User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Political silly season

Currently a large number of "political" BLPs are being "added to" with editorial comments, and "charges" from political campaign organizations (which will not be examined for accuracy for months - leaving the damage pretty much there on these poor people). Might you consider declaring officially a "silly season avoidance" policy until after the election? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should decidedly not be a means of deliberately pushing "charges" of any nature which derive from political sources (if a candidate is arrested for murder, that would be quite a different matter - but we have people being accused of all sorts of improper behavior on all sides.) My own preference is that all political charges be refused in BLPs until the election, but you might wish to make a stronger or weaker statement. Cordially, Collect (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this comment is related to the WP:BLP article on David H. Koch. If I am allowed to make a prediction, I would say the ArbCom elected for 2011 will mainly be employed with disputes related to the Koch brothers and Koch Industries. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually more than a dozen articles are involved - the Koch ones are notable, but so are the others (including one accusing Charlie Crist of being a homosexual), etc. As Jimbo knows already, I treat all BLPs equally. Collect (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking of bringing a similar, more generic version of this very question to the Village pump (policy) due to what happened about a year ago at Gerald Jennings, Albany's mayor; that article was edited with information that was not always exactly what the reference stated because the facts added were cherry-picked and I did my best to control the damage and put in neutral statements, and then once the primary occurred suddenly dropped to almost nothing (primaries are in Sept in New York) and then ended altogether with the November election. There should be some sort of policy to restrict editing on politicians when they are in a campaign, we are not Wikinews and therefore delaying having new info put into an article could not possibly hurt the goal of developing an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd proposal! That Wikipedia should deliberately ignore sourced information, solely because it might help people make an informed choice in an (American) election? Maybe we should ask Hudong to launch an English version with less political censorship... or maybe we should recognize that the big problem with Wikipedia politics is not the people adding politically inconvenient references, but those taking them out. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you do not recall the edit wars about Obama's birth certificate, Palin believing in "Jesus Ponies" and Joe being a "Plumber's Ass", not to mention more serious charges about cocaine use by people, sordid affairs, illegitimate children (the Palin birth fraud inter alia) and a bunch of others. Many (almost all) of which were untrue - and which, left in place, were there for political purposes and not for encyclopedic purposes. And, of course, the fact that WP in the past has, indeed, locked some BLPs for this very reason. This has nothing to do with Chinese censorship at all, and to imply such is absurd - the aim is to prevent a huge waste of time in fixing such allegations. The purpose of WP has naught to do with promulgating campaign rhetoric and dirty tricks. Collect (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this attempted suppression of information. Certainly the charges and accusations that fly back and forth concerning public figures are sometimes true and sometimes false. We can't just ignore them until enough facts are available to generate consensus about which side is right (or until an election occurs, whichever comes first). I remember in 1972 thinking that George McGovern shouldn't detract from his solid points on the issues by making exaggerated accusations about Nixon and Watergate -- accusations that turned out to understate rather than overstate the case. Your proposal, if applicable in 1972, would have been that Nixon's Wikipedia bio carry nothing about Watergate until after the election?

The fact is that some individuals and institutions have a big enough bullhorn that they can make an issue notable even if the substance minor, or even if key points are simply wrong (such as Sarah Palin and the nonexistent "death panels" in the health insurance bill). If we want to give the reader the best available picture of the facts, we have to include notable baloney like "death panels". We shoud continue to follow the directive of WP:NPOV to report facts about opinions.

Our real problem is in the opposite direction. Too often, editors remove an accurate report of a politically noteworthy accusation, demanding that there be a reliable source for it. Certainly we need to have confidence that the spokesperson whom we're quoting or paraphrasing actual made the comment, but it's not possible to find a reliable source to "prove" something like "Obama's stimulus package was wasteful" or "Congressional Republicans are overusing the filibuster". We need more, not less, openness to fairly summarizing the major debates that concern a particular article subject (whether BLP or not), even though we anticipate that more information will be available in another year or two. JamesMLane t c 08:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not have enough scurrilous material on people? Look at [1], [2] , [3] and more show the opinion of one person about material in BLPs which does not appear to coincide with the position just stated above. Collect (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is great merit in taking additional care on political biographies during election campaigns. This does not amount to "suppression of information" but rather the opposite: a strong desire to give the public the most comprehensive accurate information possible.

During election campaigns in particular, we should be sensitive to recentism, POV-pushing, and similar woes, as they are likely to be increased as highly motivated partisans descend on Wikipedia for the first time with no understanding of our culture of neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, the problem isn' the newbies who show up, since we can recognize them and act accordingly. The really problem this project faces are the long term, persistent, agenda driven POV warriors, some of which even admitt on their user page that they have a dislike for certain peoples in our political system. They are relentless and most "regular" editors who really don't "care" eventually just give up battling these warriors. My favorite example still was Palin being a pro-rapist. The "rape-kit material" was battled over endlessly for months and months on page after page of talk page space. No one really cared until magically AFTER the election when a bunch of folks showed up in support of removing it permanently from her bio. Anyways, good luck with this :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this "rape-kit material" so I can't comment specifically on that. But I can say this: we should have very very low tolerance for regular editors POV-pushing. We can be sweet and nice to newcomers who just don't know how to behave, but once you've been around, you know what you aren't supposed to do.

At the same time, of course, it is worth acknowledging that political biographies really should cover legitimate controversies and will, by their very nature, be difficult to write. We're often trying to do something requiring heroic effort: to extract a neutral summary of the facts from a highly partisan media, while at the same time not engaging in original research and synthesis. Good people will try hard to do that.

In my view, the best Wikipedia editors are the ones whose work is so even-handed, so thoughtful and careful about reporting the facts, that one would find it nearly impossible to guess their personal political views. I strongly reject the idea that Wikipedia ought to be a place for ideas to do battle. Leave that to the newspaper. We should aim for something higher.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this very much. I have to say, Mr. Wales, I like wathcing this page, for in times when I have felt fed-up with Wikipedia, there have been statements you have made just like that which help renew my faith in this project. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes we should, but the real problem is that we have precious little to bang some of these types over the head with. POV warriors exist because they know there are no serious (enough) consequences for their actions. Unfortunately, high standards doesnt affect the minority that do the overwhelming majority of the damage. This make WP unreliable for anything even somewhat controversial.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Desribing newspaper reports impartially, reflecting current events transparently, is surely less "unreliable" than leaving out well-publicized ongoing issues that the reader wishes to learn more about.

A neutral point of view is like white light - to create it, you must allow every color of the spectrum to shine through. Everyone has biases, whether they are known or admitted or not. Only by allowing full expression to every side of an issue can one reach the level of understanding necessary to be capable of being unbiased.

I believe that when POV drives people to add relevant, sourced content to articles, fairly summarizing the sources added, it is a good thing. But when it drives people to remove such content, it is a bad thing. Only the article needs to be NPOV, and that can be managed, if need be, by the progressive additions of editors on each side. An editor who adds arguments from both sides is merely more useful than one who adds only from one side, just as an editor familiar with chemistry and French is more useful than one who only knows chemistry. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Do you know how much crap/non notable, but said to be relevant, and sourcable from reliable sources of course, "material" is added to bios to smear or drive an agenda? Tons! What would happen if we did this with the Obama article, but added arguments from both sides? It would suck. I wish every bio in this project could enjoy the "protection", "scrutny", "care", "fairness", oversight, whateveryouwanttocallit that that bio currently recieves. With 100s of 1,000s of bios out there is that possible? I am sure thats the standard Jimbo would strive for per his above comments. Also, I find the analogy about the amount somebody knows being a more useful editor highly eletist and not true. My spelling sucks but that can be fixed by others as an example :) Anwyays, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have too much "crap", i.e. too much detail, you can spin it off in a more detailed article (e.g. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Wnt (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, I think those sub articles are absolute ceespools, I won't even touch them any more. The problem is, only .0000001% of articles get them, ie, the Obama/Palin/Fox News, ects of the world. The rest, the crap remains. I am actually glad for those spin off articles, because I would rather have the crap flow down into them (hence my ceespool analogy), than float up into the surface article. Have we digressed sufficiently :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cesspool, yes —— but perhaps the defining element of American politics this year. A Wikipedia without such an article or section would have to tell some revisionist fairy tale about how the American elections were decided. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

true :), but how about when they cover BLPs? --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Wnt's analogy of NPOV to white light, being neutral does not in any way, shape, or form mean every single point of view is equal nor deserving of equal time or coverage. Science is science, faith is faith, and in an article about one the other (usually) has no relevance as an example. Fringe theories are not equal nor to be neutral do we need to give them equal time. Just because people (even a majority) believe something that does not mean we need to give it equal treatment to what the majority of EXPERTS believe, for instance. We are an encyclopedia. We may tout the mantra of "verifiable, not truth", but the rest of that is that verifiable is not the only thing, it must be reliable, professional, peer-reviewed, and accurate, not just "oh, it was reported in a newspaper so its verifiable because someone can look it up". Truth matters. Especially in a BLP. We are not a newspaper, this idea that we should "publish" everything and then after the facts are sorted out then we can delete material is dangerous and unprofessional of an encyclopedia. "Kill them all, let God sort them out"? I dont know if Wikipedia has impacted so much as 1% the votes any politician has received, but eventually it will impact one enough to make it noticeable, though probably never change the outcome. We should limit our influence. We report the past and present, we do not try to impact the present or future is my interpretation of our goal here.Camelbinky (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I said relevant sourced information — speaking of politically charged news reports about politicians, not mixing science and faith. Even so, irrelevant data doesn't need to be deleted (we have an article Young Earth creationism; we just don't give it equal time in the Evolution article). Nor was I suggesting to delete material after the fact - the way I see it, if many newspapers print a false story about someone, we should thoroughly cover the sources that prove it was false. That is far more responsible to the reputation of a living person than removing all mention and leaving the issue to smoulder on the talk page. The analogy to "killing them all" is invalid: if you do your talking with a gun I want you censored, but this isn't that. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) We must prove a scurrilous political charge is false? Which always happens well after an election! After the damage is done. Nay that has it precisely backwards. Unless and until indictments are announced, the charges emanating from political sources should have no place in a BLP. And Jimbo has it right. Really. Collect (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Anent this, I posted [4] hoping that others will find favor therewith. Collect (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, I believe your premise regarding how to put this information in and then we can always cover after the fact the sources that show these allegations to be false flies in the face our BLP policies and is the opposite of what Jimbo's stance has tended to be in these matters regarding politicians. What really is hurt by simply not reporting published allegations until it can be shown that they are accurate? Again- NOT WIKINEWS.Camelbinky (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Politicians, and their political parties, usually respond to partisan allegations quite quickly. Allegations aimed at politicians, or other persons of political relevance such as Julian Assange, should simply be documented, impartially, even when we know they're not true. The source of the allegation should be described from the beginning with great care, to ensure that its seriousness and veracity is not overestimated. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, in the WP:BLP policy itself: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" Wnt (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the words "notable, relevant, and well-documented"... you need time to pass before we know whether an allegation, or any fact, will pass those requirements. You continue to blur the lines between Wiki-news and Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia!Camelbinky (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The line between Wikipedia and Wikinews is blurry. Just look at "In the news" on the Main Page. A well-documented allegation is simply one that has appeared in several respectable sources - such as newspapers - not one where a final verdict has been determined that shall stand for all time. History tells us that final verdicts are few and far between, and Wikipedia is not a jury. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this, and here is why. First, try applying this to all articles and not just political ones. A magazine alleges that gravity disappears just a few hundred miles above Earth, causing weightlessness. A tour guide claims that the term "dogfight" came from WWI airplanes because they had to start and stop their engines during battle. A high-school textbook says that any material can be made to lase if placed between two mirrors and a light is shined on it. A newspaper article reports that grizzly bears actively hunt people in Alaska. (Believe it or not, these are real examples.) If I just take this information at face value and put it into an article, it would make not just me, but all of Wikipedia look like we're idiots. I find quite a bit of merit in taking some time to double check any allegation for veracity. I'm in no hurry.

Second, we tend to forget that we're affecting the lives of real people when we write, and respect for those people as human beings is not too much to ask. As an example, say "Joe Blow" is accused of being a child molester. Joe's name and address go up on a website to alert everyone to his presence in the neighborhood. Evidence quickly turns up that proves Joe committed no crime. Joe is acquitted and his name is taken off the website. However, many people only looked at the site once, don't know, don't believe, or just don't care that he was acquitted, and the stigma of having been publicly labled a molester sticks with an innocent man for the rest of his life. There should be no need to sacrifice quality, accuracy, and human decency for speed. We have a responsibility to not only our readers, but also to our subjects and our sources to get the information correct. We have a responsibility to each other. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter what you say, in any community in just about any country, if you get arrested for child molesting, it's going in the paper. The police department will cheerfully run you through a "perp walk" so they can all get your picture. That's what people in the wider world think is ethical.

Here on Wikipedia, we aren't as bad as that. We don't put the arrestee under a gag order, then run a news story with leaks from the prosecution answered by silence. We look around - or should - for sources that tell the story from other perspectives. And we don't stop and publish when the story is a day old - we keep building it up until all the sides are in. An even-handed and comprehensive coverage of allegations is far more humane than leaving the subject of the biography to be known only from copyrighted sources found on a web search that give the "facts" from the day after the arrest.

Those who would defy established BLP policy and say that allegations shouldn't be reported, wouldn't allow us to build up that body of evidence and go over all the details and research all the gaps. They say that the negative story shouldn't be covered now because it is too soon - but later they'll say it was only "temporarily" notable, or that because the person was exonerated that it would be improper to include it, or that because he was guilty the article is only an attack piece. There's always some new theory to exclude what they don't like, and of course all the while that "talk" goes on, it is their divine right to exclude anything they want from the text. Needless to say, they never run out of excuses. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont find them to be "excuses" but instead legitimate points of argument and if you cant counter our points then they are legit points that show exactly why something shouldnt be used in an article. Yes, you have a burden of proof to provide to other users. Sorry, but its true. If someone being arrested for child porn isnt in multiple official biographies published by third-party reliable sources (not hired by the said person) then it really isnt notable if you happen to find a newspaper article about them being arrested for it. Notability matters!Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote that is quite applicable- *Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson and I expand that to say it is better to err on the side of caution and NOT put in these rumors and allegations until history sorts it out. And the idea that history comes to conclusions few and far between is not true, it is a science and is never complete but is always moving forward and conclusions and facts are used. The idea that history and historians are not accurate and full of contradictions comes from the same people who say "evolution is just a theory" and who believe that gravity is because the centrifugal force of the Earth spinning (yes that is a real opinion of a fundamentalist Christian preacher).Camelbinky (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What Jefferson never said was that he who reads nothing is less remote from the truth than he who reads what is wrong. And we are supposed to be helping people with their reading, not their believing. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sesame Street can help people with their reading. We can help people get accurate knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us full circle. Accurate according to whom? I don't want to read what Camelbinky thinks is true, I want to read both sides of the story. You never really know which side is wrong until they convict themselves out of their own mouths. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. There are boundaries as to what is notable and what is relevant. Yes, someone must make that decision and in some articles it will be me, in others it will be another person, and in larger articles it will be a large number of editors collectively making that decision. But the point is that someone (or -ones) will be making a decision. This isnt a politically correct exercise of making sure every point of view is equal and valid and out there. Decisions are made and often one point will make it in. BLP issues are taken into consideration. You seem to not worry about any legal and/or ethical considerations regarding issues with BLP. That I find disturbing.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How can it be illegal or unethical to print what the newspapers say? Now you're misusing WP:IINFO. I get your point that you will draw the line and that what you don't like will get reverted - that is a very common point of view to encounter here. Articles are getting censored like this all over Wikipedia. But policy, ethics, and law have nothing at all to do with it. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is published in a newspaper if it ends up being libel or we on Wikipedia present the information in a manner not as carefully as the newspaper we can in fact get in legal trouble. My point about editors needing to make a stand and make tough decisions is not a bad thing and in fact it is the only way that articles become good. Cooperation among large numbers of editors is not always easy and sometimes impossible for a decision to be made that is in the best interest of the article. You think if someone comes up with a decision based on Wikipedia policy and general ethics that is contrary to your "anything goes" attitude then they are cesnoring and "what they dont like gets reverted"; it isnt about what WE want, we are reverting things that are harmful and applying general consensus regarding BLP. Sorry you disagree. This isn't censorship. Your philosophy is like that of Oliver North- "I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version." We are not here to be unduly negative about someone's life, we are not here to throw everything and the kitchen sink in a biography. Notability matters! Good grief, the fact that you dont care about the notability of what goes into an article and BLP issues regarding people's reputations is so disturbing I'm done talking about this. Frankly you are giving libertarians a bad reputation by taking their philosophy to a place it was never intended and distorting it.Camelbinky (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For inclusionist editors, no independent thought is allowed. The ban on "original research" extends not just to elaborate theories, but even things as mundane as drawing a conclusion based on two sources. Even going through and pulling out data from the results section of a scientific article draws complaints, and there's repeated pressure to ban them entirely and confine ourselves to science that is at least three or four years old (more in the case of medicine). But for the deletionist? well, the sky's the limit. It doesn't matter if there are ten sources, if a story topped the page at Google news, if it's been heard by everyone who turns on a television set - if they can go through and look at the details and find one little detail that they say doesn't add up, then it's out of here. And if they can't they can always say we're being "unduly negative" and delete it anyway, imagining libel claims never filed against the original newspaper much less the carefully toned-down BLP version of the story. No newspaper boy's cries can be heard from atop Wikipedia's ivory tower - we make our own version of the world! But only for the deletionists.

As I said before, we're not "hurting reputations" by covering the news. The information is already out there, on Google, on Bing, on Altavista - on all the services people use when they realize that Wikipedia is censored. (Especially where Republicans are concerned, who I suppose demonstrate their moral superiority by censoring articles far more aggressively) And what they find there aren't the best sources, the most reasoned effort to cover all sides of the story - what they find are gossip columns and forum posters blasting away at people for political ends.

Now maybe some people here think it is just wrong for a "copyleft" site to do what all the copyrighted sites do all over the web. Maybe the true philosophical wellspring of freedom of speech is the money charged by a corporation for copyright, which pays the retainer for its lawyers. Maybe the inclusionists should just give up and go away. Maybe one day you will have the eternal honor of deleting the very last article from Wikipedia. Maybe people from different political parties can't cover both sides of a story, and each need to find their own truths from private publishers, and can only settle their disputes with acts of terrorism. But I think not. Wikipedia is flawed by a lack of protection for sourced relevant information, and swamped by too many people who think that it's bad to have information in an encyclopedia, and its edit rate and article creation rate have been declining since 2007, but it is still worth fighting to save it. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I find the whole "deletionist/inclusionist" argument to be ridiculous. The inclusionist tends to leave us with something resembling stream of consciousness;" an incoherent mess of rambling thoughts. The deletionist tends to leave us with something resembling a bad cell phone call; relevant and irrelevant information cut out indiscriminately, and just as incoherent. What I prefer is to be on the side of good writing. It's not enough to simply publish information, the information needs to be both readable and enjoyable. The average reader is only going to read three to five lines, so the task of making the writing coherent, informative and captivating is not a simple one. I too am reminded of a quote:

We journalists often take ourselves too seriously and, when we do, we talk about our mission to communicate truth and our duty to report with objectivity. Truth, however, is elusive. Because truth deals with conclusions and values, each of us have a different idea of what truth is and what it isn't.

It is journalism's job to provide facts, concepts, ideas and emotions --as we sense them-- but not conclusions. Conclusions are what the reader, listener or viewer comes to.

Objectivity, which is supposed to be the soul of journalism, simply does not exist. The moment a reporter uses his or her sense of newsworthiness to decide what to keep in his story and what to leave out, objectivity has vanished. What passes for objectivity becomes the reporter taking the job of a tape recorder, methodically taking down what was said and making no effort to check its veracity. Nor does such a "reporter" make any effort to get another point of view.

Better that we, as journalists, pursue attainable goals; accuracy, balance and fairness without bias. That we can do. Not only can we; we must. --Robert M. Knight A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity

Before you claim WP:NOTNEWS, I'll point out that journalistic style is used in most all good non-fiction writing, and not just journalism. The above is a very good book on writing. If you'd like, I can recommend many more. Zaereth (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of line

Wales: You have no right to use personal emails from unknown people as the basis for wikipedia articles. Your claim here [5] of a "BLP" issue is straight bull. How on earth could the sentence "As of August 2010, both groups, "Palestine is not a Country" and "Israel is not a Country", remained on Facebook" (which can be confirmed by, duh, going to facebook) possibly have anything to do with harming/defaming a living person?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is simple: relax. It seems fairly clear that the facts are on the side of those who are pointing out that the groups were deleted, and that new groups were created. Your hatred for the subject has no bearing on the facts of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your question specifically. The simple and likely misleading claim that the groups "remain" on Facebook - rather than the accurate point that different groups of the same name have been created, goes directly to the question of effectiveness and accuracy of the JIDF. If the groups in question were in fact violating facebook terms of service (by containing hate speech) and were removed because of it, and then new groups (not containing hate speech) were created, then that's one state of affairs. If Facebook refused to delete them because they didn't contain hate speech at all, that's a different state of affairs. Each state of affairs reflects on the subject of the article.

We need to get it right. We have credible testimony that the situation is as my edit described it. This testimony is not certain just yet, and we need reliable sources. But you looking things up on facebook to make a point is absolutely not the right way to do this.

Try to relax. I'm neither in favor nor against the JIDF. I only want us to be accurate and to proceed slowly and carefully.

Even if you hate the JIDF, I'm sure you can be content that the truth is sufficient to tell the world about them. A minor misleading point, no matter how emotionally invested you are in it, is not the way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My original pique was that you styled it as a "BLP" concern (which it isn't) and that you're in offline communication and coddling a troll who has forged libelous posts here, sought to out and attack editors here and elsewhere, and has been bringing the old battelfield for years (first indef was 2008, dozens of socks since). As for the content: If it can be verified that groups closed, groups of same name later opened, i have no problem at all. As for the "JIDF" I never heard of them until a few days ago, when the guy who runs the site ended up at a drama board again for the latest in a long calvacade of vaquely threatening socks attacking users in good-standing (the curret IP at the bottom of this page). Why? He was using socks and a massive off-wikipedia canvassing effort to edit war over an "advert" tag. Do I "hate" them. No. But i think the fellow behind the websites and accounts is poisining the editing environment and weakening the quality of contentBali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to have been some recent editing that appears to reflect the position of, living person comes to defend comments in his article he sees as derogatory and misleading and the user is blocked and then his article is dramatically edited in what appears to reflect in a more negative manner on that person, it all looks a bit attacking and small minded. User:Peter Cohen has also commented that he is trying to get some of the users twitter posts into reliable sources so he can add them to the article, to me this is increasing of the drama and close to actual activism against a living person that we have an article about.Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio -- the "person" is a pseuonym who's been seeking to control "his" article for two years (got banned for his pains). He runs off-wikipedia propoganda campaigns and would clearly like the wikipedia article about him to bolster those campaigns. He's now upset that he can't control the content anymore -- some bleating about "BLP" is the latest in years of socking and attacks against wikipedia editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We have the opportunity and the NPOV and BLP requirement through wikipedia to rise above such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page that Bali has made an edit there that is a clear BLP violation, and which he should should redact. I also commented that the obvious anger he has expresses against the subject of the article seems to make his editing COI, and he should recuse himself from further editing of that article. His response was to delete my comment from the talk page, which I also think is inappropriate. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Perhaps we can consider deleting and salting the article completely as it is the source of a lot of conflict and deleting it would be perhaps a good option and the subject is upset and complaining about it. There is no obligation on en wiki to host an article about any group , org or suchlike. I don't think the educational and encyclopedic value of the project would be affected by deleting the article and it would seal the deal, so to speak.Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I'd be all for deletion (i don't think wikipedia should have articles on any topics for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage) but if you so nominate it, you won't get anywhere (wikipedia in general does no share my inclusion standards. And there will be a lot of pile on keeps simply because the banned user who used to control it is now whining that he can no longer control it). And while i would support deletion, the argument that it "causes trouble" is the wrong one. One more time on "BLP" -- it can't be an issue when there is no named, living person (in this case there isn't one - just a pseudonym). And in any case, there is no infomation in the article about the pseudonym beyond its own statements. A sentence about the existence or not of a facebook group defames no one, real or invented.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a living person involved, please don't assert otherwise as a get around BLP policy. Your assertion that there would be as you infer, a lot of pile on revengeful keep comments is also a poor claim indeed.Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What we agree on is that the article should be deleted. If you nom it, i will weigh in. My commet that it would be kept to a dead-certainty merely reflects my understanding of the way things work here. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but you are the one with the best policy POV for deletion ... on-line protest group for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage, article is the subject of multiple complaints from the organizer of the protest. I could happily go with that as the golden kiss goodbye to the whole issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are not many, but scholarly sources do exist [6] 173.52.126.77 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Penned by one of the ardent defenders of the now-banned parties in the WP:CAMERA affair. You begin to see how tightly-wound the web of disinformation and propaganda is that surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Tarc (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did he defend the abuse of wikipedia countenanced by the now-banned parties in that incident, or did he defend their thesis that a bias exists; a rather different statement, no? -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be both. At any rate, Oboler is a pro-Zionist acivist. Nothing wrong with that per se. But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.[7].Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Any different from Rashid Khalidi or Joseph Massad? Not that it matters; we can quote him and what he says and assume the reader has a few brain cells--the same way if we quote Edward Said, we can assume the reader knows from whence his perspective arises. Regardless, we are getting off-topic. If it is true that the current groups are not the same as the original groups, then the article must reflect that (some variant of "JIDF successfully took the groups down, and later, others restarted them"). Do you disagree, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With apologies for butting in, there has to be a difference in the way we treat the writings of professors of major universities (such as Khalidi and Massad) and those of directors of 'online engagement' at the zionist federation of australia. (Never heard of oboler but this is what I found when googling the name). Otherwise we're never going to be able to sort things out. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No apologies required, RP, healthy discussion only helps. Your point is accurate, Oboler does not have the same gravitas as Said, I agree. Oboler is not David Appletree, either. He is an academic, for whatever that is worth. My concern is that if we start "disallowing" people solely based on their views or associations with organizations who hold strong views, we are hurting ourselves. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not keen on getting involved in the content here, but I just want to note that Oboler is not an academic. According to his website he has a PhD in computer science, but he doesn't hold any academic position. Given how much trouble this article has caused, and how few good sources there are, I would support deleting it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the bias completely one-sided?

But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.

— Bali Ultimate, 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, Bali. Shouldn't we be thankful for anyone who exposes bias on wikipedia of any sort? Doesn't it help us address problem areas? Do you think that the bias on wikipedia is completely one-sided, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No wikipedia is filled with roving gangs of anti-scientific cranks, ideologically-driven political activists, pr people promoting minor celebrites, and others were are poison to neutral and accurate information. In Oboler's case, he's just the "Zionist" flavor of the ideological internet warrior (other flavors include, but are not limited to "Jew-hating," "Muslim-hatig," "Propalestinian," "Neo-Nazi," "Anti/Pro-climate science," "Vaccines are giving our children autism," etc. etc.) We should get rid of all of them when we find them here. In the case of folks like Oboler, their off-site writings should be treated as the work of folks with an agenda, rather than neutral scholarship. If you're proposing the warriors from all the sides be left to duke it out (actually what is generally done here --yielding sprawling, unreadable and wholly inappropriate pieces of crap like Israel and the apartheid analogy) I disagree. It don't work, and drives off the people who don't have a dog in the intramural squabbles.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is published in a peer reviewed journal. All the complaining about the article amounts to a dislike of the articles premises and conclusions...in other words there are editors who think it is not 'true'. However, as is well known, inclusion in WP is based on WP:V, not truth. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali, this ties into what I asked you above. Shall we remove all references cited to Rashid Khalidi for the same reason? He is cited on wikipedia (British Mandate for Palestine#Arab political rights) for example. How about Joseph Massad (see Israeli–Palestinian conflict note 122). And Edward Said is quoted many times. I could find other scholars/intellectuals whose political viewpoings are clearly demarcated (and strongly held on one side of a debate) yet we quote them and trust that the reader understands their perspective. The same is true for Oboler. All academics have viewpoints, and some (the three I mentioned and Oboler for example) have their viewpoints held strongly and openly. That does not make any of these four improper sources for wikiepdia; it just requires us to trust our readers' intelligence. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Khalidi? Depends. Said? Depends. Oboler? Depends. My comment on Oboler was in the context of whether his single article about the topic of his activism was suffiient to justify having an article here (inclusion standads). If Khalidi was the only scholar to have ever written about, say, a Palestinian internet activist group, and worked directly with whatever the Palestinian version of NGO Monitor is to boot at the time of writing, I would argue he was too deeply involved in that particular topic and would say that it should not be treated as independent and not enough to start to justify inclusion. I would hope that in general Khalidi and Saids views are attributed to them when used here (I would suspect they are). At any rate, the analogy is poor. I find about 30 hits for Andre Oboler on google scholar, compared to 45,000 for Said and about 1,500 for Khalidi. Both are/were eminent academics at leading institutions. Obelor has a PHD in computer science and his website says he is the "Director of Online Engagement at the Zionist Federation of Australia." There are of course many pro-Zionist academics of equal or higher standing than the two Palestinian under discussion. Oboler isn't one of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another study that mentions the JIDF [8], although the discussion of the group is much shorter than the other article. The point is that scholarly sources do exist, and the claim that no such sources exist is incorrect. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A one-sentence mention in a 150 page piece wouldn't cut it either, User:Einsteindonut.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What a strange statement. Admittedly the mention is brief, but it is within the context of "A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College..." which certainly is not insignificant. The term you use "wouldn't cut it" brings up the point I raised earlier. You are clearly so hostile to the subject of the article that it would be better if you recused yourself from editing, because your apparent advocacy raises COI concerns. There are usable sources I found in a few minutes of looking, and which some editors said do not exist. Now I have shown sources exist, but you want to raise the bar, although you can not deny WP:V. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Full mention of the JIDF from the thesis: "The Jewish Internet Defense Force disabled social networking sites that promote anti-semitism or Islamic terrorism." It's a stupid point because this discussion of AFDing it isn't going to go anywhere. But no, i don't consider that the sort of in depth coverage to allow for a stand-alone article. The basis for my belief that one sentece doesn't amount to "substantial coverage" has nothing to do with "hostility."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali, you keep using terms such as "stupid point", "it isn't going to go anywhere", "wouldn't cut it", etc, which presents two problems. One is that these terms suggest emotion but not meaning. The other is that these terms, and many others you have used, indicate that the emotion involved is hostility. Someone, such as you, who is that hostile to a subject should not be editing an article about that subject. The reason is COI. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a "stupid" point because the article is not going to be AFD'd given the way inclusion standards work here. An AFD "isn't going to go anywhere" because I believe the outcome (unfortuately from my perspective) is that it would end as "keep." I.e. the status quo, i.e. "going nowhere." My belief that one sentence in a paper "doesn't cut it" when it comes to the GNG's call for "substantial coverage" can be agreed with or disagreed with, but has nothing to do with "hostility." That a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question -- and forged a post here to make an admin look antisemtic as part of your little game -- is talking about COI is amusing. And sad. Since it's the same rhetorical tactic you've been using for years here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude that anyone, who wants the article to be fair and good, must be "a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question" leaves a lot to be desired. I have no relationship to the subject of the article. But if you think differently, take steps to prove your accusation. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is rather telling that this IP's first edit is to JIDF's talk page asking another editor to "redact the clear BLP violation". Quite obviously the language of someone familiar with the Wikipedia. Anyways, an AfD on the JIDF would produce a lot of consternation from certain corners, true, but if the only thing they have really been in the news for is the facebook usurpations, then there's a case to be made for WP:ONEEVENT. Tarc (talk)

Comment: I'm not sure if you're part of this or not or if you just don't know much about the organization, but it a common tactic of many Wikipedia editors to downplay the JIDF's significance. Please note my response to another editor who just tried to do this, here. Obviously, they are significant to some extent, or the circus wouldn't be happening. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

Is this, then, just a supporting point of view, or is it WP:CIRCUS? Does one side need to show good faith and act with civility, while the other side is exempt? There is every reason to maintain civility, no matter what users involved may think of others. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey 173.52.126.77, Don't take the allegations of COI or being a sockpuppet, personally. That's what happens to any of us who are the slightest bit interested in honesty/objectivity in the article about the JIDF. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

WP:QUACK? IP editors that edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page concerning the JIDF respectively. Everyone involved in this knows that DA threatened to continue with socks and meatpuppets if he didn't get his way. I am somewhat surprised that these most recent puppets aren't banned or at least striked from record. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, we (func-en, CUs, etc.) are aware of the issues. For the record, it is  Unlikely, in my opinion, that the 173 user is DA or Jewdefence or one of the other suite of puppets, and that is what I said when asked today on func-en. So while the obvious ones should be handled, I fear that there is the danger of dismissing interested parties who are not one-track meatpuppets or sockpuppets out of hand. Then again, I have been known to be wrong, about lots of things :) -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is fair enough. I don't have the same tools available as bureaucrats. I only have WP:QUACK and a couple of SPI IP's that has never edited before, but seems to know the specifcs of BLP violations and the relevance of Jimbo Wales' talk page, and uses them in favour of said DA who promised something exactly like this, so what do I know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Saddhiyama, you're right for trying to protect the project. In my opinion (not as a CU but an editor) the 79 IP is quacking mighty loudly :) -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama is quite mistaken, and I do not "edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page". In fact, it is very rare for me to get involved in such issues. My IP address does change from time to time, and it changing just when I made some comments here. But my interests, and almost all my editing, are focused elsewhere. A little good faith would go a long way. I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you are a banned editor, aren't you now? You're on a 173.52 IP range, you have a penchant for false allegations of anti-semitism and a pure warrior mentality for your "side" in the IP area. You're the banned User:Malcolm Schosha (previously the banned User:Kwork. And here's the last IP he socked and got caught with User:173.52.182.160. I'm a little embarrassed that i didn't pick up on this sooner (poor 'ol Malcolm has come linguistic quirks.) Ciao, as you say Malcolm.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above: "I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia." It is common in I/P dispute discussions (as this is) for sides to claim good intentions for themselves, and evil intentions to those who disagree with them. It is really just a variation on the claim, of those in dispute, that God is on their side. Of course. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of this kind of "sockpuppet" analysis. Note that apparently most addresses in 173.52.x.x geolocate to Brooklyn, New York [9], and are held by Verizon, a very major US internet provider which provided 10% of broadband connections in 2004.[10] Now 1.618 million Jews are said to live in New York[11], some 12% of a total 13.2 million (about 1/3 of the 4.9 million in Israel). Assuming Verizon's Brooklyn site covers the greater New York City area, this means that (unless there's something I missed) about 1.2% of all Jews should be logging in from 173.52.x.x. (Maybe more - the Verizon figure may have grown) You could make the wrong conclusion from this sort of guesswork. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Malcolm to a dead certainty. The IP geolocates to the same residential address on Ocean Avenue across from Prospect Park in both cases. What do you figure the odds are that it's Malcolm's downstairs neighbor? Same writing style, same interest in the same type of art and philosophy, same straw men and misdirection tactics, etc..Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any standard internet providers let people geolocate their customers' homes. The customers won't stand for it. A random IP [12] geolocates to the same coordinates. Not every 173.52.x.x resolves to Brooklyn - some are in the Bronx or Long Island - but as far as I can tell all the ones that do resolve to the exact same spot. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're right. And I apologize for misunderstanding and misusing the technology (i tested it out on my IP -- i live in a dense city much like Brooklyn -- the coordinates were half a mile off). This edit clinched it though [13] -- Malcolm styles himself as a disciple of the Stoic philosphers.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David Appletree is a hate mongering pseudonymous avatar, Rob. If we were using his real name that would be different.78.46.105.209 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are not many,

Observations on Bali's Comments about Dr. Oboler Here - BLP/Personal attacks Isues?

redacted - Reposting private email is not allowed on WP — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

JIDF drama

The basic problem with the JIDF article is that there isn't much new news. They had their 15 minutes of fame back in 2008, and today they don't get much press. Zero hits in current Google News for "jewish internet defense force" today.[14] The drama surrounding this article seems to be more about getting attention than the content of the article. The content disputes are minor. WP:DRAMA applies. Please don't feed the trolls. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted a load of edits that are self-evidently by a sock- or meat-pupept of a banned user.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what happened. Not puppetry here. Resent the false allegation. As I said, earlier:

That's been your standard response. The drama surrounding the article has to do with the fact that there is currently a campaign to put the organization the worse light possible. There were also problems about the accuracy of the article. Please note that there has been some news in 2010. In fact, their work against the "Kill a Jew Day" pages on Facebook is relevant and should be considered for inclusion in the article. Here are three other relatively new articles:

• Feature: JIDF Takes the Fight for Israel Online

• JIDF shuts them down! - Combating hate and terror online

• ‘Kill a Jew’ page on Facebook sparks furor

There are others, too. (Of course I realize these are Jewish/Israeli sources which don't seem to really count on Wikipedia when applied to Jewish/Israel subjects, on account of antisemitic views of the Wikipedia community, but they exist!) --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

In response to your edit summary, he knows you're a meatpuppet because you self-declared. copied/adapted from an email forwarded to me, originally by DavidAppletree is at the top of your long post. To be fair, everyone here would have assumed this anyway. I personally don't care at this point -- if Jimbo wants the fun and games at his page, that's his call (aside to weaponbb -- i really think this one is a meatpuppet rather than a sock, not that it makes much difference).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If I do something on my own, without anyone telling me to do it (and in fact, David Appletree encouraged me NOT to do anything, as he's in private conversations with Wikipedia), I dont how this makes me a "meat puppet". We realize everyone who is "pro-JIDF" is automatically accused of being some sort of puppet. You should change "puppet" to "zionist" or "jew" because that's what is really happening here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Right! Clearly the only reason someone could be upset with partisan editing is because the partisans in question might (or might not -- go know) be (gasp) Jewish or (horrors) Zionists. Or it could be they don't like ideologically-driven partisans. Either. Or. Gey veys. But at least you're keeping it binary -- you'll be an admin in no time.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These terms "sockpuppets" and "meatpuppets" are a silly Wikipedia jargon, the tragic outcome of excessive administerial self-abuse. Wikipedia shouldn't take anything down for anybody, and we should say that in grown-up talk. But honestly, it's not some anti-Semitic slur. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read up on jargon before you dismiss it as not "grown up talk." And the repeated claims that all of the opposition to DA's attempts to insert his own bias are solely because of his Jewish heritage or Zionist beliefs are a common passive-aggressive method of claiming anti-Semitism. I've been here long enough to see that actual anti-Semitism gets smacked down hard, so these claims are spurious and only serve to stir up drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have personally blocked a number of actually antisemitic editors, who edit advocating it or with that agenda, and would do so if I saw another one in the future without reservations. That type of behavior is not tolerated here.

Nor is abusive behavior by Israeli-boosters.

We're applying the same standards to both sides. We apply them to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs; to Zionists and to Antisemites. If you use Wikipedia as a battleground you're gone. If you try to promote your agenda you're gone. If you abuse or threaten other editors you're gone.

DA and Einstein (and anyone else who participates in JIDF who's reading) - the tragedy here is that you appear to have no clue that you've descended to a moral level and behavioral level that's as impeccably unacceptable as those of the people you claim to be fighting. You are truly just as bad as they are right now. Until you understand that you're doing your cause absolutely no good by brawling like this, you're wasting your time and harming yourselves in the process.

If you really want to do some good, take the high ground and keep it. There was some hope that DA's account might be attempting to do so, which is why there was a significant discussion about it without any sanctions being immediately applied. That could have led to the high ground. But you dove off it, and into the mud, and lost your chance there.

I have no desire to have this article inaccurate or biased against any group. But perhaps inaccuracies should be fixed by OTRS tickets from now on, and you all should just keep away from editing the site. If you can't do it constructively and keeping to the high ground, you're just wasting our time and yours. You can provide email or OTRS feedback to people to deal with factual issues or biased editing. But engaging on-wiki is obviously problematic.

Anyways - my two cents. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, according to you, the JIDF and David Appletree are "just as bad" as Jew haters, Holocaust deniers, and Islamic terrorists who behead people and kill innocent civilians because the JIDF has caused a bit of a ruckus on Wikipedia. Wow. And were you meaning to compare antisemites to Zionist, because FYI, Zionism does NOT equal racism. --80.79.116.231 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

News story

Did you really say[15]

“ Wikipedia lets anyone edit an entry but is policed by an army of "administrators" who remove problem entries - whether purposely false, biased or otherwise unacceptable to the community. ”

or is this just another example of the high standards of accuracy and diligence for which the American mainstream press is renowned? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First, notice that bit isn't even purporting to quote me. Second, it's a reasonably sensible summary of what goes on - oversimplified to be sure, but it's a decent rough explanation. Third, this was an Italian journalist, not American. :-) Anyway, no, I didn't say exactly that. I gave a long explanation of how things work and that's how she summed it up. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mousetrap

There's been some press coverage in the UK (and internationally, actually) about our article on Agatha Christie's long-running West End play, The Mousetrap:

With many more articles here: [16]. Recent discussions: Talk:The_Mousetrap#Spoiling_on_Facebook_too, Talk:The_Mousetrap#Ending_spoiler. What do you think is the best thing to do? --JN466 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, our current policy on spoilers is wrong, but I'm not wound up about it in the least and I don't intend to really join in discussions about it. I think there should be some kind of clause encouraging people to be particularly careful about spoiling reader enjoyment of art works that hinge particularly on a surprise ending, and to reveal it only if there is some particular encyclopedic purpose. Revealing endings just for the sake of some passion for documenting every single provable fact in the universe is not really right. I should add: I have not seen this play, I have not read the article, and I don't want to read the article because I don't want to have the ending spoiled for me. So I have no opinion about this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If only those journalists had the same grasp on the principle of an encyclopedia. No matter what one thinks about spoiler warnings, there is no justified reason to first read something that per definitionem will contain a spoiler (like any plot summary, book report etc.) and then complain about having it spoiled for you. Especially if you willingly click on a section called "plot" (or even "identity of the murder" in this case!), you should not be surprised to find the plot of the subject there. So yes, Joe is right, ignore it. It's a "controversy" created by some journalists with no grasp on what an encyclopedia is and apparently too much time on their hands. Regards SoWhy 08:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a spoiler warning should be a huge, blinking notice "caution, spoiler" followed by a collapsible box containing the spoiler itself. The last sentence of the article's short lead says: "The play is also known for its twist ending, which at the end of every performance the audience is asked not to reveal." The spoiler itself is the second half of the second paragraph of the subsection "Identity of the murderer" of the "Plot" section. That was also the situation when the Independent article was written, except that at the time "Identity of the murderer" was a separate section following "Plot". Hans Adler 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article version which hid the ending (and is safe to read for those not wishing to know the ending) was this one. It did not actually contain a "huge blinking notice 'caution spoiler'", just a collapsed box that readers could click on. A collapsed box is a good compromise, respecting the feelings of fans of this extremely long-running and much-loved play, while not withholding information from those who want to access it. The labelling of the box needn't be as dramatic as it was in that article version. "Click on Show if you want to know the play's ending" would do just as well. --JN466 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this "reasonable compromise" is that too many people are suggesting it for too many things. Muhammad images, medical pictures, long tables, nudity ... and if any one category is given community approval, we can only expect it to expand to cover all of them, and much more: not just the ending but any part of the plot, not just Muhammad images but Fred Phelps protest banners, not just long tables but any mathematical derivation, not just nudity but any drawing suggesting a disturbing activity. You'd end up with boxes in boxes, articles that can't be printed out without holding a scavenger hunt for all the clickable items. The more this is argued, the more sense the original WP:SPOILER decision makes. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

I am Hans Von Albert of Germany and vould like to zay hello!!!!!!76.177.47.225 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Authority abandonment?

You became silent. The community regards it as an official agreement.As for Jinbo and Wikimedia Foundation, the management authority and the management rights other than English Wikipedia were abandoned. It is very regrettable. How will management and the management of each language version be done in the future?Whom is the domain of "wikipedia.jp" succeeded by?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)