do those, then you're considered biased unless you do others for Holi and Eid, etc. Then you do a geotargeted greeting for a Hindu holiday (only) throughout India, including its portion of Kashmir... what could possibly go wrong?

Let's be clear: looking at the user's IP to make assumptions about him - any assumptions - is a really bad thing. It isn't always as obvious as it would become in Kashmir, but it's always taking an indecent liberty with the user. If people want to go to a meetup, they should set preferences - maybe they actually intend to be in another city next year. Making these snap judgments on IPs is a new phenomenon which shares an underlying cause of unease with older fallacies like racism. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Would a banner have an effect on WP-Eng readers?

Assuming that "Get out and vote" is neutral, do people think that such a banner on WP-Eng would have that effect on voters in the US elections? My own view is that in the UK, it would have negligible effect on increasing voter numbers. Just my opinion. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It would have a positive effect on readers and editors of Wikipedia. How much? I'll guess +10% of these folks in the battleground states. In states where the outcome is pretty much known, it's a lot harder to motivate people. The U.S. electoral college really messes this up. In any case, these folks will likely be younger and more educated than the average voter. And, of course, more likely to be connected to the internet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're perpetuating a dangerous fallacy that results in elections not having the outcome desired by the electorate when you use the phrase, states where the outcome is pretty much known. Samsara 17:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what fallacy you're referring to, but I'm referring to things like http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ where they put Clinton's chance of winning California's 55 electoral votes as greater than 99.9%, but in Oklahoma Trump's chance of winning their 7 electoral votes is greater than 99.9% chance. (Hover the arrow over the states on the map to see these predictions). Only in the so called battleground states do you see chances of winning something like 50.5% to 49.5% (FLA). I don't think that Californians or Oklahomans would disagree with these predictions or disagree with the resulting allocation of electoral votes. They will get what they want given the limitations of the US election system. I'm not arguing here that the election should be based exclusively on the popular vote, but that obviously could come up with different results. In any case, the effect of a banner would almost certain be greater in Florida than in California or Oklahoma. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Using WikiLeaks as a source

As you might know, the U.S. media has been busily quoting, for weeks/months, from WeakiLeaks (whatever) as a whatever source which the whoever "campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity" of the emails. I had hoped this would remain a U.S. media-bias problem of can't-find-enough-interesting-in-what the candidates are saying about government tasks, so quote from the stolen documents promoted as "authentic" by WakiLeaks instead of reporting actual comments by candidates; however, I see WP has the page "Podesta emails" (re John Podesta, Democratic campaign official), which relies on contents from the purported stolen, non-authenticated documents. So instead of the term "primary sources" should we use the term "crimary sources" (per alleged cybercrimes or criminal activities) as what-the-huh text presented as officially stolen ramblings promoted by an organization whose leader is on the run as an alleged child-molester fugitive? Note: One person quoted in emails has said the information (purported as "real email") contains comments which were false about the related issues. So, what to do with "crimary sources"? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks wouldn't be a valid source regardless - we don't cite wikis. However, if I'm not mistaken, we have in the past cited news agencies who report on the contents of material obtained this way (See also: the Edward Snowden revelations, the Wikileaks diplomatic cable release, Deep Throat.). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side observation, Wikileaks is not a wiki, and the leaked documents are not open to public editing, so while there are legitimate reasons to point out that Wikileaks is or can be challenging as a source, this isn't actually a good reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_that_are_usually_not_reliable, "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."

As far as I know, Wikileaks does not check the authenticity of material that they release, so they aren't a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, if that's what you're asking. On the other hand, if a reliable source publishes material released by Wikileaks as authentic, then the material will have come from a reliable source.--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Who is the accused child molestor you blame for the stolen emails? You couldn't mean him...? Wnt (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the emails, I think that it is important to link and quote primary sources when they are discussed in reliable sources. We cannot use them unsupported to make claims against people, but we should provide readers with a convenient link to the source document at issue. Any paraphrase editors might make leads to POV issues over how to "spin" the content, and it's just better to show the reader the thing itself. Wnt (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP would generally prevent linking to primary sources in this situation even when covered by a reliable secondary source due to various issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a misinterpretation. BLP does not attempt to suppress notable allegations. I think it is a more responsible and measured to simply direct the reader to the document in question than to pontificate about it in prose. Certainly the Wikileaks emails, when read, seem like a whole lot of nothing, no matter how the media reports about them bluster. There is something about reading a leaked document that encourages one to put himself in the person's place rather than just seizing on a few words a hostile commentator wants to mention. Wnt (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. In a BLP we would generally (there are exceptions) not link to a primary source that contained problematic information about a living person. We would link to a secondary reliable source that commented/covered it. An obvious example: Primary source titled 'WNT eats babies' contains defamatory content stating you eat babies, but also contains details on your tax evasion. Reliable secondary source uses primary documents to write story on your tax evasion. We would link/reference the secondary source only due to the primary source being unreliable and containing information that is extremely problematic. This is why we do not link or reference blogs, self-published sources etc in BLP's. We dont put them in external links except where they are primary for the subject themselves, etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Given Wikileaks' well documented ideological commitment to destroying Clinton, it should not be used as a primary source. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In this vein, the NY Times is being challenged as an unreliable source on Cheryl Mills page. But then, so is CNN, the Wall Street Journal, Politico, Zero Hedge, etc. On the other hand, the Daily Beast (owned by IAC (company) is such a good source that it can be copied verbatim into Wikipedia without reprimand since Chelsea Clinton is on the board... cf. here) SashiRolls (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That is something that should be taken to RSN. Its not that the material was originally on wikileaks that is the problem in this case, its that news coverage of current events is considered a primary source. In Mills case, its a mixture of current coverage (the leaks) about a historical event (the content of the emails). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, and your answer, which I'll puzzle over. It's a reasonably unclear question to me, in-jokes are dangerous, because you never have the context. I'll follow your advice, the story is from March, there is no deadline. And for me the story is mostly Haiti on English Wikipedia, not Cheryl Mills. ( her Krèyol/French/English/Latin page ).SashiRolls (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't think that citing Wikileaks is like citing "WNT eats babies" to provide a primary reference on some tax return. Wikileaks basically provides the leaks, with pretty minimal commentary. But the more important issue is that even if a truly loathsome site is the source of information that secondary news sources go on to describe, we should still reference it. I mean, if the KKK claims they have Donald Trump's federal tax return, and the rest of the news media goes on to discuss what they read at that site, then we link to the freaking KKK. There is never a better source than the horse's mouth, no matter what kind of a mouth that horse has. You can deplore the site or the perspective all you want, but scholarship isn't about agreeing with your source, but having it and reading it. I would argue "WELLKNOWN" covers this, and whether it did or not it is the right thing to do. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was using an extreme example in order to get you to understand why we explicitly do not do what you are suggesting we do. "There is never a better source than the horse's mouth" is not a wikipedia policy and in fact goes against almost all our sourcing policies excepting where someone is making an uncontentious statement about themselves. And note the 'uncontentious' bit there, subjects of biographies cannot even be trusted to always tell the truth. David Irving would have you believe he is not a holocaust denier or anti-semite. Our article explicitly states otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It is true that BLP says "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". But using them as a source of material about a person is different from citing them so readers can find the original claim being discussed in other sources. In other words, if I write a blog about Donald Trump, don't cite it at the end of any new sentence or phrase. If I write that blog and the New York Times and the Washington Post start quoting and analyzing it, then you should cite it so readers have direct access, in a sentence that is backed up properly by those responsible secondary sources. You're not using it then to provide material (except perhaps to expand a quote), but simply to improve the quality of citations present in the article.

Never am I so adamant about letting the subject have his say than with articles about people like David Irving. When Wikipedia paints someone as a villain, they should have a right to be heard, to put up their defense so to speak, by means of having their own statements about themselves relayed to the reader. Often they convict themselves out of their own mouth; sometimes when that happens the 'ethical' people will turn up to defend them from their own words even though they still stand by them! But I'm against that too. Whenever there is a trial or any issue for debate, and that issue is noteworthy enough for us to cover the dispute, then neither side deserves to be treated as a "fringe" so unmentionable and unimportant that we don't even allow people to know what they had to say. We are not here to decide who was right in every controversy around the world; we are here to let the reader know what the controversy was, and that involves letting them understand what one side said and the other side said. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy that Wikileaks is so tainted for its political animus that it should not be used as a primary source. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Using leaked pages to judge website not people

I am wondering if the extensive volume of various leaked pages could be used to help judge a WeakiLeeks organization, as judged in secondary sources, for the purported contents of pages without mentioning unauthenticated page details about the wp:BLP victims claimed in those pages. For example in U.S. law, a party could offer, "We did not steal the car, but just drove it around the world to show what was given to us by anonymous sources"; however that situation could constitute "theft by receiving" as still an unlawful activity and does not authorize them to use stolen property. In the U.S., even some stolen items purchased at a pawnshop could still be a case of theft by receiving, and does not absolve them of guilt, especially if the payment was less than current value of items. Hence, the website could be judged for cybercrimes without mentioning page details about the wp:BLP victims. If they announce they have a stolen "car" or secret emails or proprietary formula, then that statement, together with the owner declaring materials were not given for leaked use could be the evidence to support judgment against the website or perpetrator for using stolen property, or conspiracy to commit those acts. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In short no. In long - you need to read the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and you will find your question answered. Also would you stop using 'weakileeks' it looks petty and moronic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it obvious in using 'weakileeks' to avoid other names (HINT-HINT). Now, as for reading wp:RS to find question answered, well if I read 5 million WP pages I wouldn't even get an explanation of "theft by receiving" though well-known for over 20 years. There are huge holes in WP's coverage of topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comment is hard to understand, but the way I see it, there is never anything inherently wrong with passing on information when we have made no promise to keep it a secret. You can be justifiably afraid that, despite the right of the matter, some goon will sue over copyright or some even weirder doctrine, but that has to be based on some kind of legal warning by those deeply in the know. Even for lawyers, there is no reliable way to predict in advance whether it will YouTube that is illegal and Napster that is legal or the other way around, and the legality of any modern news source like Gawker depends solely on the amount of money laid up against it, but still, lawyers are not as unreliable as ad hoc arguments. And so far they have mostly not been telling Wikipedia or any other part of the press to be afraid-very-afraid. Wnt (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I find YouTube videos of professional performances being yanked down all the time, not sure how long they are viewed before deleted. So, there are clearly legal limits in force. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Great Speech Tonight at Cato

I just wanted to say your speech was really good at Cato tonight. You cited the gender bias (based on the fact that more editors happen to be male than female) which is totally real (and I think understood by the wikipedia community), but I fear a lot more political bias (based on the fact that more editors happen to be liberals than conservatives). Which tends to infect questions of proper weight more often than I would like. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you for the great speech! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 November 2016

Looks like a link is [8] - as far as I can tell this was a live stream, but it links to Twitter postings including a statement the video "will be available". Wnt (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: It appears to be available on C-SPAN. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 14:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Trump

Dear Mr. Wales, I really have a hard time to see by which degree the coverage in Wikipedia is pro Trump and against Clinton. I am really not in favour of Mrs. Clinton, she would be a very bad president, but Mr. Trump will to an exponential degree be so much worse, a literally nuclear threat to America and the whole world. (I'm really wondering why the American people are not using the four alternatives they have, but that's another topic.) The support of the ridiculous exaggerations, lies and malicious threats by the Trump campaign against Mrs. Clinton, women and minorities takes so much more room here in Wikipedia than the well-founded and sourced documentations of all the legal and illegal machinations of Mr. Trump. There are a really high number of new & very experienced users working on keeping and enforcing that disparity. Do you see too, how much the neutrality of Wikipedia is already damaged? And what do you think & plan what can be done? --SI 06:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is politically neutral (as a charity and by mission anyway), but the best way of undermining Trump is by being accurate about him. Anybody who reads our article on Trump and would still vote for him, is not going to change their mind whatever we do. Having read the article the best you can hope for is that his fingers would not quite be long enough to reach the nuclear button when he loses his temper. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The OP might be blinded by his own prejudice. I for one have witnessed the opposite trend unfold: overwhelming emphasis on bashing Trump and protecting Clinton. Editors trying to bring back some kind of dispassionate sanity to the election pages are quickly accused of bias and cabal. Nerves of steel are a must! However, if Trump supporters see Clinton bias and Clinton lovers see Trump bias, Wikipedia as a whole is probably doing a good job… — JFG ^talk 09:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Concur with that, in particular the last sentence. Listening to all the accusations of Wikipedia bias, I was confused as to the direction of the bias. At that point I stopped listening. I long ago stopped claiming that "I don't have an (U.S. regional) accent" because my speech sounds accent-neutral to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an accent because I went to a thousand-year-old school. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Male voters for Trump
• 
  Male dominance in Wikipedia
• 
  Female voters for Clinton

The development of this discussion is as I had expected due to the well-known and proven Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. The majority of white, male contributors here certainly are convinced that their own POV was neutral. But it's not. --SI 15:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

More male voters have polled for Clinton: Rejecting a male-bias voter hypothesis, recent polls have shown more U.S. men prefer the experienced woman for President, Hillary Clinton over male Trump, but the polled voter numbers are as a total nationwide, not by count of red/blue states. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Those maps are pretty bogus - it's one guy at fivethirtyeight.com finding an average gap between Clinton and Trump for the country, then applying that gap onto the aggregate male+female vote for each state. I mean, it might be true, but it's also possible that Clinton has a widely variable margin with women, which would make the maps look completely different. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Knowing as I do hundreds of Wikipedians, I find it highly unlikely that Wikipedia has any significant bias towards Donald Trump. If you, SI can bring forward any very specific examples, it might be more helpful than throwing out a claim that I think most of us would find highly implausible. Someone claimed to me the other day that our articles on Hillary Clinton read like campaign material for her, which I also find highly implausible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Current examples: 1: removal of sources & content from an article to force for its deletion, 2: "if you can somehow, miraculously convince everyone editing the article to stop edit warring and to leave sexual misconduct out of the lead section until the RfC is resolved, then I'll withdraw my (AE) complaint." (against you), ... --SI 17:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm pro-Trump, guilty as charged! Oh wait... Once again SI, look before you leap. I'd say "AGF" but that would fall on deaf ears once again. {I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also please compare

• Template:Donald Trump series (expand all collapsables!) to Template:Hillary Clinton series
• Template:Trump to Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton

--SI 17:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: There are WikiProjects for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. If there are specific articles requiring discussion, you might try one of these venues. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many issues/lies to handle fast

The coverage of the numerous, expanding issues has been overwhelming for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. For example Donald Trump's tax returns, with minimal payment of federal income tax have been in recent news, with need for longer-term reports. Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton email controversy, though cleared by the FBI and U.S. Justice Department in July 2016, has not emphasized when Clinton reported how actual classified documents, or diplomatic cables, were read as hardcopy printouts in her office at the U.S. State Department ("hard copy" source: NYT [9], HillaryClinton.com [10]). Also, the emails did not contain classified information marked as such, or were classified by one department but not by another at the time, as noted in spoken comments (July 2016 "classified by one department but not by another"?), and such details are a total game-changer to realize some groups considered the documents as unclassified, but Wikipedia has trouble sourcing to spoken statements, as another example of why Wikipedia might seem biased toward Trump, but the full details are difficult to cover and source in rapid time. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:30, +sources 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In what way is this our problem to fix? I suppose you could have a list of lies told by the Trump campaign but a pound says it would be nuked speedily.

Incidentally, some of this may rely on the exact definition of classified. For example, we handle Official and Official-Sensitive documents in significantly different ways. Ironically this may be a case where Hillary did not have textual relations with that document. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember another Clinton arguing about what the definition of "is" is. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)0

Well, there you go again, as it was Bill Gates (before Bill Clinton), who questioned the meaning of the word "is" (along with other word meanings), I think in August 1998, as part of the Microsoft antitrust case, "United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Trial". However, this is another case where Wikipedia cannot keep up, this time with things we wish Bill Gates would not say ("The Internet is a passing fad" 1995), but there are just too many topics to handle so fast. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be promoting and encouraging people to vote for Donald Rump; it's quite obvious that he is the best man running. All this sending of emails shows a lack of communication skills, it's no better than people who send texts all the time, what is wrong with just picking up the telephone? Mrs Clinton also has dyed hair, just like a beard, that's a sure sign of untrustworthiness. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)