User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching  

A Little Help

At Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, a merge discussion has been going since early April. No one has merged the articles yet due to the large consensus in favor merging. So, can you merge these articles? B-Machine (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not something to request here - someone who is experienced in the content there can WP:BEBOLD - Go for it - and merge anything that is not duplicated or move the sections that required moving over and then redirect the merged article. It looks like a quite complicated merge that will require a bit of understanding of the topic - I suggest you ask the merge nominator to do it or any experienced contributor there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you know of any, give me some names. B-Machine (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well - its not actually clear what the WP:consensus is there - discussions can take time here - you need to ask there on the article talkpage. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Off2riorob. Doing a merge requires sensitivity to a wide range of concerns that gave rise to consensus (or near-consensus?) for a merge. That means having some understanding of the content, which in this case I don't have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mayfair art dealer Mark Weiss in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign on Wikipedia

This seems to have begun on Wikipedia. Fiction turns to reality. [1]. Please hat with the comment "Not sure anything is being asked of me, nor sure how I can help" 86.176.94.123 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's begin at somewhere near the beginning. An IP makes slanderous allegations here [2]on 10 October 2009. See also here [3]. At the very same time, the allegation is repeated in tabloid newspapers. It turns out the source of the newspaper allegation is the same as the source that edited Wikipedia. And now Wikipedia editors can repeat the slur [4]. And even the Wikipedia administration can repeat the slanderous allegations [5] because they come from 'reliable sources'. No one picked this up until Sebastian Shakespeare [6] picks it up in today's standard. What has gone wrong? Why is the supposedly reliable crowdsourced Wikipedia recycling rubbish from tabloids which has itself been sourced from slanderous allegations originally made by anonymous edits on Wikipedia? Nonsense recycled. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Standard story is not on the net, but the Daily Telegraph has a report on it here [7]. You are going to say of course that it is nothing to do with you but it is everything to do with you. You are responsible for all the evil that is on Wikipedia. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The rhetoric above is strident and excessive, but I am reviewing the links. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet please review the links, and read the full article in the London Evening Standard. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This sits better at the article talkpage - its a content dispute. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but if we move it there, the IP will say it is a coverup. Best to address it here?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a welcome template to their talkpage and they are angry about it - asking on my talk if its some kind of joke - no its a welcome. and the rude boy continues - "No one is innocent on Wikipedia" - disruptive attacking IP block and direct to OTRS - Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are the rude ones who lie about people and destroy their lives. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If anything here destroyed your life then you need to get out more.. Move along please Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be about deciding which side to block or blacklist or revert or suppress. It should be about open conversation. Wikipedia is not here to lie about Mould (or Weiss, for that matter). That is (allegedly) the tabloid's job. Wikipedia is like the library that puts the tabloid up on the newspaper rack for people to read. The cure to any misinformation here is more, better information. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I do not appreciate the IP's invective, his anger at Wikipedia at this moment is frankly understandable. The Philip Mould article, which I have just checked, does not appear to have any current issues, but I have redacted two instances of apparent defamation from the talkpage. If there are any other concerns about Mould-related content I would appreciate their being brought to my attention.

As I have said before in many forums, the rise of the Internet has been a force for much good, but it also enables the most outrageous lies, slanders, hoaxes, and invasions of privacy to be spread worldwide at the push of a button, often with devastating effect. This is an Internet-wide problem, not a Wikipedia-specific one, but our unique combination of high pageranks and free editing makes Wikipedia pages, particularly our biographies of living persons, an especially inviting forum for the malicious, the vindictive, and the depraved. Short of shutting down the project altogether there is nothing we can do to entirely solve this problem, but we must do more than we are doing. Focusing on the impoliteness of the victim or of someone apparently close to or sympathetic with the victim is certainly not going to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and good night. Thank you 'New York Brad', whoever you are. Why is a civilised person like yourself in company with such barbarians? 86.176.94.123 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad - when you close the Pending protection RFC please consider that the protection is duck to water to prevent this and all similar situations, - Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 - one thousand articles are right now being protected from such libelous additions from being published by en wikipedia to all our mirror sites and the whole of the WWW - please don't reduce the protection we offer living people in your close. Pending protection attracts experienced editors that would have dealt with that situation without any dispute or publication to the WWW at all. Off2riorob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

For clarity, this is not Mark Weiss, the photographer, right?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think so, just someone with the same name.--BSTemple (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Pending Changes" wouldn't prevent a registered user from adding information sourced to an apparent newspaper publication. Because the Daily Mail no longer serves the story at its former URL (see link from [8], for example) it might be considered retracted, hence not a reliable source. But Wikipedia's most important defense is that anyone in the world can add a link to [9], to not merely correct the slander, but to definitively refute it and cancel out much of the impact of dozens of other sources on the Internet that repeat the first Daily Mail story. At least, we could do that, provided that mention of the reference is not considered a violation of BLP for Mark Weiss... Wnt (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, I believe you are mistaken. Cases like this would be very much helped by Pending Changes. I see no way any responsible editor would have accepted this, and if one did, they'd immediately lose the reviewer right. This is precisely what PC is designed for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Only Level 2 Pending Changes, comparable to full-protection, would affect non-IP editing as happened here.^[10] This article did not receive that level of attention, or the problem would have been fixed anyway. True, the first two 2009 IP edits would have been stopped by Level 1 PC, or by better Recent Changes patrolling, as they were obvious vandalism - but I doubt a reader would have seen them as anything but puerile vandalism.

So far, the duties of reviewers in PC have not been made clear - especially, I have seen no evidence that they are required to deny additions of apparently verifiable information from newspaper articles. Since deciding whether such articles are well-supported or not is far more time-consuming than simply citing or checking them, this requires Level 2 articles either to be written primarily by reviewers, or else to say only nice things about anyone. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

One lesson (of many) to be learned here is that tabloid sources like the Daily Mail, The Sun, National Enquirer, celebrity blogs and so forth simply are not reliable encyclopedic sources. Yet we have thousands of BLP content items cited to them. [11] [12] [13] [14] Given our page rank, it is irresponsible to cite them, and not to update policy accordingly. --JN466 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We could solve this problem very easily, and radically, by putting these tabloids on the blacklist. Hans Adler 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If it's true, reliable sources have also reported it. However, most of the 'scoops' from these tabloids should be tagged ^{[ not intended to be a factual statement ]}. Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Hans' idea...blacklist the tabloids. Of course, they don't have to include the url to put the refs in & they'd still need to be manually reverted but it would certainly help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, how would you decide what qualifies as "a tabloid"? In Britain (where this story originates) every national newspaper other than the Daily Telegraph is tabloid, along with almost all local and regional newspapers. – iridescent 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We can list them, though of course there may be some short amount of discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a cultural difference in the meaning of "tabloid". In the US, what is meant is tabloid journalism or sensationalism (read trashy). That is what we're talking about here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Really this is a subtext of the age-old question: how do you decide what's a reliable source? And current guidelines read "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable" (original emphasis). So a guideline change would be the first port-of-call before talks of a blacklist Jebus989^✰ 17:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sun and the Daily Mail don't do news reporting, or at least not normally. They generally just do news creation and news simulation. In the rare cases that they do report actual news in a usable way and can be used, they can still be cited by any editor, just not with a working link. Admins can edit/fix links if appropriate. Hans Adler 17:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Daily Mail may be frothingly right-wing, but I don't think you can seriously claim they 'don't do news reporting'. – iridescent 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent is right, but so is Hans. The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time, but - as Hans acknowledges - they do (rarely) get a scoop of some importance. I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am struck by the fact that the IP last night may not have been the best-spoken, but he spoke through real pain. How can we best deal with this?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A scoop of importance will be covered by other sources. In such cases, the Daily Mail can be cited, with care, just like we are able to cite primary sources, with care, where they are referenced by reliable secondary sources. --JN466 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I admit I have never actually held this paper in my hands. I am going by the links that I have seen on Wikipedia. If they do news reporting, then it appears that they are not normally used by us for proper news reports.

There are currently 5669 links to thesun.co.uk and 3717 to mirror.co.uk. Many of these are from BLP articles. To get an idea of how bad the reliability problem of the Daily Mail is, look at this: Talk:Audrey Tomason#Khalid El-Masri connection. An editor asks for a reliable source for a suspicion that he once expressed in his blog and that is in the article without proper source. According to him, his blog is the only source that this suspicion exists. Another editor responds with an article in the Daily Mail, but they just copied it from the blog. If they just copy random blog posts, then there is no reason why we should use them rather than cite random blogs ourselves. Hans Adler 18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Do they make more of their past articles available than other major UK newspapers? That would be one reason why they are used in preference to better news sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. But for some reason I just confused Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. The number of external links to the Daily Mail domain dailymail.co.uk is 15,301. Compared to the other two I think I have seen an unusally high percentage of links from talk pages, but there are still a lot of links from BLP articles. [15] Hans Adler 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of draconian measures like blacklisting or a policy ban, I wish someone would write a bot to put an inline tag on all BLP pages with a Daily Mail reference with a ^{tabloid reference, please verify} - with a link from the tag to some page that cites this case as a bad example. The page should ask editors to remove the tag if the Daily Mail item seems genuine, but to remove and report any dubious or plainly libellous cases to a special noticeboard, where editors who are more familiar with the British press can pick over the claims carefully. Another page should index every article tagged by the bot, so the quality of the tag resolution can be audited at random. The person who added the Daily Mail reference could also be invited to participate. In this way the articles would be fixed, and Wikipedia would get some sense of the extent of the problem before deciding what to do. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)