User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

A great idea that can't be missed!!!

Dear Mr Wales,

I was wondering if you would like to include WikiBates into part of the Wiki organisation. WikiBates is a debating part of the Wiki organisation, where once or twice a month you come up with a topic and allow to teams to battle it out to win that certain argument.

I believe this is a great idea and I have 2 people to back me up so far.

yours Sincerely, MYGAMEUPLAY (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We already have that as part of Wikipedia and it happens a lot more then once or twice a month. Just check out WP:ANI or the talk page of any contentious article :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile - even if what you say is probably sadly true. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean "accurate"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he means "verifiable". We don't deal in truth here on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a title for someone who is a master of WikiBates? David in DC (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WHACK :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Treat or I'll tear this site down! Mwahahaha! :D --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Verifiability and truth"

This may provide an interesting case study on why I think "verifiability, not truth" is a poisonous formulation. Here we had a fairly unimportant claim in an article that Justine Thornton attended Nottingham High School for Girls. The claim was not backed up by the source, but actually sources do exist to back it up. By normal standards, this would be considered legitimate to enter into Wikipedia.

But as it turns out, it isn't true. (She told me it isn't true.) There are no sources that I can find of her publicly denying it - it's a silly small error typical of tabloid newspapers, so I doubt if she ever made a big deal out of it.

If you accept the "verifiability, not truth" formulation, you are likely to think that unless we find a source debunking the claim, then merely knowing with some confidence that it is false is not good enough. I don't agree. I think that truth matters too much to be silly about it. Yes, verifiability is a good thing. It is not the only thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not what "V not T" means. When editors see that a given citation is wrong, it fails the threshold of WP:RS and that's the end of it. Verifiability means sources cited in article text can be checked by readers (and editors). It's not a licence to knowingly (bad faith) or otherwise (mistaken) dump wrong factoids into an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It may not be what it is supposed to mean, but that's literally what it says. And we have plenty of evidence of people misunderstanding the phrase - people say things like "Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth" - they are wrong, and this phrase is wrong. It's just false to say that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth".

Notice too, the circularity in what you are saying. If the source says something that we know to be false, then that source fails WP:RS. But that's just another way of saying that the truth trumps a source in some cases. We seek verifiability and truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources trump unreliable sources. Published secondary sources, even those which are taken as mostly reliable, are awash in mistakes and en.WP content echoes this, as does any tertiary source, sometimes in ways akin to Mercury in fish. We do what we can. The pith comes down to verifiability, not someone's OR notion of truth. 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Gwen Gale (talk)

While I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying, I think that's what makes this particular example interesting. Are you saying that we should reinsert the falsehood into Wikipedia? Or are you agreeing with me that a big part of "we do what we can" is editorial judgment about the actual facts of reality?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You forget that the policy is here to help us when editing is not a no-brainer issue, like whether to rely on a tabloid's statement on a minor detail or not. In those cases if there is a consensus that the source is likely to be wrong it doesn't matter if they base that on OR or not. Policy is here exactly to help us take decisions when there is disagreement about what is true. In those cases it is imperative that all editors recognize that they can not simply make statements about what is true in their own experience but have to back those up with evidence. Editors arguing in favor of the change keep using banal situations like this but they ignore the effects that the change is going to have on the really controversial areas of wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything of the sort, actually. I think this change will be helpful both in these kinds of situations (in which it is made glaringly obvious that the current wording is wrong) and in more controversial situations (which are the ones that tempt people to use a made up rule that's actually not true). In all situations, the phase 'verifiability, not truth' is not as good as proposed alternatives.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What is that "made up rule that's not true" exactly? And can you be more explicit about how it will beneficial in those controversial situations, to be rid of the not truth criterion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not true to say that Wikipedia's standards are "verifiability, not truth" - no one is actually (as far as I know) defending the claim that it is. Read through the proposed formulation at the RfC - it's much clearer and will help new editors understand policy correctly from the start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read the proposal, thank you. I guess you can't be more explicit about how you think this policy change will help me argue against those who would use their own Original Research to override statements by published experts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it is clearer and states our actual policy more accurately, it will help new editors to become better editors more quickly. It is uncompromising. It does lack the false thrill of a zinger that shocks people though it isn't true - and I think that's a good thing. Provoking people with nonsense doesn't make them better editors, it makes them dig in their heels.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:V is to define what may be included in an article, it is not to define what must remain in an article. If you find yourself in an argument with an editor wishing to delete statements by published experts because they disagree with them, then it is the WP:NPOV policy that is designed to deal with that, not WP:V. (Also note that "verifiability not truth" is often used to argue for the retention of poorly researched newspaper material; so if you want to strengthen the position of published experts, "verifiability, not truth" is not necessarily a help.) --JN466 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to play devil's advocate, how do we know that she was telling you the truth? Maybe she has some motive to have correct information removed from Wikipedia? How do we know that you are telling the truth? If someone else removed well-sourced information from an article while claiming "She told me it isn't true", should we allow that edit to stand? Peacock (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We can and should exercise editorial judgment. We should take into account all the facts of reality at our disposal in a strong effort to present the truth always. Upon request I can go into a lot more detail about this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how that statement does not create conflicts with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Editorial judgment is precisely about thoughtfully balancing various factors. We are not transcription monkeys. In this example case, what I'm telling you is that I engaged in original research. I found out that the source is wrong. I trust, for good reasons, what I was told on this issue more than I trust the Daily Mail on this issue. Nothing can remove the need for thoughtful judgment, and a particularly bad way to try to do so is to have a phrase that suggests strongly to many people that having a source is more important than what is actually true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like me that you are saying that personal, but unverifiable, knowledge of what is true trumps the policies about OR and Synth? I do not see how you can hope to build an encyclopedia that anyone can edit on that principle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"It sounds.... that you are saying" - I didn't say that, nor anything like it. Editorial judgment can properly take into account the full context, all the known facts, not just published sources. In general, yes, verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I said "it sounds" because you did not answer my question clearly about the relation between "truth" and the policies of OR and SYNTH. And you explicitly say that you believe that the information uncovered by your own original research should be accepted by other editors as a valid argument in the case you mention. I think that in the case you give I would probably accept that since it is a piece of trivial and irrelevant information. I deal however on a daily basis with editors who claim to know the truth about how the world works on the topics of Cults, Race and Intelligence, extremist politics, terrorism, climate change, genocide, and much more of that sort, and who claim that their view of "truth" trumps the published sources in the area. How am I going to explain to them that their views of "the truth" cannot dictate what to include or exclude in the articles, and that it cannot override the published opinions of trained professionals on those isues? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I did answer your question clearly. Editorial judgment is a complex matter about which we have written many volumes over the years. What I recommend in the kind of cases you are talking about is that you send editors to the improved WP:V that is being proposed. This version, which removes the confusing and false formulation of "verifiability, not truth" and explains the real situation accurately and clearly, will be quite beneficial in helping new editors to become better editors. Saying something transparently absurd and obviously false to them is only likely to encourage them further in bad behavior. For example, by encouraging people to think that Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth, you encourage them to engage in further battleground behavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the mistake is so widely published that it's hard to overcome with published sources, as to BLPs like this, that's what WP:OTRS and WP:Office are for. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not an OTRS or OFFICE issue at all! This is an example (they are all around us!) of a minor error in Wikipedia that we know is wrong, even though there are sources for it. We can and should use editorial judgment to decide what to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed, if she cares about it enough to get in touch with OTRS or Office. Otherwise, any editor can in good faith go to an article talk page and put forth why they think the sourcing on something is wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still haven't seen a single example of an editor knowingly insisting on adding material to an article based on the fact that it's verifiable. Nor have I seen any evidence that it happens so often, it requires a change of this magnitude. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent contributions (10-27—28) to Alec Baldwin, maybe? It was a case of I-have-one-ref-that-says-what-I-want-so-all-the-rest-of-the-refs-must-be-wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan: I asked for an example where an editor knowingly insisted on including incorrect information. I took a look at that article and the talk page, and that doesn't appear to be the case. When sources disagree, off the top of my head, we have at least 3 ways to handle it:

1. Judge the quality of the sources and use the highest quality ones (as SandyGeorgia suggests in that talk).
2. Use our own editorial discretion and decide which source to use.
3. When sources disagree, document the disagreement.

I don't see how changing the policy would have helped in that discussion. If this is the type of problem that this change is trying to address, I suggest a better solution is that you discuss the issues in plain English. That "snorfle" comment was not helpful and seems to have confused the other editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's your example: not one where an editor "knowingly insisted on including", rather one where the editor "knowingly" did not remove information after it was pointed out it was most likely false and unsupported by more reliable sources-- it provides an example of including false info via attribution, because it's verifiable even if dubious:

• Article: Female genital manipulation
• Text: Momoh writes that around 10 percent of subjects die immediately from haemorrhage and hypovolemic shock. (Source: Momoh 2005, p. 7.)
• The over attribution in that article as a means of including dubious facts (a laysource opinion) was pointed out on the article's FAC (and it's talk page), also that this data is not supported by any peer-reviewed medical sources I can find (and there are numerous very good sources on this topic), it is attributed to a laysource (book, not a peer-reviewed medical journal secondary review) from someone who is an FGM advocate, Comfort Momoh, it is unsourced in the book written by her, and it is improbable (if 10% of women are dying from this, why isn't that reported in the numerous reliable peer-reviewed secondary sourced medical articles?). Attributing text to an advocate, when the duck test tells us the data is likely wrong, the data isn't found in reliable medical sources, and is likely there to promote outrage, is an example of the misuse of "verifiability, not truth" via attribution in an article mostly authored by SlimVirgin. FGM may be awful, but we can let the medical facts speak for themselves without resorting to sensationalist data promoted by advocates against the practice. If this data is true, why do none of the medical reliable sources I could access include it? And why is it still in the article after this was pointed out? I'd like to see a WP:MEDRS source that backs this laysource advocate's claim, and there are plenty of those to be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You'll have to help me here. The only reference to Momoh at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1 seems to be about medical terminology. On the talk page,[1] I see a brief reference of the 10% figure and no one arguing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JN; another more reliable source that makes it even more apparent that the advocate is winging it with the 10%, but at least we're not completely misleading our readers now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a change of any magnitude. It's the removal of a false statement that a majority of people have voted to remove, for the main reason that it is misleading and wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

en.WP isn't a democracy that works by majority vote, it works mostly through consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll just note the folly though of the recent view that changing policy pages requires massive degrees of support. This enshrines old bad practices and privileges the past over the future. What is really important is that people understand that voting is never formal in Wikipedia, and things can and should change without getting 80% support for every change. That radically conservative attitude conflicts with WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Saying that we don't work by majority vote is valid - but so is saying that we don't work by supermajority vote. We work by assuming good faith, open dialogue and debate, and compromise. In a case where a small faction is not engaged in good faith debate and the majority of the community is against them, it's not right to ram something down the minority's throat - but it is also not right to allow them to prevail indefinitely against opposition. Something has to give.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I dare say it will (whatever you or I think the outcome should helpfully be). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I wonder if a better word, or the word we are actually referring to is not truth but accuracy. Wikipedia's articles must be accurate per the topic/subject of the article. Truth might better be defined as subjective and refers to what each believes to be an ultimate. One of the problems on Wikipedia is that some editors believe that despite evidence that something is inaccurate, if a source which passes some of the RS threshold, for example, the publication test-reputable publisher- or reputable newspaper, then that information can be used on Wikipedia. Gwen your definition of RS seems more complete to me than what I've seen in multiple situations, but honestly I know its not adhered to on some articles. Seems we have three words to contend with. Verifiable, accuracy, and multiple meanings per individuals of what the word truth means and what "truth", the universal truth, is. On the Verifiability policy, when we use truth I think we are referring to what editors believe to be accurate although they may use the word truth. We use the word truth in common speech every day to mean accurate, but on Wikipedia we may ultimately have to clearly delineate the three words- truth, accuracy, and verifiable.(olive (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy is the right word we should be using here. Let me give you an example when I encountered a situation in which another editor insisted on retaining the false information that Ardoyne was located in West Belfast, just because a British Government report stated this. A quick peek, however at any ordinance map will plainly show that Ardoyne is located in North Belfast. To have retained such blatant geographical inaccuracy would have seriously undermined the credibility of Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And what do we do when the map is wrong and the source is right? Or when it requires specialized knowledge to understand the map, that the authors of the source have but the editors using it as a basis for their arguments lack?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question. The answer to "how do we deal with conflicting sources" is complex, but rejecting truth as a standard doesn't help at all. The best answer is that we hold a discussion in good faith, and make a thoughtful editorial judgment. What would be really wrong in this source/map example would be to say: "We are going to use the source, not the map, because Wikipedia doesn't care about truth but about sources." What would be really correct in this example would be to say "We have to carefully assess the evidence, including contradictory information and claims, and come to a thoughtful solution."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as it happens, there are official local government areas of Belfast (as with many other UK cities). It also so happens that Ardoyne falls (though only just) into North Belfast under those divisions. But you can't tell that from an OS map. --FormerIP (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another view of the current system:

WP:V requires only that an outsider be able to 'verify' that the source says what the editor using it says it says. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a source is correct in any way, only that a person reading the source will find it says the same thing as what the editor using the reference claims.

The issue is thus not whether "truth" is involved at all (I seem to recall that Wikipedia is founded on the premise that absolute truths are rare), but whether the mere existence of a verifiable source is any longer sufficient for a claim in a Wikipedia article when the claim itself is disputed. Frequently one or more editors will aver that one view is clearly fringe, and thus the other view (his) must be given greater weight, and the "fringe" view should be elided or nearly elided entirely. One obvious solution would be to have a set of absolutely neutral editors who would vet any contested claims. A less obvious one would be for Wikipedia to decide once and for all that opinions, allegations, surmises, accusations and the like do not belong in any encyclopedia which seeks to present facts to its readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue, I think, Collect. It's important, in the first instance, to distinguish opinion and fact. The issue of sources being "wrong plain and simple" only really arises in the latter case. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the situation were to arise where a Belfast map did not suffice to convince a person that Ardoyne was in fact located in North Belfast, the sheer number of books and newspaper articles dealing with the Troubles would quickly remove any shadow of a doubt as to its true location, government report notwithstanding. Due to it being an interface area, Ardoyne saw more than its fair share of violence throughout the 30 years history of the Northern Ireland conflict. As a result, it attracted a considerable amount of media coverage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think that the underlying problem in the example here is a reliance on poor sources. I don't know how many more examples we need before we realize that using the Daily Mail as a source for biographical articles - or for anything, really - is a poor idea. The tabloid doesn't have what I would consider a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - rather the opposite - and so discerning editors should reject on grounds of existing sourcing guidelines.

  "Verifiability, not truth" means that we're relying on the fact-checking of reliable sources, rather than doing our own fact-checking. That approach only works if editors are committed to using sources that actually perform decent fact-checking. Personally, I'd rather see the language disappear, because it's surplanted "ignore all rules" as the most frequently misunderstood and most harmfully misapplied policy snippet on the site. "Verifiability, not truth" has the appeal of a pithy soundbite, but also the dangers - it grossly oversimplifies a complex issue, and provides ammunition for careless editing. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • While I don't disagree with you about the Daily Mail, in this case there is another source, namely this book, or so I am told. This book presumably got the false information from the Daily Mail.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (to MastCell) In a perfect world, I'd agree. I'm going through "fact checking" issues on a few other articles right now. Alas, I must confess that "fact checking" is turning into "here's my facts, I found someplace that agrees, I'm removing what you found" and over a half dozen edit wars. Something of the nature you describe would require an editorial staff that was trusted to not be biased or use "facts" to push one POV at the exclusion of others. Sadly, we are neither in a perfect world, nor have such a staff. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • One example where editors insisted on including incompetently researched and factually plain wrong – demonstrably wrong – material in Wikipedia, based on "verifiability, not truth", and in complete disregard for BLP policy, was the Sam Blacketer controversy. Editors knew it was wrong and still argued for its inclusion. It's exemplary of the pernicious effect a misunderstood slogan like "verifiability, not truth" can have. --JN466 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A-ha! That's the exact issue I raised on the talkpage, but I couldn't remember what the details were. Thanks, JN.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. :) --JN466 06:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For those who aren't admins and can't review the talk page history, here's a choice quote: "Unless reliable sources publish that side of the argument, it's original research, no matter how correct it is (I agree the Register, Mail, and Independent have reported wrong, but one of Wikipedia's core principles is verifiability not truth)." A pretty much perfect example of what's wrong with the phrase.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• True, but isn't that where weighing sources and ensuring balance, due weight, including all non-fringe POVs, and ensuring lack of bias come in to play? Like I said in an earlier conversation, most of the policies and guidelines here can't stand alone - they interoperate. Simply applying those items I noted above would have resolved the issue, regardless of the sources people wanted to use. "V not T" isn't so much the issue - it's not applying all of the other policies and guidelines when using it that becomes the issue. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • On the Daily Mail specifically, note Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail. --JN466 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo: That example was from two years ago. It took me just a few seconds to find this one.[2] "Verifiability, not truth" is one of our best tools in addressing the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, and these types of discussions go on daily all across Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Another good example can be found at Talk:Abbey Road. Here we have a situation where there is a pretty strong consensus of the editors that the BBC got it wrong, but there is still hand wringing because the proof, which is pretty compelling, is published on someone's personal website rather than in a newspaper. Verifiability, not truth, is cited as a reason to keep an error in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No source is reliable if its information is incorrect or out of date. And no source should be excluded without consideration of what was reported, how significantly it was reported, and who by. Here it’s reasonable to consider the informal talk-page comment of Jimmy Wales more reliable than information reported in the Daily Mail. In another situation I corrected information about actor Rupert Hill after reading the Sunday Mercury article “Corrie star Rupert Hill corrects internet lies about Solihull upbringing” (and by ‘internet lies’ the article really meant ‘Wikipedia lies’). Sometimes newspapers are good sources, sometimes not. Without looking at all aspects of the information reported it’s impossible to judge. Bottom line - good editorial practice does not seek blanket exclusions for any kind of relevant information, from any kind of source (not even for fringe subjects). Encyclopedic information should aim to report verifiable information and the reliability of sources should be judged by relevancy as well as publisher reputation. When stupidity has clearly prevailed, revert to the last bastion of common sense: WP:Ignore all rules. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The policy clearly uses the word threshold which is the critical context for" verifiability not truth" and should protect it from being misused, but consistently that word is ignored. I agree 100% the phrase has been misused and I've been at the misused end of that stick. The problem is not a few words its how editors use those words. Those same editors probably misuse other policies as well. The editors manipulating policy to their own agendas aren't innocent victims of misunderstanding a few words. Some of the editors standing off against each other on this issue are some of the most respected and possibly neutral editors on Wikipedia which convinces me the issue here is much larger than a few words, and as I said above one issue is language and how it is understood and interpreted.(olive (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

Likewise, if the source listed in a citation is wrong, it's not reliable for that citation. This doesn't clash with V not T. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the current lead sentence says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." As written, that means you simply cannot argue that a source is wrong, according to Wikipedia policy, because Wikipedia simply doesn't care whether you think it's wrong or not. That's too restrictive, and the proposal is a good stab at fixing it. --JN466 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Jimbo: This changes the very first sentence of a Wikipedia pillar, the very first thing people see when they're asked to read WP:V in content disputes. You might think that this is not a change of any magnitude, but clearly other editors see it differently. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

An example of V,not T in action

Here's an example of an editor claiming personal knowledge: Talk:Ryan_McDonald#Requested_move. How could we know this was not someone playing a surreal joke? We couldn't. So we didn't agree to the move. Were we wrong not to allow the move? I don't think so. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you were wrong at all. I would have done the same -- you applied editorial judgment, in exactly the way that the proposal suggests. --JN466 05:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's case is just the same, except that it's Jimbo. 99.99% of editors do not have his standing, or public reputation on the line if they make things up. We need VNT to deal with this.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've advised the editor that he should get Ryan or his agent to e-mail OTRS. (The editor may well have been right by the way; note spelling on amazon). We don't need "verifiability, not truth" to handle such matters ("verifiability" is quite enough), nor do we need to give editors the message that we are not interested in having erroneous information on our pages corrected. At any rate what happened here is exactly what the proposed wording says should happen: a discussion on the talk page. A source should not be declared unreliable for a specific fact without good reason – and that usually involves more reputable sources giving a fuller account of the relevant facts. Cheers, --JN:466 05:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow - good find on Amazon. (Mind you, the other DVDs with him on Amazon spell it the usual way). Is OTRS the usual way to go for subjects with BLP accuracy issues that can't be cleared up by sources?

On the other point, my neutrality on the proposal (which keeps verifiability, not truth) is down to the phrasing which I do not like. I can see the argument for not having the very first sentence as "verifiability, not truth", and think moving into the first section is a nice idea. But the proposal does not do what it's supposed to do. We don't show we care about accuracy by de-emphasising the ban on unsourceable content; we show it by explaining how we achieve accuracy on an open wiki - through the interaction of RS, V and NOR (and so how V fits in). I also do not like the way that "verifiability, not truth" is not the title and sole focus of the first section. A lot of editors find recourse to "verifiability, not truth" helpful. That first section is fuzzy and unclear, and is worse than what we have now. (I suggested all this in the discussions, but it didn't gain traction.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a bunch of pages advising BLP subjects on how to deal with errors in their biographies. I just dropped links to them on the talk page of a quite notable actor, who found himself reverted by Cluebot when he added to his biography that he is, in fact, married (see Wikipedia:BLPN#Ralph_Brown) and not single, as our article said. They are

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Managing_your_biography
• Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject)
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects
• Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit

Coming back to WT:V, I don't think we are de-emphasising the ban on unsourceable content. The proposal does say, in the lead sentence, "The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Isn't that clear enough? And it prevents that apparent denigration of truth, which makes it look like we have to keep erroneous material (as per Sam Blacketer), and enables people to wikilawyer ad nauseam to keep a falsity in an article. I agree that more could probably be said on achieving accuracy. The RS/N noticeboard should be mentioned, as should the role of OTRS, and probably a bunch of other things besides. But adding RS/N could be done as part of normal editing of the policy after the RfC, and with other aspects like OTRS I am not sure that WP:V is necessarily the best place for that. Cheers, --JN466 06:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing "not truth" from the lede, and not giving it its own titled section instead, for me has the effect of de-emphasising a major issue with problematic AGF editing. But I suppose we just see the matter differently. I think what would be helpful (another one of my suggestions that didn't get taken up amongst the walls of text) is a short section with "what to do if you think there is an inaccuracy" pointing people to RS and RSN, OTRS, NOR and so on. Certainly during the discussions some people did seem to want WP:V to be doing the work of the rejected policy merge WP:Attribution. We need to explain better how the policies knit together.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, you've got the scenario entirely wrong. I get that you wan't to fix an error... but you can't, at least, not without breaking other things much worse. Let's think through this a little bit, shall we?

1) Wikipedia can never be more accurate than the sources it uses. That's why we prefer WP:RS, which tend to be right more often than not. If they aren't... then Wikipedia falls where they fall, and stands where they stand. It's very likely to be no big deal if a wrong statement hasn't been corrected... but even if it WERE corrected, we wouldn't ever report only the correct fact: we'd report that source A said "1", while sources B, C, and D said "2", because we represent conflicting viewpoints in proportion to how RS'es cover them.

2) Anything that a person knows to be true but is unpublished is WP:OR, because we can't read minds. In a large collaborative environment--or even a small one--we rely on the fact that things exist elsewhere and can be looked up by anyone with the resources and inclination to do so. In your scenario, I'd have to ask the principal herself to obtain that knowledge, which is inappropriate. But that leads me to my third and final point:

3) Correcting BLP errors is straightforward. Since any person is always considered an expert on their own life, such a BLP mistake can be fixed by the subject simply putting a correction on their own website. It doesn't have to be as elaborate as this to count under WP:SELFPUB.

It's impossible to come up with a general rule other than "Because I said so" that allows for your personal knowledge to be a legitimate basis to correct an error. Wikipedia is not responsible for correcting errors beyond the scope of what our RS'es have themselves corrected; that way lies madness. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't agree with you. That way lies wisdom, not madness.  :-) Madness comes when we insist that the rules of Wikipedia demand that Wikipedia report falsehoods. But let me be clear on whether or not I understand you - you think we should claim that Justine Thornton attended Nottingham School for Girls? Even though it's false?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, you're unusual on Wikipedia as a named, public person with the clearest vested interest of all in not adding poor content to Wikipedia. What would you recommend should happen when an IP editor makes a similar, apparently baseless claim about an acquaintance's education history?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Hard cases make bad law. No, we shouldn't insist that Wikipedia report falsehoods, if we know something to be false we shouldn't write it, but only per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, because we can't codify it into a policy. You have to realize that you are pretty unique in our regard, you basically are OTRS - if you state you've spoken to Justine Thornton and she said X, we'll believe you. But imagine if someone else, say an anonymous editor who joined last week and has 10 edits were saying what you just did, that several widely published newspapers and a book all got it wrong, so we shouldn't write that in our articles. Should we be taking that person's word for it? What if they have 1000 edits? 100,000 edits? What if they're a Bureaucrat, a member of Arbcom, and a real life Professor of Theology? At what point does a Wikipedia editor's say so mean more than a reliable source? Should we be voting on whether it is true? Should we be doing it if it feels true or untrue to us? Surely not. That way lies not madness, but truthiness. --GRuban (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Per VK and GRuban, mostly, with nuances: No, we don't need to include a falsehood--that particular tidbit seems quite trivial, actually, and if it were disputed, it might be better not to include it at all rather than describing the conflict among sources as I posited originally. However, I believe we need reliable sources--in which I explicitly include BLP subjects' own pronouncements regarding their lives--in order to combat errors by other reliable sources. In this case, under our existing sourcing rules, you yourself could be considered an "expert" on that particular fact, on the basis of your standing and familiarity with the subject... But that solution doesn't scale well. How does a regular user go about correcting a falsehood published by at least one reliable source and neither retracted, corrected, or repudiated by that same source or any other reliable source? There is no justification at all for including the correct (unpublished) information, when the false information is all that has been published in an RS. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@VsevolodKrolikov: No one in that short discussion makes any reference to "Verifiability, not truth" so I'm not sure how this example applies to this discussion. Nor am I sure how changing the policy would have made any difference. But even assuming that it does apply and changing the policy would have made a difference, that discussion seems to be about whether the letter "d" should be in upper case or lower case. I don't think we should risk turning Wikipedia upside down over whether a letter should be in upper or lower case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Quest - I cited that case as a parallel one to Jimbo's at the top of this section. No one cited the policy like that, but it's clear that was the principle operating. I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'm arguing that we shouldn't get rid of "verifiability, not truth". I think the outcome was fine - although if I'd known about OTRS, I would have suggested that to the editor. The current proposal is effectively a re-wording, not a substantive change, but it's not a rewording I can support.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the word "threshold" isn't brought up once in this entire section. 'Cause that's the key, and that's what it says. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) One can also say that in these examples Jimbo himself is a reliable source that the editors trust more than the sources. So, it is a matter of trust. And construed this way, this is something that happens quite frequently on Wikipedia. If some newspapers reports something about science, but they get it wrong, then usually the editors on that topic on Wikipedia are expert enough to see this and not include what the newspaer writes in the article. Of course, other policies can be invoked, such as WP:NOTNEWS, but what often really matters in such cases is the judgement by the editors that the news report is wrong. Also, if there is some discussion about this on the talk page, then less knowlegable editors will typically listen to what others have to say, even if that means overruling what reliable sources say. Of course, such explanations are ultimately based on knowledge that exists in the scientific literature, but that's often not readily accessible to the less knowledgable editors. So, it then again boils down to the fact that the editors trust each other. You can't always give direct citations to verify something, because being able to read and understand the literature can require several years of study. An attempt at verification on the talk page via citations to the literature would degenerate into a university level course and thus be the mother of all WP:Synths. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-problem. Justine Thornton's school is correctly stated in This Is Nottingham, a reliable source. As is true in most of these cases, the truth is out there, if perhaps not in the first source an editor finds. The usual rules are sufficient: someone points out the mistake, an appropriate RS is found, the article is corrected. If something is a widespread misconception, that can be stated along with how and where it originated, if known. An example would be the actresses who lied about their year of birth. We report the range, and who (actress, registrar) claims what. Otherwise we have endless edit wars, all based on RS. The point is to inform readers of the facts, and sometimes that includes false facts which we report as false facts. 76.192.41.66 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Break

Another set of examples of the damage VNT is doing can be found at List of unusual deaths. There are several highly suspect reports of unusual deaths, that border on the ridiculous or even the physically impossible. These reports were picked up by news services world wide, reprinted nearly verbatim as a "weird news" piece with pretty much no investigation by any of the journalists. c.f. Vladimir Likhonos, Jenny Mitchell (though more recent reports have debunked the ludicrous hair peroxide explosion theory). I have pleaded with the regulars on that page to exclude news items that are likely myths or that border on physical impossibility, but "verifiability, not truth" seems to trump editorial discretion in their eyes. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's when you follow the "it was reported by x that...." convention. If nothing else, you make the presumably RS look less than RS. Which, if true, is a good thing. Strike a blow for serious journalism. 76.192.41.66 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I thought I would re-post a suggestion I made in the talk page on this issue. I'm re-posting it because it speaks directly to the issues that Jimbo outlines in his concerns: "I think that truth matters", " people say things like "Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth"" - Jimbo is speaking to the virtues of truth. Truth is a social virtue, not something that is in itself a permanent fact of reality. Truth in Wikipedia logically abides by the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Much of this debate hinges on misunderstanding behind the philosophy of truth and peoples conceptions of what that means. Two quotes from Gould in "Deconstructing the "Science Wars" by Reconstructing an Old Mold"[3] where he had a lot to say about truth. It is a scientific perspective, but valid in the context of truth in a more general sense:

• "Bacon should therefore become the primary spokesperson for a nondichotomized concept of science as a quintessential human activity, inevitably emerging from the guts of our mental habits and social practices, and inexorably intertwined with foibles of human nature and contingencies of human history, not apart, but embedded—yet still operating to advance our genuine understanding of an external world and therefore to foster our access to "natural truth" under any meaningful definition of such a concept."
• "In a striking metaphor, Bacon closes his discussion of idols by describing our scientific quest as an interplay of mental foibles and outside facts, not an objective march to truth—a marriage of our mental propensities with nature's realities, a union to be consummated for human betterment: "We presume that we have prepared and adorned the bridechamber of the Mind and of the Universe. Now may the vote of the marriage-song be, that from this conjunction, human aids, and a race of inventions may be procreated, as may in some part vanquish and subdue man's miseries and necessities.""

The sentence should provide a service, an apt function for resolving disputes when editors come to look up verifiable resources and to give guidance beyond a persons intrinsic knowledge or perception of truth. In this context I think a re-write of the lead sentence in question could solve this dispute. Rigidly holding onto one of two choices is an absurd way to go about this debate. There is a whole world of options to consider. I offer the following:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in the pursuit of truth and reliability using the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. Verifiable means that readers can check if the information in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source, not if editors think it is true."

The misunderstanding that many people have about truth, especially in context of science that many believe to contain the "gold standard" of discerning fact from fiction, is that science is not a venture that seeks out certainty. This myth goes back to Francis Bacon and the model of objectivity in science - the objective truth. However, as Gould notes in "Deconstructing the Science Wars", even Bacon - the father of "pure scientific objectivity" (a myth), wrote extensively on the idols as impediments of bias that are entrenched in the human venture and psychology on its voyage of discovery for "natural truth". This is what Jimbo and the rest of us are after - the pursuit of truth and we are using the Wikipedia forum to achieve this. The key is that the source must be reliable. How do we know if it reliable or not? Well, like the example that Jimbo gives at the lead of this discussion - there is a continued pursuit of truth and he pursued the matter to see if the source was reliable.Thompsma (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the example about Justine Thornton having attended Nottingham High School for Girls (or not) says much more about WP:SELFPUBLISH than about the "verifiability, not truth" slogan. The narrow requirements to use information from a self-publication, such as a blog entry, or even a Wikipedia user page or Wikipedia article talk page, creates a barrier to the removal of false information. Especially for the removal of false information, where the self-publisher is merely reporting an interview or correspondence with an unquestionable expert, it should suffice for the self-publisher's identity to be reliably established, and a reputation for writing honestly. I see no need for Jimbo to be a journalist or have published articles in reliable sources concerning Justine Thornton or Nottingham High School for Girls in order for his statements about his interview of Justine Thornton to be considered reliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Jc3s5h, but it also relates to WP:IRS and WP:SOURCES. Do those "news" articles count as a reliable source? In the pursuit of truth we have reason to question their reliability. Both WP:IRS and WP:SOURCES discuss means to further scrutinize the source material: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." That is the nature of research and we can do no better.Thompsma (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no need for Jimbo to be a journalist or have published articles in reliable sources concerning Justine Thornton or Nottingham High School for Girls in order for his statements about his interview of Justine Thornton to be considered reliable.

No offense to Jimbo, but if an editor simply asserted that they had met a subject who told them that something was wrong in a bio I would not change the article on that basis alone. That would be original research which is specifically prohibited by a core content policy. As Wikipedia editors and readers, we have no general way of determining what is true except items of our own personal experience and we're forbidden from using our own knowledge as a source. All we have are verifiable, reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is good verification that a person who is widely regarded as honest has an account where self-published statements can be made, and the honest person relates an interview with an article subject, it really isn't original research for a Wikipedia editor to use the interview. But WP:SELFPUBLISH says the interview can't be used unless the honest person is either a journalist or has previously published in reliable sources in the relevant subject area. So what Wikipedia policies are calling "original research" really isn't "original research" but something else entirely. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, truth, and the dimension of people X time

Science is considered one of the highlights of human intellect and often considered one of the most reliable resources on natural truth. Science avoids the idol of certainty and establishing truth, by falsifying and contemplating probabilities, likelihoods and calculating theory. How does it achieve this and what relation does this have to Wikipedia? Science, like Wikipedia, is a collective enterprise, it is its own beast governed by its social contract that itself evolves, steady and punctuated over time.

The dimension of time X people is what seems to be missing in this debate on truth and verifiability. We have billions of people on this planet that can freely come to edit and fact check every article from now until the foreseeable future. I've often wondered what Wikipedia could look like in a thousand years. What news organization has that kind of power? We can do better than the "tabloid" news style articles and can compete against professional encyclopedia's. Why? We have time and people on our side. This is a human enterprise and people over time in pursuit of truth building on the good will of humanity to share our knowledge is a worthy investment. It is an amazing testament to what we can accomplish through so called "free-labour". Truth is a worthy pursuit and this engine called Wikipedia powered by people and time are up for the challenge.Thompsma (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Draft essay

I side with amending "v not t", but I think the issue here may be more about a lack of clarity as to the issue of excluding material that is wrong. I don't think things are actually unclear if you apply common sense, but it also seems clear that you can't assume people will always do that.

To that end, I've done a little essay. I don't mind if editors think this is not the right approach and its only a draft, which I will agree reads a little officiously and spoonfeedy (but maybe that's what's called for). --FormerIP (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left you a note on that essay's talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

• Treating all "no consensus" situations equally is illogical, IMO. Factors like the number of participants, whether it is an addition or a removal proposal and other factors should be considered. Sometimes it is a choice between two or more alternatives; suppose a RFC that says "the article currently mention that x is red but some editors think x is blue" end up with 51% for the blue claim. It is silly to keep the red claim just because it was in the article before the RFC. At least, a no consensus in this situation should result a compromise or even the removal of both claims. Sole Soul (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  

Well Mr. Wales, can't say I've enjoyed it, but at least it was free. Good luck with your encyclopedia... DS Belgium (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS policy or common practice there?

Every so often, WP:OTRS gets complaints that Wikipedia is "distorting" the truth on this or the other, and the appropriate reply is that we represent "verifiability, not truth". I feel that our claim that we verify facts, but don't claim to present any one "truth" is a core value and should remain in focus. It's an essential reminder both for editors and readers. Asav | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As the OTRS stuff seems to all take place behind closed doors, could you please comment if the above is an accurate representation of how stuff works there? (The above was written by an OTRS member, it seems.) Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@OTRSer – And would it be any different if the response given out were, rather than "v not t", to say the Wikipedia policy is "objective verifiability, not subjective truth".  Most of the complaint seems to be the simple, plain reading, interpretation of "v not t", which would imply that truth was irrelevant; but really, the statement is more about the recognition that truth is often about interpretation and opinion, whereas verifiability is concrete and confirmable by anyone. — Who R you? Talk 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm have access the OTRS queues and mailing lists, and I have hardly ever seen this happen. What we actually do is request that those emailing us provide us with further reliable sources, if the material contradicts a source in the article. If the article is largely unsourced, I and likely many others see nothing wrong with vastly rewriting the page. NW (Talk) 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good example

Quick summary - the husband of the subject objects that the article said she was fired when she resigned. There is one source that says this, and he says that it was a light hearted interview that simply got the facts wrong. Cue 3 months of battling, and an experienced editor coming out with crap like "The subject may state on the talk page what they believe is the "truth", but that cannot be accepted as reliable source for the article. Sources must be independently published. I restate, we aim for verifiability, not truth." In the end, some people with some sense turned up and managed to argue against it. However, that was 3 months of pointless battling for the subject's husband that simply shouldn't have happened. (I should point out that there were other things at play in the whole situation which have recently been uncovered but they are not particularly relevant to the WP:V discussion). Polequant (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that one of the people who was arguing for including that gave up saying "Fair enough, it seems the consensus is against me on this issue." Still, four year later he was blocked for "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: A record of BLP problems that literally goes back years." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Polequant, you forgot to mention that there was also more and better quality RS that said she resigned, and most importantly, the main protagonist was a subsequently disagraced journalist working under a pseudonym (ie he claimed a different real life name) who had argued with Odone, and was banned indefinitely for a whole series of BLP violations of a nature that reached a national newspaper - see Johann_Hari#Wikipedia_editing for our own brief account. "Verifiability, not truth" still applied in this case. It wasn't Edward Lucas' testimony that counted, it was the better RS. The non-Hari "experienced editor" was also showing a loose grip on policy, by saying things like "If an unorthodox view about a science matter has been published by a peer-reviewed journal, then mention of that view cannot be excluded from a relevant article; WP:NPOV makes this clear." which it doesn't, and I presume it didn't then. The one good thing about this new proposal is that it makes it clearer that verifiability is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. The policy needs a statement about how to handle possible inaccuracies, directing people to the policies that deal with them, such as WP:RS. WP:V does not deal with accuracy directly. WP:RS does.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Even with the other sources there were still arguments like "I think it is sufficient to say that at the time Odone left the Catholic Herald, several contemporary news sources reported that she had resigned, but this was contradicted in a later article which reported that she had been fired." I don't think anyone here will disagree that this user was wrong in policy, both existing and under the proposed wording change. The point is that someone was taking the "Verifiability not Truth" slogan and misusing it (either intentionally or not). If the wording is changed, hopefully that sort of thing will either not happen or be easier to call people out on.

Anyway, I was only intending to show an example of where "V not T" has been misused, as that had been asked for further up. There are bigger lessons to learn from the Hari mess as well of course. Polequant (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Great example. That Johann Hari was the one pushing the "V not T" line makes it all the better as an example, really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How on Earth does it make it a better example because the editor was clearly acting in bad faith? Bad faith editors pushing a nasty edit will quote all kinds of policy; it doesn't invalidate those policies. The situation was not resolved by Edward Lucas' assertions of what was true, it was resolved by other editors looking at the preponderance of RS. That Hari could cause these problems is a governance issue - why were there not more eyes on this at an earlier date?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "verifiability, not truth" is a powerful tool that is easily abused. Most of the time it is abused in relatively harmless ways, when defending mainstream positions against fringers. That alone wouldn't be sufficient reason to get rid of it. But it can be just as powerful in the hands of an editor who is pushing some false claims into Wikipedia. Hans Adler 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Keith Raniere and NXIVM

Look at the disconnect between what the citations say and what the article says. Look at the RS collection on TALK:Keith Raniere. If it weren't for negative press, he wouldn't have any. I cannot write the articles for whatever reason and want to resign completely from editing it, although I'd like to continue to maintain and improve the library of RS's on his discussion page. How do I recruit someone to do it right? I've tried everything. This is important! You want us to "get it right" with BLPs, and no one trusts me to do so, but if not me, who? Can't you ask someone to write it? With your pull, you could ask someone to author the articles properly and you might actually have success, unlike me. Chrisrus (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you ask at WP:BLPN - lots of good biographers hang out there and can surely help. I agree with others who say that you shouldn't edit the article - you've self-identified as a "hater" and people who hate people usually have a hard time writing a good biography of them.

I won't get involved in editing the article myself. While I don't have anything at all to do with Keith Raniere or NVXIUM, Sara Bronfman is a friend, and this is a difficult article due to the levels of bad press around it. Best if I not get involved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did ask there, and did get a little help, thank you. But what we need is someone to really do it right, and that means first getting familiar with the WP:RSs, as you know, and then following all the rules and guidelines and to write a proper article. We'll see what happens; let's keep our fingers crossed!

What you say about "haters" goes for "fans" as well, of course, and although you'd think that my personal feelings might cause that to happen, it also might not, and you'll see I have done nothing but good work there. As you say, the press is pretty much all bad, so it's the fans who need to make stuff up and distort and misrepresent in this case, I just honestly collect citations and try to get neutral people to read them and get advice from WP:BLP experts to decide for me what in them to include and how to do it. Having said that however, I don't want to write or edit it anyway, and almost none of either article has any text written by me. Well maybe just a little. They know where I live and I've seen the NYP video John Tighe (I'm not outing him, he outed himself on his blog) posted there before I deleted it on the grounds that the Post is a tabloid and I'm a good Wikipedian who follows the rules no matter my personal feelings.

Next; no way, really? She's a friend of yours? Is she a Wikipedia supporter? If she's really a friend in the sense of a person you care about, you might want to learn all about them and see if you can help her. Once you're familiar with the WP:RSs on TALK:Keith Raniere and any others you can find (please add them to that project if you can find them), I'm sure you'll want to help anyone you care about to stay or get away from them. Unless there're knowable truths out there about them that people like me who are simply familiar with the available RSes can't know, it seems like she's in some big trouble but doesn't know it and needs some help of some kind from a friend. Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts for her. I'm sure you can respect that I won't comment publicly on her personal business that has nothing to do with me. :) She's not a (major) donor to Wikipedia (she might donate some, I don't know), if that's what you mean - our friendship is personal and has nothing to do with that. She's a super nice and very bubbly and happy person. Having said all that, I think we should have a really good Wikipedia entry on Keith Raniere and his organization, which means neutral and carefully written. It's just that I shouldn't be directly involved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. And I'm glad you and I agree about "I think....written", and though I understand that neither of us will be doing it, I think if you follow up at WP:BLPN where I have followed your advice and also ask around for someone to get that done, you with your clout will have better success than me it getting that done by someone else. Or you might just ask around if you can think of anyone you trust to do a good job and "get it right"; that's important and as you say this is a difficult case. Also, if you can think of any other strategy I could use to recruit neutral authors/editors to lead there, please do let me know. Or anything else you can think of to get it done right. Chrisrus (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dutch WP pushed total to 20 million articles

I notice the Dutch Wikipedia had a massive upload of articles, from 768,520 on 20 October 2011 (to over 850,281 now), quickly adding over 80,000 articles (perhaps 7,400 new pages per day, while enwiki gained 930/day). That is why the total of 20 million all-language articles was reached early. As more clever people, in various areas, continue to improve automated processes, the coverage of Wikipedia is growing in astounding ways. This really gives hope to machine-translated basic articles (for some languages), based on clever translation software. We know it has been theoretically possible, for years, and computer experts are coming to WP to help in many ways. The Dutch nlwiki was one of the first to use town-population tables to quickly update thousands of articles, for current population counts, and now enwiki is beginning to use similar tables: all German and Austrian towns automatically show current counts. Perhaps within a few years, almost all major town articles will automatically retrieve current-population counts, and enwiki will have relatively few town articles with out-dated populations. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Found the culprit, Joopwikibot. If we used automation in an effective way with human editing on here to generate content we'd likely have 20 million articles in English in just a few years. Something which can put a foreign wikipedia article into english instantly with little proof reading perhaps. Perfect translation systems are the key I think, but ones like German have a long way to go yet. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was thinking just to translate the intro paragraphs, and then perhaps the first section with option to delete if the translation is too convoluted. This is my rationale: an intro section typically contains simple sentences, and the old Google Translate (2004) could correctly translate simple German text including the declination of nouns (der die das die; den die das die; dem der dem den; des der des der). If we found a translator that could handle simple sentences (and also translate the "minor" word that Google Translate omits, you know, that minor word called the "verb of the sentence"), then a bot could translate the start of many German (or other) articles, where a human inspector would just spot check the occasional article for a sane intro section. This is the logic behind Statistical Process Control (SPC): there can be a zillion units produced, but only spot-check a sample of the results and look for the range of variation in the samples. According to the SPC theory, if the range of variation is within statistical limits, then there is little likelihood of goofed-up stub translations. Not all stubs need to be proofread, just a sample, checked for variation, then the implication is that a zillion stubs are of high enough quality (at the approved level of variation). The quality of each stub would directly depend on the quality of each other-language article, which for German WP is very high. -Wikid77 05:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's about one article for every 20 Dutch citizens. So, with 7 billion people on Earth, we should have 350 million articles. Count Iblis (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

14,000 stubs on beetles♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Beetles? Pshaw! Here's another idea. If you're looking for subjects which could potentially benefit from mass-creating a lot of stubs (which of course would need to contain SOME useful information) I suggest setting something up to create a stub for every single number. You could start with the natural numbers (I suggest that the minimal information included in each stub is of the form "n is a natural number between n-1 and n+1". Since there is, I think, a lot of these natural numbers, you'd probably want whatever bot you got doing this running continuously since I suspect it will take a very long time to cover all them natural numbers. You could also get started on the rational numbers (say, the ones between 0 and 1, first... or wait, maybe just the ones between 0 and 1/2 to keep it manageable... or .... 0 and 1/4?). At some point, if you're feeling crazy you could try to get a stub on every real number out there...

All of this is fine and dandy but if we go that route then at some point, in the interest of basic honesty and accuracy, we should probably start listing on the main page what percentage of our 3,785,261 ... "articles" are bot/semi-bot generated one or two sentence stubs.  Volunteer Marek  23:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And oh yeah, you gonna need a another bot, running parallel, that creates a disambig page for each of these numbers as in "n can be 1) number 2) year", though I don't think that will be an issue with some of them rationals and reals. Just imagine:

Welcome to Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

an uncountably infinite number of articles in English

 Volunteer Marek  23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you may not be aware that while every populated place, named stream & lake are by policy notable, not every number is notable. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (geography), Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) and WP:1729 -- the last being a fascinating essay that has been around for years, yet I never knew existed before tonight. -- llywrch (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch, essays and guidelines are not policy, there is no ironclad notability for every stream, runoff, and estuary on the planet. If you cannot say something about a geographic region beyond its coordinates, then it shouldn't be an article. I'd rather see the project approach article milestones with quality, not simple, bot-generated quantity. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Tarc; my mistake. However in comparing the notability of named goegraphic places to numbers, all we have are essays & guidelines. There is support for asserting that all named geographic places are significant (or at least the burden of proof rests on showing that it is not notable), while there is no support -- even amongst the mathematics people -- for asserting all numbers are notable. (The WP:1729 essay, if adopted as a policy, would create a fairly high barrier to inclusion.) Volunteer Marek is confusing apples & oranges with his examples, & not helping his argument. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You're missing the point. I was suggesting a way to get "Wikipedia has xxxxxxxxxx kazilllion articles" up on the main page header, of course tongue-in-cheek (numbers, oranges, beetles, doesn't matter). The point is that if mass bot-creation of small stubs becomes widespread (to a certain extent it already has), we cannot with a straight face go on claiming that we have "3,785,927" (or whatever) "articles" when we actually don't. Not in any meaningful sense of the word "article" anyway. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Never been a fan of bots creating articles. Isn't this meant to be the sum of human achievement? Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

14,000 bot drilled articles all with the same generic two lines though to me look awful. If a bot could be programmed to create meaty stubs/start class fair enough but those Dutch stubs in my view are horrid. And we shouldn't be boasting abuot 20 million articles when we probably have fewer than 50,000 articles combined of real quality either. Yes, its an impressive figure but not really indicative of what is actually in each article and their level of comprehensiveness/quality. Some articles are worth tens of times more in value than others.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So why are we disagreeing here? Here I agree with everything you say above. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To sound a more enthusiastic note, they may be only 1% as useful as a real article, but they're not useless. They answer the question: "What is an acalymma suturale anyway?" Click on nl:Acalymma suturale, and at least you know, "oh, it's a beetle." (If you can read Dutch, that is, or use Google translate.) On EN, search for "acalymma suturale", and you get nothing. I'd argue even one line that says it's a beetle is considerably more useful than nothing. And even 1% of 14,000 is pretty good. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A referenced stub is never useless. But if somebody wants to read a nicely written article on a beetle they may be a while trying to find one! Of course we would ideally have full length articles on them all too..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This Halloween's main page FA

I know that there are other pages where this has been discussed, but the consensus decision to allow this Halloween's main page FA might indicate Wikipedia has jumped the shark. Freedom of speech and censorship aren't the issues here: the main page is the shop window for this project and key to its brand. How many current regular users and occasional contributors will now think twice before associating themselves with the brand?

I had to wait a couple of days before I posted this to ensure my initial thoughts were not just a simple knee-jerk reaction.--ML5 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article in question should not have been on the main page, and certainly not for a holiday that is still primarily a children's holiday. (Though I must have been so busy on Monday that I did not even see (or notice) what the main-page featured article was; I didn't even know about any of this until I read your comment.) However, I don't think comments like "jumping the shark" are necessarily productive. It was, in my opinion, a bad decision, but nothing more than that. Maybe some more scrutiny needs to be given to how these decisions are made, and maybe more people need to be participating in the decisions. One person who I am pretty sure does not make these decisions, or is likely to get involved in making them in the future, is Jimbo, though he does welcome discussion of all matters on his talk page. Neutron (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been discussed. The discussion and consensus for this to appear is in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Human Centipede. There was lots more discussion which occurred after it was featured in Talk:Main Page#I'm sick (you'll need to click 'Show' to view that section; it's been collapsed because it's concluded)  Chzz  ►  16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, jeez, we can't watchlist everything. How about an RfC with pointers to it from the Pump and so forth before pulling another stunt like this, hmmn? Is that asking too much? Herostratus (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And we shouldn't have to RfC everything either. I mean, holy crap! A horror movie was posted as TFA on Halloween! OMG! It was no worse than Haloween II in 2007. Resolute 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worse. Neutron (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Far, far worse. Who decides what to feature, and what were they smoking? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

News flash, people; we have articles on gross topics. If editors put in hard work and effort so that the quality is worthy of Featured Article status, then so be it. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was a particularly interesting choice for the day (London Necropolis Railway is vastly more interesting and topical IMO), but as Tarc says, we have articles on this stuff :) And besides, Halloween is supposed to be disturbing, so perhaps it served the purpose :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Chzz has given links to the many reasoned arguments from both sides. However, my point is that the choice to have the article as TFA was worse than vandalism as the choice was reviewed with due regard to all the correct WP procedures by registered users and admins. No mainstream media would have deliberately showcased the best efforts of its contributors to new and returning users by using this as an example. I feel there's been too much emphasis on policy and procedure and too little emphasis on the big picture - creating an online editable encyclopaedia open and welcoming to all.--ML5 (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that not what was done, however? I think the movie itself was beyond stupid, but to be an encyclopedia that is "open and welcoming to all", one must welcome topics such as this. As I said in one of the discussions, this article is actually a good advertisement for the project, because it helps demonstrate the breadth of our coverage. On occasion, that means listing a controversial topic. Resolute 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that we have articles like this. What I hate is the fact that in effect, we told the world that on that day this Article is better than any other article on Wikipedia. I wouldn't have minded if a far more disturbing story from real life had been chosen. What I dislike is that a non-interesting article was chosen. Anybody can write a low-quality gross-out torture porn horror script. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO a Featured Article represents the quality of the article, not necessarily the quality of the subject matter. Maybe someday the Lingerie Football League will be worked up to FA. Or the Wikipedia Review, or Jimmy Carter rabbit incident. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to RfC everything, but we should RfC items which are apt to be broadly contentious and affect the main page. It's one thing to say "I think this is fine", quite another to say "I think this is so incontrovertibly fine that it needn't be broadly discussed". Any contention that the item is incontrovertibly acceptable for the main page is belied by the facts, such as the existence of this thread, so maintaining that shows a poor understanding of the community and its likely reaction to items like this on the main page.

I've added the relevant pages to my watchlist, which is an annoying thing to have to do since I don't much care about the main page and paying attention to that subtracts from the time I can spend on other things. I'd prefer that the editors in charge of the main page exercise reasonable judgement and that we can trust them to do that. But if they won't or can't then we will need to watch them more closely, is all. Herostratus (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

The first part of this was posted in Jan 2011. There are two additional sections, one from Nov 2010, one from Mar 2011, and a closing. Sorry about the formatting, (losing Bold and Paragraphs):

Should Wm5200 be blocked? Here is some background, edited for length and with some words bold for emphasis. Please check the originals for accuracy.

Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--random questions--

Extended content

I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them... 99.41.251.5 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this). As the article lead says... This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw in general, and specifically to Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these wonderful resources. In view of this information, and hopefully with the help of Gwen, I propose edits similar to the following...Reference others may include Trevor-Roper and Beevor. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Posted under Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler--aftermath-- The first paragraph...claims. Wm5200 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Everything in that section is sourced and/or highly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Have you read either Kershaw or Joachimsthaler? Wm5200 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Why do you ask? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC) If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources. In view of this information, I propose edits similar to the following:Wm5200 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Posted on Talk:Wm5200--Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler-- Article talk pages are not meant as general forums or question boards about a topic. Moreover, they are not meant as outlets for your original thoughts on topics, even if you put those thoughts as questions. Please either start citing sources (along with thoughts about how to echo those sources in the text), or stop posting to Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. If you would like to know more about how to deal with (and skirt) plagiarism worries on en.Wikipedia, you might have a look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Is this the way you were welcomed to Wiki? Look at the talk page. Did Wm5200 bring up valid points? Did he attempt to reference them? Did he try to improve the article? It is now January 2011. Wm5200 has been permanently blocked for trying to introduce Sir Ian Kershaw to Gwen Gale. Gwen Gale has collected more stars. Kierzek and Farawayman fixed up the article some, but still no Kershaw acknowledgment by Gwen Gale. Is this how you think Wiki should work? Should Wm5200 be blocked from improving the article while Gwen Gale is rewarded for not assisting him? Or should Wm5200’s block be reconsidered? This is not about outing Gwen Gale, as some say. No one cares who Gwen Gale is. This is about holding her accountable for things she has said and done on Wikipedia and signed Gwen Gale to. Hiding behind those who have a real reason to hide is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? Does this conflict have political overtones? Wm5200 says “Cabal” and “they” and is ridiculed. But Farawayman has been blocked, and others have been intimidated. Be careful. In November 2010, under the heading “Lead In”, the following was posted: That greyfalcon source is indeed trash. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Going "with scholarly books" (that are balanced and objective, as far as secondary sources/authors can be) has always been my aim on Wiki; and as to this article, specially; Farawayman, who has worked hard of late, herein, I am sure would agree. "Time" and other duties are something that keeps many of us from more Wiki editing/writing and cross-checking at a more expedient rate. So, present what you will for consensus; there is plenty of "time". Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not offering [1] it as a source, Gwen. Only to demonstrate that a lot is floating out there. There's enough trash being passed off as sources in this article as it stands, without any more needing to be added. What the article especially needs to do is to bring forth that seventy years after the fact, the exact circumstances regarding the event remain uncertain and are contested. Naturally the scholarly "consensus" needs to be presented. The WP article on Hitler deals with the generalities regarding his death. This article needs to also deal with the subject's controversial nature. Not cigarette smoking. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) My main worry here is that there is utterly zero, aught evidence, that Hitler or Braun were alive after the late afternoon of 30 April 1945, however they died and the lead should steadfastly echo this, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen, maybe I am missing something.... the lead currently says "Adolf Hitler committed suicide by gunshot on 30 April 1945 in his Führerbunker in Berlin..." Surely that "steadfastly echo's" death on the 30th April. Why is it necessary to pertinently state that he was dead by the afternoon? Farawayman (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC) For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Slow down, one thing at a time!!!! Above, you insist the lead must "echo" that he was dead by the afternoon of the 30th. Explain? Farawayman (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Can you cite any meaningful sources that he was alive after that afternoon? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I removed the Beevor quoted cite; per points stated above; not needed, anyway. With that said, as for hearing the shot, yes, the two you mentioned are on record as having heard it, but Günsche and Linge are on record as NOT hearing anything; although Linge has changed his story on that point. In the famous "The World At War" T.V. series on DVD (originally from the 1970's), Linge stated he heard it; but in his book on page 199, he wrote: "I smelt the gas from a discharged firearm...Hitler had shot himself in the right temple with his 7.65-mm pistol..." As for the evidence of the "Russian autopsy", that bears close scrutiny through the published works. Kierzek (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen, I am not talking about "original research"; I am talking cross-checking and putting forth what the published reliable sources state; as I refer to above in my reply to Dr. Dan as to editing on Wiki and this article, in particular. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Whatever you may be talking about, I'm talking about your own original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I am NOT doing OR; I am editing an article to try and improve it; enough said. Kierzek (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) So at the very least Gwen the circumstances shouldn't be "steadfastly echoed" as they currently are.correct?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Your rhetoric is lacking, IP. Please cite sources or stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen...... The lead says he was dead by the 30th! No-one is disputing that! Who said he was alive after the late afternoon of the 30th? I recommend a good Brunello, I'm having one too! Set this aside, and lets move to a thorough copy edit of the first section. Farawayman (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) All I'm saying is, I think the new lead is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) That's what I'm saying.Why the hostility?.70.28.7.229 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen, we had a grey, green, yellow, blue and dark blue (whatever) version of the lead in the above section! I agree its not perfect in terms of prose, but its factually correct! I concur, it needs polishing to make it read better, so why not give us your version - That's much more constructive. Farawayman (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) On 12 Mar 2011 , under the heading “When making large edits please be careful with citations: the following was posted: (OD) While I agree ... This was further complicated by certain editors constantly preventing information that they objected to being placed in the article, which IMO, somewhat bordered on violating the guideline concerning ownership of a Wikipedia article. Rejecting information that was sourced and then demanding "sources" for information that was objectionable to them. Thankfully things have calmed down a bit. ... Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Closing. Using “Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)” is not really fair, he does not name anyone. And neither he, Kierzek, or Farawayman have been contacted or informed of this post. Gwen, either. Unblocking the Wheelman is a moot point, he’s long gone. But we do not see where Gwen has ever apologized to Dr Dan, Kierzek, or Farawayman, either. She was clearly counterproductive to the article, but there has been no sign of accountability. This is hardly her first dispute. Does the average admin have this amount of conflict?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.55.115 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

99.172.55.115 A.K.A.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious neutrality

In the context of an ANI discussion I observed how striking it is that the illustrations in our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only unrepresentative of how Muhammad is customarily portrayed within Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers.

What does this say about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we are able to live up to that lofty aim?

The most active contributors to the Talk:Muhammad/images page do not appear to include any muslims. How can we involve some of the world's 1.5 billion muslims in the discussion? --JN466 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, shall we move the discussion here now too? Fun! I'll simply point out that titling a thread "religious neutrality" while the jist of the content is to propose ways to bias Wikipedia towards a religious viewpoint is... interesting. Resolute 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's nothing to this, Jayen, but what types of image are you supposing might be included in the Jesus article that might be encyclopaedic but not "fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition"? --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like this? or the crucifixion of Brian under "Reception"? But the real issue isn't that we aren't shocking Christians enough on the Jesus article. It is that we are shocking Muslims on the Muhammad article for no good reason. Even most liberal Muslims who wouldn't mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad in a more appropriate context (such as the article Depictions of Muhammad) will feel that this is a deliberate insult to and humiliation of Muslims. Hans Adler 20:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My point isn't that we should be working harder to shock Christians, but that the two cases are not usefully comparable. To come up with images that might offend some Christians, more or less by the same token, you have to go looking for images that are simply not encyclopaedic for the Jesus article. Having no images of Mohammed in his article would not conform to our normal standards, however - it would involve making an exception. So the question, I think, is not to do with consistency. On the contrary, editors who wish to exclude images of Mohammed - to say nothing about whether they have a good case or not - are arguing for inconsistency. --FormerIP (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Displaying images drawn by Muslims is designed to insult and humiliate Muslims? You keep repeating that same bad faith argument as if doing so will make it true. You might have had an argument if the Norwegian cartoons were in the Muhammad article. The historical imagery currently employed was not created with the intent of being provocative. There is a difference, even if you willfully blind yourself to it. Resolute 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See outgroup homogeneity bias for the scientific explanation of Resolute's accusation of bad faith. Hans Adler 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Being consistent with how groups who affiliate with a given religious tradition have depicted various aspects of their tradition is not only more respectful of those groups but also much more educational than adding fringe depictions. Those oddball depictions can be presented within the specific context that they are meaningful but should not dominate the main entries for major religious figures, etc. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, but there's the rub. Hans' use of outgroup homogeneinty bias is rather ironic, given he is the one presuming that all Muslims are the same. As most people in favour of retaining the images will tell you, that belief is not uniform in the Muslim world. In short, they are not all alike. In fact, I would point out that commons:Category:Muslim depictions of Muhammad has over 100 such depictions, of which only five are used in the article. There are about 40 non-Muslim created images, one of which exists in the article. This is out of 23 total images in the article, including those that head the various "part of a series on..." templates. Resolute 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I referred specifically to the effect which the atypical overuse of images must have on liberal Muslims who wouldn't normally mind such depictions: solidarisation with their extreme faithmates who reject them. Your mirroring of my accusation is therefore obviously invalid. I note that I have observed such unfounded "you, too!" reactions many times in tendentious editors. It is a typical sign of editors who try to win a debate without listening to their opponents. Hans Adler 22:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolute I assure you that liberal Muslims do not have depictions of Muhammad in their homes, in their libraries, or at their mosques. They may tolerate such images, or not find them offensive, or as offensive as some of their more conservative compatriots, but there is nothing normal about these depictions within Islam now or historically. Keep in mind that I specifically spoke of something other than the offensiveness issue, and that was mainstream practice, which has always been iconoclastic in this regard, among liberals and conservatives. It is only a matter of degree after that. So there's no rub there I'm afraid.Griswaldo (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet, 100+ images in our own repository, drawn by Muslims, suggests your assessment is not quite accurate. Resolute 23:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No they suggest no such thing. 100+ images is nothing. Do you know how long Islam has been around and how many Muslims have set foot on the planet over those years? Please see the Depictions of Muhammad entry for more information. Depictions of Muhammad have always been rare for this very reason. The traditional way to represent him is through his calligraphy and written descriptions. Depictions of Muhammad are not even a minority phenomenon within Islam, it is virtually fringe. For sure, given the controversy now and in the past it is important for us to have entries like the depictions entry, but that entry covers a fringe phenomenon within the tradition. It is not helpful to make inferences based on how many images we have. Instead of doing that read some books on the subject, or, heaven forbid, talk to a Muslim or two. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammed is a Wikipedia article on a topic about which people have opinions, so it is not easy to be sure how far to rely on it to resolve disagreements between Wikipedians. But I think this misses the point. How does the (supposed) fact that that a particular class of images relating to the subject of an article is rare lead to the conclusion that they should be excluded from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a general problem. There's Genesis creation narrative while everything else is a "myth". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. Hans Adler 20:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the same. The point is to be consistent with scholarship on these subjects. "Genesis creation myth" is not consistent with scholarship, nor are depictions of Muhammad. So Seb has that backwards actually. I do agree with Hans and Jayen that we are unnecessarily offending Muslims and will reiterate that it is not consistent with scholarship either, which tends to be respectful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive in the current version of the Muhammad article. There are a few depictions from Islamic manuscripts that are commonly included in every article of historical figures when such images are available, plus one Russian painting in the Western views section. Asking Wikipedia to conform to the religious doctrine of some Muslims on this is absurd. What's next? Burqa for all pictures of women on Wikipedia lest they be offensive to some? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Let's hope the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will suggest solutions to these long-term problems. -Wikid77 22:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That page appears to be dominated by editors who have decided long ago that they want these images in the article—for no good academic reason that I can see, because they are fringe images within the Islamic tradition. (For reference, I was unable to find a single such image in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia Britannica articles on Muhammad.) To illustrate the Islamic mainstream, and actually teach readers something about Islamic aesthetics and the way Muhammad is represented in Islam, I believe we ought to be showing images of calligraphy, symbols and pictograms associated with Muhammad, famous examples of such in the masonry of major mosques, hilye (!) images [4][5], perhaps images of the various relics of Muhammad, etc.—in other words, things that are actually religiously meaningful to a large number of muslims. --JN466 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I've been very confused about this line of discussion both at ANI and on here. If you think the images that are being used in the Muhammad article are not properly educational or representative of appropriate depictions of Muhammad, then...propose other images to replace them? Have other alternative images been proposed? Because i'm not seeing that. Silverseren^C 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll hazard a guess that most of the editors wishing to illustrate the article on Muhammad using the same approach as is used in the article on Jesus don't actually know very much about Islam. That ignorance shows and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Islamic culture is simply different in that respect, and we are not showing the genuine richness of Islam's own approach, nor do we give the reader much indication that such a difference in approach exists. We could probably do with a bit of outreach to Islamic studies scholars. --JN466 03:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It makes no more sense to base what (if any) depictions of Muhammad we have in Wikipedia articles on our treatment of pictures of Jesus than the other way round. It is easy enough to ascertain that many Muslims consider depictions of the prophet in art to be inappropriate, and that is what is at issue here - not how Christians portray Jesus (or other religions portray their gods, saints, prophets and other sacred entities). It seems to me that though 'Wikipedia is not censored' implies we can show illustrations of the prophet, it doesn't follow that we have to, and any debate on the subject needs to be based on the principle that we are here to educate and inform, rather than just show pretty pictures. If a reader of our articles on Islam wonders why there are no illustrations of its founder, reading why might be more educational than any picture. Yes, we should have an article on 'depictions of the prophet Muhammad in art' or similar, to show how, in contrast to the norm, many depictions have been created, but we don't need to gratuitously include images elsewhere (which are in any case only depictions based on the imaginations of those creating them many years later) just to prove a point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • That's the last thing we need, more outside advocacy and antagonism. This is a very simple situation. We have an article on Muhammad. Images and depictions of artistic value of Muhammad exist, created at various points and times in history. We place this images in the Muhammad article, because, hey, we're a visual media and we like that sorta thing.
    • There is no other aspect to consider. We do not take into account that some Muslims believe imagery to be idolatrous. This is the English Wikipedia, written primarily for a Western audience. We do not defer to religious custom, We do not render all mentions of "God" as "G-d". We do not close down on Sunday to observe the Sabbath.
    • The only leg any of your argument could stand on is if the article contained renderings from something like the Draw Muhammad Day. Those things are contemporary, amateurish depictions created with the specific aim to denigrate, and offer to value to an biographical article on Muhammad the man. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I do think there is another leg to stand on. The article has 19 images in all. 6 are geographical, 4 are of buildings, 1 is of the Quran, 1 is of Mohammed's seal, 1 (the lead image) is of calligraphy, and 6 are depictions of Muhammad (of these, 4 show him unveiled, 1 shows him veiled, and 1 shows him as a flame). Those 6 images, and in particularly the 4 that show his features, are vastly undue, even completely disregarding the aspect of offensiveness, because they represent an extremely rare type of image that is simply nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is customarily portrayed. But given that they do also represent the type of image that is most offensive to some muslims, why exactly should our article feature 4 examples of an extremely uncommon and unrepresentative kind of image that causes maximum offence? --JN466 04:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"This is the English Wikipedia, written primarily for a Western audience". Of all the pig-ignorant arguments you could come up with, this has to be the winner. Even ignoring the implicit assumption that English speakers are necessarily Western, and that it isn't possible to be both a Muslim and a Westerner, on what basis do you assume that Westerners are so driven by a desire for 'images' that they are incapable of understanding why others have a different opinion? Try to come up with arguments that don't insult everyone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia itself has some statistics on it's editorship that support what Tarc is trying to say. Additionally, various articles on the subject (also right here on Wikipedia) support what he is trying to say. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Analogy: I write a book in American English and publish it here. How many non-US English speaking readers do you think I will have? And how many say... Muslim readers from overseas... do you think will instead read the version on their Wikipedia? People keep using worldwide numbers as if every person of Islamic faith comes here, even though they live halfway across the world and have their own wiki. Hope that clarifies. Still not sure why it's relevant. The different opinion is based on religious prohibitions that do not apply, otherwise the Scientology article would have been lobotomized already. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a competition to see who can come up with the most ignorant posting on Jimbo's talk page? Muslims don't have 'a Wikipedia', any more than Christians do - and neither do they necessarily live 'half way across the World'. Incidentally, even though I prefer British English, I am actually capable of comprehending the U.S. version - I suggest you find a publisher with a little more worldly knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Andy, I didn't realize that.[6][7] ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to websites that aren't 'Muslim Wikipedias' - but what exactly is that supposed to prove beyond the fact that evidently you don't understand the difference between 'a Wiki' and Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy here. The English Wikipedia is written in our current global lingua franca. English is, far and away, the most common second language learnt around the world (and a substantial number of those second language speakers are talking to each other, not to native speakers). While native anglophone non-muslim editors are in the majority, our readership extends into every country and community like no other wikipedia. Our policies and practices reflect this internationalism. While no language community "owns" their Wikipedia, this is particularly important to remember with en.wikipedia.

On the same principle, muslims do not own the page on Muhammad, so we are not bound to follow majority muslim practice. We might want to avoid offence where we can. Is it not technically possible to have an opt-in "see the pictures" option so that we can manage any religious sensitivities? We're not paper, we can do this kind of thing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is another point that I am trying to make here. The page on Jesus gives an accurate impression of how Jesus is portrayed in Christianity. But the Muhammad page does not do that. It is badly skewed. This is a question of accuracy, of portraying a world culture knowledgeably, and correctly. --JN466 05:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page a few minutes before your post here. I'm willing to help tackle that. But not till tomorrow. I really need sleep. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to put this back into perspective (as though that's going to happen…) I want to point out that this whole huge mess started because I made the seemingly common-sense assertion that Wikipedia should not offend groups of people without good reason. Doing so damages the reputation of the encyclopedia. If we have to offend people to write a good article, that's unavoidable, but offending people for silly reasons is just… dumb.

There's no real reason that those images of Muhammad need to be on that article (they are not common representations or factual illustrations), and everyone knows that Islam has a proscription against such images; any editor with a smidgeon of common sense and common courtesy would just not do it. But on Wikipedia, apparently, it is a matter of great consternation that any editor should be asked to show common sense or common courtesy.

I'm sorry to say it, but as long as these kinds of attitudes prevail on project, Wikipedia is never going to be a serious encyclopedia; there's too much Jerry Springer in the mix for that to ever happen. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Widening WP focus on truth

Perhaps the recent awakenings about WP's focus on truth will widen, as with the name of the school in the topic "Verifiability and truth" (above, or archived in /Archive_86). Already, users have revealed they edit articles by considering truth. Although many scientists, such as myself, have edited numerous articles for "logical consistency" there could be new guidelines to focus on truth. Some issues:

• Guidelines about comments made by users with true-identities versus pseudonym usernames (re WP:AGF).
• Guidelines about arithmetic proofs to verify calculations.
• Guidelines about algebraic proofs to verify mathematical conclusions.
• Guidelines about using sentential logic and predicate logic.
• Guidelines to base WP:ANI discussions on direct evidence, rather than mere opinions or hearsay repeating other comments.
• Guidelines to prove when truly separate events are not one-event WP:BLP1E.
• Guidelines to detect typos or untrue errors in WP:RS "reliable sources" as to when a source becomes too out-dated (and confusing) for readers to use an old source to verify some text phrases but not others.

As more people focus on the idea that "Wikipedia is in the truth business" then perhaps more guidelines and practices will be improved to simplify future editing. -Wikid77 22:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)