User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

April 2012 editor counts rise after 6 years

Data of username editors, not IPs

The April editor-count data has been posted, and unfortunately, more good news in editor retention: April counts exceeded the March highly active editors (>100 edits/month), for the first time since April 2005.

· Editors >100 edits: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm

Perhaps 2012 is the transition year, where some counts will still fall slightly, while others rise higher. There is not yet a dramatic increase compared to last year, but the April 2012 count (as 3,459 editors) was 99.2% of the April 2011 count of 3,488 busy editors. The reversed trend is the small uptick in April over March, where typically, the April "spring-break" counts have always dropped by 90-120 or so, not risen by 35 editors (1%) in April. Meanwhile, the count of the occasional active editors (>5 edits) did fall, slightly, but only by 605 (to 33,781), rather than the typical April drop over 1,300 active editors, leaving after March each year.

I know this good news must be very frustrating for users who want everyone to leave in anger, but if the active editors will not leave, then perhaps other ways must be found to work with them to fix the problems. The April 2012 data again supports the concept that the decline has bottomed out at 34,000 active editors, and 3,500 highly active editors (average) each month. -Wikid77 07:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shucks that terribly annoying. Which problems would you suggest would most reduce the number of active editors if we fixed them? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That is sorta good news but I can only hope that we can maintain it. I think with Rich F and his bots blocked thats going to cause a fairly big drop in edits, at least for a while. I'm not doing anything close to the numbers I was doing and several others are the same way. Unfortunately Wikipedia from the start of things been very reliant on a small group of extremely active editors and that group is shrinking. So although I agree that the numbers sound good I also think that we still have a lot of work to do. I also think that although this data is encouraging we should also look at how many editors are staying compared with those that do a dozen edits and leave. I know that some stats have bene done that compares some of this but I think it would be interesting to see a chanrt that shows a line for new editors with 5-10 edits, editors with 100+ edits and editors with 1000+. What I suspect is our efforts to get new recruits are working for a while and then after a few edits they leave. I don't know that for sure though. Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be cynical...oh who'm I kidding, I love to be cynical, but I'd be curious as to how much of that is related to the US presidential election season and the users that flood in with the usual POV based editing every 4 years.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Paid staffers or election volunteers may remain afterward: Even if many people are drawn, every 4 years, to enwiki for the U.S. presidential election which coincides with the 2-year/6-year Congressional elections, there might be long-term retention, among those editors, of some who want to stay though the next year, hooked how the sourced information they add gets read every month, every year. As for April specifically, the April 2008 editor-counts did not rise in that election year, but instead the 2008 counts fell after March, even though 2008 was a wide-open presidential election year, with no encumbent eligible to re-elect (and new tickets McCain/Palin versus Obama/Biden). With the election in early November 2012, I think it will be difficult to separate whatever influence from the election-year editors, where even late November and December edits could be updates about impacts of the election. -Wikid77 15:19, 17 May, revised 03:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Problems of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN: I guess my message could be interpreted as wanting more editors to leave, but it was intended the other way round. Several editors have been frustrated by unresolved cases of insulting remarks which violate WP:CIVIL or WP:OWN, where the attitudes and remarks make editors want to quit, but overall, more editors join. I still think a solution would be per-article edit-limits, perhaps on a 3-month basis, which could force some editors to skip various articles or talk-pages, once they reached a personal edit-limit for some troublesome pages. I suppose another person's user-talk page could also be set with a limit, so that they would be less likely to see wp:Wikihounding on their user-talk page by a specific user. -Wikid77 14:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• One thing I've learned studying the history of radical political parties in the 20th Century, which used to count their members based upon "dues stamps actually sold" from month to month, is that to really see trends don't look at the month-by-month figures -- look at quarterly totals and then compare them to previous year figures for the same quarter. I've run that excellent series of "very active editors" linked above into a spreadsheet and generated quarter-by-quarter stats.

Basically, the Very Active Editor numbers — THE key statistic for WP editors, in my opinion, the "cadres" of the organization — has been flat for the last 4 quarters: 3469 — 3456 — 3422 — 3438. Those numbers are not trending anywhere; we've had for the last year approximately 3450 "activists" in English WP. That's the good news. The bad news is that quarterly figures compared to previous year are still trending down. Here's the series for the last 4 years:

Q-I: 4200 — 3945 — 3628 — 3438

Q-II: 4351 — 4103 — 3751 — 3469

Q-III: 4239 — 3999 — 3701 — 3456

Q-IV: 4069 — 3797 — 3539 — 3422

Every single quarter has posted declines against the previous year. That's not good. The bottom line is that is appears that attrition of key volunteers has been staunched for about a year now, but we really won't know for sure for another year or so. Now where is that WYSIWYG editing software that we need so badly? Carrite (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another year might reveal major growth: The past year has been level, but is that glass "half-empty" or "half-full" compared to next year? Thanks for re-analyzing the data by a different method, and I have also noted to Jimbo that the decline had ended during the entire past year. I have stated it as: the prior decline has bottomed out at 34,000 active editors, and 3,500 highly active editors (average) each month. Even though that might seem ho-hum, the alternative fears were of a massive "free-fall exodus" of hundreds of editors quitting in disgust every month (no evidence of that), where instead, the numbers show editors returning, or new editors joining, to maintain the ranks of active editors. For the busy editors (>100 edits), that means, typically, more than 3 edits per day all month. I see the whole situation as a "population growth problem" where populations drop severely due to massive catastrophes, such as plagues, wars, or drought famines. The only wiki-catastrophe I found was during 2007-2008 when school boards banned the use of Wikipedia in numerous schools (or universities) within a few months, and editor counts radically fell around the same time, likely due to fewer students using Wikipedia than in prior years. The editor counts fell further, but the decline slowed, over the years, and halted during the past year. Lacking a new wiki-catastrophe, I see the trend as moving to higher editor counts, which is what the global editor-counts have shown, when analyzing the other-language Wikipedias (which are rising except German, Swedish, and a few others). However, another bizarre change to the user interface could be a wiki-catastrophe, such as the 2011 MediaWiki 1.18+ forced disruption to disable/lockup the MSIE Internet Explorers 6, 7 and 8 compatibility mode. So, as a computer scientist, I fear that the implementation of a WYSIWYG interface, if it went awry to further disable the current UI, could be another wiki-catastrophe to decimate the population of active editors. However, the data of the editor-count stats will help track the impact of such changes. -Wikid77 05:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap has presented you with the Donut of DOOM in the spirit of WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little more gothic.
Bon appetit!
Spread the smell of DOOM by adding {{subst:Give doom}}.

Statistics alone won't light the way into the future for anyone, they can for example indicate the cream of the crap is being collected. The editors who fight for the pillars versus the selfish and despicable. You can lose the war and pick up numbers along the way. There are those who don't care and are along for the ride, writing about a butterfly in Madagascar, they don't care if corporate interest is winning or wikipedia is every zealot's personal webspace, because it doesn't effect them. The editors who used to fight for the principles are losing and leaving and being replaced by people of a different nature.

What will die is wikipedias reputation, neutrality will be for the butterflies. That will be the reputation, who will donate to support that ? Web hosting for corporate interest and fanatics, for free ? Wikipedia won't switch off like a light though, it will fade out like a dot com.

Sorry my forecast is gloomy, I should try? to cheer you up with a donut (I'm not very good at cheering people up I have found, but I do try. Auntie Pesky is often cheered.) I try to be in a cheerful mood and not worry, but I just get too upset where I can clearly see the decline ahead, (the present is not something I am as focused on as most people). Andy was a good editor, he carried the flame in his heart, defending the pillars was his struggle, and following the IAR to the letter (by dropping his pants and taking a dump on the "rules", but all the while defending the spirit despite that)

You probably shouldn't eat that donut, or even nibble it, it seems to kill everything that touches it. I'd steer clear of it if I were you. Penyulap ☏ 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a little gothic sunshine to brighten up the day. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that "The Pillars" are being forsaken in favor of any sort of New School editors that don't care about the things that really matter: Verifiable accuracy, Substance, and NPOV. ("Accurate stuff in bigger quantities, written neutrally.") The thing is, I'm guessing and you're guessing — the foundation has done an extremely poor job analyzing the composition of that core of 3450 editors. Here's what I think they are: male, we know, probably in an 85:15 ratio, maybe even 90:10. A majority from the UK and the USA, but also a substantial contingent from English-As-A-Second-Language Europe and Australia. Predominantly caucasian. Predominantly college students or college graduates. Stable in terms of longevity and output. Older than the foundation thinks they are — with content writers significantly older than vandal fighters, on average. Socially liberal. Possessors of specialist knowledge about one or more subjects and driven by a desire to expand the information pool on the net. That's my guess anyway. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I should see if I can update the bias page so more editors can see the problem. Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Carrite Spot on, especially re the age of editors. I'm pretty confident that the silver surfers are becoming more important on wiki, and that our demographics are changing rapidly with the average age going up by more than a year a year. This influences the expected length of a wiki career - the newly retired may stay as editors for many years longer than the adolescents and teenagers - though it will be many years before we know what proportion of our younger editors come back at later times in their lives. ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish the Foundation had made an effort to analyze the demographics of content-creators more carefully, because I think it will be something that illuminates the path forward when they do. My theory is that many of the more prolific content-creator (vs. vandal fighters) are in the 50-65 age range. It's a question of time + specialist knowledge. As WP moves from a less developed state to a more developed state, the need for specialist knowledge will become greater. And, who has time + specialist knowledge? Retired or tenured-and-coasting professors! That should be the number 1 with a bullet recruitment demographic, more than global South or female or any other social category... I'm pretty certain about that. I'm also pretty sure, however, that until the user interface is as simple as doing a MS Word or Apple Pages document, it's like waterskiing through a mud hole behind an ATV trying to get the Older Academic sorts up to speed to edit... All things in due time, but we need that WYSIWYG interface post haste. Carrite (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Age of bio-page articles reflects younger crowd: A look at the birth categories of the bio-pages shows a curious skew that most notable people are in their 20s, not 40s or 50s. Meanwhile, the user-demographic data has reported the bulk of editors as being "twenty something" with a peak around 27 years, growing 1 year older each year, as shown among the German Wikipedia editors. That gives the impression that the editors are staying with Wikipedia and growing older at the same rate, ageing with the 'pedia. The bio pages show a similar trend, with a bias to write about more people in the same age groups as the editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The new Terms of Use appear to have been developed in violation of your "Statement of principles"

The second principle in your Statement of principles seems to have been severely neglected in the process of developing the new Terms of Use document that is proposed to become effective a week from now.

Firstly, the discussion was no where near as open as it should have been since it was not well advertised. While some people on the discussion page say they remember the discussion being advertised at some time with a banner on en.wikipedia.org, that seems doubtful to me since I have a record of many edits throughout September 2011 (the month the discussion was announced in other places), so I know I would have noticed a banner then, and there is also no mention of the word "banner" in any context where it would refer to a site-wide banner in the whole page archives. Even if there was a short-running banner (much shorter than the banner running this month to announce the enactment), the page history shows an extremely low participation rate by people outside of what your Statement of principles calls the "cabal"; as a way of estimating non-"cabal" contributions, I looked at the number of red-linked meta.wikimedia.org usernames (only red-linked usernames and not IP addresses, since red links just stand out more in the list; IP contributions may be proportional, or possibly not), since anyone who bothers to create a meta.wikimedia.org user page seems suspiciously enthusiastic about the management of Wikimedia projects (obviously this is not a perfect way of defining "cabal"). There are only sixteen total red-linked usernames in the entire edit history before the draft was frozen on January 1; even more disturbingly, there are only four total red-linked usernames in the edit history prior to December 1 (one of which made only one edit), by which time I imagine the draft had already accumulated an aura of inevitability.

Secondly, since a Terms of Use document is at least as much a "security measure" in the traditional sense of security as anything in a wiki server's codebase, the process of developing them should have been far more modularized to achieve "strict scrutiny". The proposed document is very wide-ranging and was developed all at once without clear articulation of each "compelling community interest" that the individual terms are intended to address; it seems to totally sweep aside and displace (at least selectively displace, without being clear about its selections) ten years of Wikipedia policy documents, even as it for the first time explicitly backs its policies up with legal threats against users by the Foundation. Also, the Terms of Use are of course intended to not be "virtually invisible for newcomers" since they must be visible to be enforceable (the old Terms of Use were already a major barrier for new users, but the extra length and wide-ranging subject matter (not just copyright) make the new ones far worse), but I do not think that that can totally be fixed.

What do you think about the Foundation's handling of this, or about the future of your second principle? Esetzer (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As one of the people who took part in the TOU discussions, and by your definition as a cabal member, I'm going to chip in here. Firstly your definition of the cabal is off, both because it includes people who created userpages on meta after they started participating in the TOU discussions, and because you are including me in the cabal - if I was a member of the cabal would my Meta RFA have tanked so badly? and more importantly I'd have a cabal T shirt by now. But more seriously your methodology is off. The acid test as to how wideranging a discussion was is whether someone can reread the debate and identify issues that were omitted. I suggest that you read the archives of meta:Talk:Terms_of_use and see if you can come up with issues that weren't raised there but that you think should have been. ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I can only second this. The process was plenty open, but even if some people were unaware of it and didn't participate, it isn't as if it's absolutely closed to change. Amendments with broad community support will surely be considered.

So to answer Esetzer's question: What do of think about the Foundation's handling of this? It was superlative. What do I think of the future of my second principle? It's stronger than ever, and has a robust future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The biggest question is why people (such as I, and several others who both managed to find the still-unadvertised discussion page and bothered to comment) were unaware. There is no definitive record of what advertising was done that anyone has been able to lead me to. As someone interested in the Foundation's Terms of Use but not very interested in the Foundation's day-to-day operations, I was looking out for any news about the Terms of Use in what I thought would be the obvious places, based on common sense and my knowledge of precedents such as the 2009 licensing update and Terms of Use promulgation (which is documented well at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline and the other pages linked to from the navbox there). Places where I would have expected a notice and link to the discussion (and would, myself, have seen it and then proceeded to the discussion) include:

• The Terms of Use page linked to in the wikis' footer (there was not even a notice on that page's talk page)
• The footer that links to the terms of use (preferably)
• "CentralNotice" (link leads to a page I just found that seems to refute the idea there was ever a Wikimedia-wide banner advertising the discussion)
• The notification area at the top of Special:Watchlist (I might have missed that during certain portions of the comment period due to "WP:Wikibreaks")
• The conceptually related discussion of OpenStreetMap's license change and new Terms of Use that was ongoing during the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use comment period (obviously that page is not Wikimedia's responsibility, but I think it is an interesting omission on someone's part).

(I would put this list in the section of the Terms of Use discussion page dealing with suggestions for the next time a Terms of Use revision is proposed, but the new Terms of Use already make it clear that "WikimediaAnnounce-L" will be the official place to check for proposed changes, so I will try to avoid confusing the issue for next time even though WikimediaAnnounce-L is not the ideal place for such notifications for many users)

Also, note that the perceived cover-up of the Terms of Use discussion's existence is actually still ongoing, in a way: I and several other commenters at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use have been asking why there is no link to that page (or any other non-protected discussion page) from the current banner announcing the Terms of Use change or from any of the pages that the banner's links lead readers to.

Of course, if many people actually cared about the Terms of Use discussion, word probably could have gotten out last year without Foundation-sponsored advertising (there could have been a Wikinews article, an invocation of the Emergency Broadcast System, etc....), but I do not think that the fact that that did not happen excuses the Foundation from treating the Terms of Use as an important community issue. Among those who show they care on the Terms of Use discussion page, the advertising issue seems to be the most frequent complaint since the banner announcing the change appeared, so I wanted to cover it fully, but I will respond to your other points soon. Esetzer (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, you're forumshopping the crap outta this, and you've been at it for weeks now; as I told you before, you missed the party. I don't have an IRC account, I don't frequent any off-wiki forums, and I'm not on any of the mailing lists; yet even I found and participated in the discussion. And people responded to some of my concerns; the legal council was extremely patient with and open to even some of the dumbest questions that came up. It is clear from the whole way you approach this complaint of yours that you envision a very different type of website and organization; good for you. As User:WhatamIdoing told you, go ahead and found your own website. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been discussing topics like this on the Terms of Use discussion page for weeks (since the Terms of Use banner appeared); I certainly have not been "forumshopping" for weeks. At the top of this page it says "Please don't consider alerting [Jimbo] to any topic to be canvassing". Besides just raising an alert, I took the time to present things in relation to "statement of principles", which I think many Wikipedians will find relevant. Esetzer (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A relevant link: what appears to be the most prominent section of the Terms of Use discussion page archives on the subject of advertising the discussion has a lot of highly exclusionary comments in it and is both pathetically short and pathetically late in the discussion's history. Esetzer (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I misunderstood one of the comments there, so I should not have been quite so critical, but I think the link is still very relevant to the discussion. Only User:Michaeldsuarez is suggesting that any significant fraction of editors (much less of users) be directly informed. Very few editors (or readers) are likely to look at every WP:Village Pump headline or Foundation blog post. Esetzer (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The link I just posted above can, I think, serve as an example of an issue that was raised during the discussion (in other words, not totally "omitted") but that was not discussed by a representative set of editors. I think that it is far from the only one. Just because many issues were discussed to some extent by some people does not mean that discussion was "wideranging" when the invitations were sent so selectively. Within the discussion archives, it appears that many of the users who made interesting suggestions that were not just a minor tweak of the draft initially proposed appear to have been trickling in after stumbling on links to the page in unexpected places, only to have their suggestions dismissed by the more active editors on the page who had the advantage of being there from the start (in other words, the advertising strategy constituted preemptive WP:Canvassing, which presumably can be far more effective than ordinary canvassing at creating a WP:False consensus; I am not very experienced with Wikipedia disputes (see my very non-controversial pre-April25th edit history), so WP:DBN if my characterizations seem harsh or imprecise). By the way, I would be interested to know how WereSpielChequers found out about the Terms of Use discussion since I noticed that he or she is one of the earliest non-WMF names that appears in the Terms of Use discussion page's history. Esetzer (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concerns

These past weeks, I've been thinking if we should consider changing the conflict of interest guidelines. Users are encouraged to stay away from editing articles with which they would be a conflict of interest, COI contributions can be constructive several times however. The COI contributions could be correcting the information. There was a Daily Telegraph article here mentioning that companies wished they could change the errors at their company pages. It would take weeks for a user to submit the third-party edit for them.

Of course, there are going to be contributions that are obvious self-promotion but there are useful COI contributions. Not all COI contributions are going to be self-promotion or possibly inaccurate information. I believe we may be sending away constructive users that simply want to help build Wikipedia. Comments from talk page watchers are welcome. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SwisterTwister...some users might want to improve the image with constructive edits. StrikeEagle ^✈ 13:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the conflict of interest guidelines need any changing at all. The error is in the interpretation. Editors are encouraged not to edit on behalf of a company or group; however, if they follow other Wikipedia policies and remain neutral it is certainly allowed. Many editors don't care about the quality (or potential quality) of the edits of a user with a conflict of interest. They feel that {{COI}} should be slapped on any article that was touched by someone with a conflict of interest. Many refuse to remove the tag even if the article is neutral. Generally, when I meet an editor who I discover has a conflict of interest, I link them to our policies/guidelines on conflict of interest, notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view because I believe those are the most necessary to be aware of when you have a conflict of interest. In addition, I encourage editors to use {{Request edit}} to make their edits and declare their conflict of interest on their user page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I find that companies often omit rather than correct information and interpret Wikipedia's rules in their favor. While COIs that make factual corrections may not be blocked for doing so, the COI guideline is correct to also provide caution. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The COI guideline is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you care to elaborate? The entire thing or just one part? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Shooting the messenger?

Jimbo, I feel the need to draw your attention to the real-wp outcome of this incident (this third-party comment encapsulates my own concerns on the matter). Andy's four-lettered prose apart, I think it's important to bear in mind that conscientious editors such as he is are also human beings. Disclaimer: As a largely uninvolved spectator, I just wanted to draw this issue to Jimbo's attention - not canvassing! —MistyMorn (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy, like many editors can't find leadership, he had a clear case which went stale. If there is a dispute, there is no 'judge' to go to, every admin who saw the request could cross to the other side of the road to ignore what was going on. Admins are just barely, if at all, one step removed from the chaos of editors. Leave a note at ANI and it's like a note on a talkpage, maybe someone will take an interest, maybe nobody will care. Arbcomm long ago left planet Earth, sure some people have a space agency and have access, but what long time editor who has a good eye for trouble can access Arbcomm for every dispute, and what newbie has any chance at all ? Andy couldn't take every problem editor he finds destroying the project off to Arbcomm, nobody can. There is no 'fair' person to whom anyone can take a dispute and get a proper binding response. Either it's a laughable voluntary system, or it's a game of chance, "Is there some random passing admin who wants to take a risk and take sides in this case?, oh nobody wants to get involved, there is always the stalking, the grudges, the revenge, better ignore it when someone is getting mugged, we didn't see a thing when Andy needed help"

Where is the leadership ? Where are the judges ? Is it any wonder the good people are departing ? Chaos has triumphed. Penyulap ☏ 22:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Admins are in a very tough place; on the one hand, a lot of people want more forceful leadership from us, but then scream "ABUUUUUUUSE" when it happens. With the exception of Arbitration Enforcement (and sometimes there are exceptions there), it's very hard for one or two admins to really take control of a situation. If I had any ideas on how to fix it, I'd suggest something, but for now all I can do is keep carrying on trying to force as much as much change as I can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dramahclipse aside, I feel MartinEvans is right when he says the other party must have been over the moon with this "result". Something went awry here, imo. Something relevant to Wikipedia perhaps? —MistyMorn (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My close of the ANI may not have been the most "satisfying" result for some, but was clearly in the best interest. There are right ways and wrong ways to impose blocks/bans and the right way and wrong ways to treat other editors as a whole. That entire dramafest included at least 2 blocks, a whackload of incivility and personal attacks, and more rhetoric than deserved. There was clearly no way to make a Wikipedia-wide "decision" with so much side-crap going on. It's a shame Andy "retired" (for now), but he also should have been blocked for his asinine NPA's - and he wasn't. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

'Focusing on Andy' was the Epitome of the problem. Penyulap ☏ 00:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good thing my close didn't focus on anyone at all :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• incidentally the issue ties in directly with the recent discussion about racial bias in articles about crimes and the reasons why such a bias might exist. Andy's departure will not lessen the risk of such a bias to be sure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The close should have had A focus. I expect Andy would have preferred to have gone out as a martyr for the cause he always defended rather than find that the cause is long gone. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to single out the "close"; a kind of result had already happened, imo. —MistyMorn (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I don't think the close itself is at issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The underlying issue, imo, was: Shouldn't a living community receive some of the same sort of encyclopedic respect as living people?
(Or, more specifically perhaps, is it encyclopedic to speculate on inflammatory issues regarding an entire ethnic group based on news stories regarding small criminal ring/s?)
But in this case the substance seems to have got largely lost in a secondary sideshow debate starring who's calling who what and how, etc. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The intent of the thread degenerated into something unhealthy, and there was no way back on track (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: it appears that Andy is mad that a decision was not made related to the topic - hence, his departure. It was a) not possible to make such a decision in ANI, and b) having degenerated into name-calling, there was no "decision" to come anyway. The need to close does not provide any answer, nor can it. It certainly cannot be considered as "well, if that's the way Wikipedia is going to deal with..." because Wikipedia was wholly unable to "deal with it" there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'no action' or 'no decision' in leadership. No action, no decision, snowball, AND admins who cross to the other side of the road to avoid the whole thing, they are all making decisions and taking actions. While I don't agree with the decision not to place blocks and or bans, you get at least one point from me for not exactly crossing the road.

Better to have a means to petition a leader where an action must be forthcoming, like a 'little arbcom' that doesn't require an existing knowledge of latin to make an application. ANI is both a compulsory public bloodsport and a voluntary decision making mechanism. Separate the two and make one compulsory, or both, whatever. Less suck right there. Penyulap ☏ 12:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a fair statement to say that every admin made the decision to turn their back on Andy's valid petition, and that wide consensus disgusted him. Penyulap ☏ 12:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

But RFC is the place for that petition; not ANI. Just like I have no right to get frustrated when I submit a 30,000-signature petition to lower the speed limit in my neighbourhood to the Federal Government - it's not their bailiwick, so it was misplaced (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So the driver took a wrong turning while swearing at the wheel. With rather unfortunate consequences. Different wheels kept turning, while real issues left the road. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. All that martyrdom for nothing, so the message will get lost instead of built upon. Problem is: he knew the right location. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumed martyrdom aside, we human thingees are all fallible. An-y one included. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I run out of willpower, and common sense, and look to see what has been happening on Wikipedia since I quit. What do I see? The issue is being discussed on Jimbo's talk page - looks hopeful at least. But no, we still have idiotic comments like this being posted: "But RFC is the place for that petition; not ANI. Just like I have no right to get frustrated when I submit a 30,000-signature petition to lower the speed limit in my neighbourhood to the Federal Government - it's not their bailiwick, so it was misplaced". This is precisely the problem with Wikipedia admins - any excuse to avoid addressing the real issues, and engage in amateur bureaucratics instead. I didn't start the thread at AN/I in the first place. Fae did - and right from the start everyone was piling in with 'NPA', 'AGF' and every other TLA that was to hand. Yes, I let emotion get the better of me, and said in plain language what others would have probably disguised with pretentious pseudo-civility, and yes, I deserved to be told off for it. But how many of those contributing in the AN/I thread were actually interested in looking at the underlying issues that led me to blow my top, rather than spouting the usual platitudes about policy, adding their own vacuous opinions about who-knows-what, or looking for any excuse to hide what was going on? Precious few, by the evidence available. Sadly, Wikipedia provides further conformation of Max Weber's thesis regarding the inherent tendency of bureaucratic power-structures to dissolve 'common purpose' and replace it by a 'specialisation of labour' that makes it almost impossible for anyone to step back and ask whether the 'rules' are there to actually do anything more than maintain the rule-enforcers. Of course, I demonstrated an astonishing lack of clue, and far more 'good faith' than someone of my years and experience should have done in expressing a scintilla of hope that this might be an exception. But no, predictably, I was wrong. Wikipedia has two fundamental problems. The first problem, POV-pushing 'contributors' looking for a chance to skew every article they can their own way, is basically inevitable (and we all have a POV anyway, and the world would be a strange place if we didn't). The second problem though is one that Wikipedia creates all for itself through the bizarre way it simultaneously advocates an anarchic and utopian 'ignore all rules' ethos on the basis that this is the best way to actually write an encyclopaedia, while at the same time producing endless reams of 'policy' and 'guidelines' which can only be ignored at the risk of being blocked or banned from contributing. The end result is that article content is determined not by encyclopaedic value, or even by a vague consensus of what is 'right', but instead by bloody-minded Wikilawyering, grind-the-enemy-down sock-and-meatpuppetry, and a careful attention to the details of the rules, with an eye on finding the best way to subvert their intent. So what is the end result? A Wikipedia article on an ethnic minority that has already got more than its fair share of problems (the misnamed British Pakistanis, most of which are actually third-generation or so British), which sets out to portray the entire ethnicity as paedophiles based on an isolated series of events in one part of the country - with this 'portrayal' seemingly motivated by a political agenda with roots in another part of the world entirely, and with utter disregard for any concerns for either 'neutrality' or basic human decency - all actively enabled by a bureaucratic system for the administration of encyclopaedic content that cares more about the system than the encyclopaedia. Given that both a degree in anthropology, and a modicum of common sense, suggest to me that there is no simple 'fix' for the sort of deep-seated structural problems that are evident in the way Wikipedia content is regulated, I am probably best advised to look back on this as an exercise in participant observation, and put it behind me as a lesson in the blindingly-obvious - that a 'neutral' encyclopaedia in a 'non-neutral' world is an impossibility, and that precious few 'contributors' are actually trying to achieve that anyway, and that to pretend otherwise isn't going to fool anyone but the faithful. I've given up trying to fool myself over this, and have evidently made the best choice by deciding to take my foolishness elsewhere. Meanwhile, one last thought for BWilkins - if I'd taken AnkhMorpork to RFC/U, or whichever part of the bureaucratic labyrinth that I supposedly should have done, do you think there is the slightest chance things would have turned out differently? Or would the TLAs all have been spouted, and the problem ignored as usual? And if you conclude that it would have turned out differently, are your conclusions based on evidence, or faith? Or merely on the smug reassurance that admins administrate, and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins has answered, farther below. However, I want to emphasize that "rules" are essential for WP, but WP:IAR is to "ignore all excessive rules" which might be any and ALL in some rare instances, rather than simply "ignore all rules all the time" which is what some people have imagined. Plus, having multiple venues, with WP:ANI or WP:WQT or WP:RFC/U, even as a specialisation of labour (or "division of labor"), is part of the reality of dealing with 145,000 active editors (+IPs) each month. See more below: #When ANI fails consensus, discuss at RFC/U. -Wikid77 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

a thread the size of the one at ANI which receives no suggestions it should be moved in the whole time it is there is patently in the correct place and has had a wide consensus amongst admins.

This reminds me of the people who say pretty much anywhere "If you don't like it, you can leave" which is a fair statement in itself, to which my response is 'F that, you can all leave instead". Andy, why should you be the one to leave ? Penyulap ☏ 06:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, my comments have been "idiotic" and I'm nothing but a bureaucratic something-or-another. To be honest Andy, yes, I do believe your outcome would have been different. There were enough snippets of understanding throughout that ANI thread that I believe that if you and others had kept their cool, you could have had successful change - and as a minimum, one hell of a positive discussion. However, if any of the participants were to lose their cool, it too would have derailed unless it was "clerked". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In my dealings with ANI, I see it as a quick-fix forum, but not an area to investigate WP:GAMING, and so WP:RFC/U must be separate, as a different level of investigation about user actions. See subthread below: #When ANI fails consensus, discuss at RFC/U. -Wikid77 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of who labeled whose posts "idiotic"/"asinine" (or whatever), surely the underlying issues this incident raises are substantial and still deserve genuine consideration? Including, imo, the delicate question of bureaucratic groupthink (or similar unintentional group tunnel vision) within the gf community. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in the top level article Group decision making about improving making group decisions. Mentioning groupthink is probably a bad idea as people get a bit insulted and it quickly alerts the mindguards ;-) Dmcq (talk)

For that reason I appended an explanatory parenthesis prolixly tagged 'unintentional group tunnel vision' [ugh! – ed]. Regardless of any particular theory, I do think there is a real issue here. (And I suppose I have to go back to arguing context too.) —MistyMorn (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The only one I can feel myself supporting in all this is the admin closing the AN/I. On the issue itself I disagree with AndyTheGrump more than I do with AnkhMorpork. There is a real issue and it was put into the current issues section of the article, it might have been put in with a POV okay, but it could then be edited to say what was actually involved. I do not agree with cleansing Wikipedia of all wrong thought. It should contain what has been seen as notable in reliable sources. There are problems coping with POV pushers but trying to remove all mention of fringe ideas or bigotry is I feel far more damaging to the encyclopaedia. As for solving problems I would push again the solution of having RF/C discussions which would be binding for at least three months. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the key content-related question here is who (ATG vs. AM) you or I or anyone else sides with, or even how to approach methodologically suspect ('fringe') POVs. Rather, was/is there a substantial issue here for Wikipedia, in some ways analogous to WP:BLP? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean should we bowdlerize Wikipedia to protect delicate minds? That conflicts with WP:CENSOR. The second pillar in WP:5P currently says 'We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".' The issue was not just well cited it was clearly notable, what we should have been doing is ensuring it was presented neutrally and with due weight. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean should we bowdlerize Wikipedia to protect delicate minds? No that is not what I mean. And it's not what I said. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

When ANI fails consensus, discuss at RFC/U

Whenever an incident at WP:ANI fails to reach consensus to ban/block, then consider a long-term analysis of issues at WP:RFC/U (which cannot block/ban but can investigate detailed evidence). The short-term posting at WP:ANI, of 2-to-5 days, often does not allow time to cross-check the history of questionable edits by some users. Unless the violations are obviously extreme, then many people seem to oppose the suggested sanctions within the 5-day debates at ANI. Hence, the next option is to investigate people (or WP:TAGTEAMs) who might be slowly "WP:Gaming the system" and that type of long-term activity could be discussed, for weeks, at WP:RFC/U, even though no sanctions would result there. However, at least other editors could see evidence of long-term policy violations or bad-faith edits, to later support sanctions at ANI. Some forms of WP:GAMING can take weeks to discuss.

The complexity of WP:GAMING must be analyzed, in a long-term view, in all fairness to real mistakes (rather than clever misdirections), with time to allow other users to better understand all the tactics being used to manipulate the contents of articles. Such a long-term view should be attempted at WP:RFC/U, rather than during a short 5-day ANI debate. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:21, 21 May, expanded 03:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Google and BLP

I'm not sure when this happened, but Google is now including the first 2-3 sentences from Wikipedia's articles on living people as part of its search results in a separate box on the right hand side of the screen. Apparently, you have to be logged into a Google account to see this. There are no specific problems that I am aware of, but I thought I should mention this so people are aware of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. I presume it's part of the widely hyped Google Knowledge Graph [1] [2] [3] [4] currently only rolled out to the US Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I'm in the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It was widely announced 3-4 days ago and received a huge amount of coverage with Google releasing a video. This has been in the works for some time and everybody is pretty much aware of it. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Being aware that this was coming and understanding the impact it may have on Wikipedia are different things. In the example cited, I think it should be taken as a serious reminder of how careful we need to be when dealing with biographies of living people. I would suggest that increased exposure like this should lead to increased attention and vigilance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

At least they are truncating at sentence boundaries, unlike the often misleading excerpts that appear in their search result snippets. In that sense, it's a step up. 71.212.246.55 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, you suggested automatic semi-protection for BLPS in your edit summary. That sounds like a reasonable first step, but it doesn’t go far enough. Trolling IP editors are not the only problem. We have long-time users editing BLPs who seem unfamiliar with even the basics of fact checking adding unverified content to BLPs. Here’s a recent example. A registered user copied a link and a birth name from the French Wikipedia and inserted it into the first sentence of an artist’s biography on en-WP. The unsourced “birth name” of the artist was first added to her French BLP on January 21, 2012 by an IP with exactly one contribution to date. That version of the WP article was copied verbatim by this site, which was then introduced as a source in her French BLP. A google search for that name yields a total of 19 hits, most of them from Wiki mirror sites.

The contributor who introduced this information to en-WP has been active since 2005, and regularly refers to his status as an academic when interacting with others on BLP and BDP talk pages: If you care to know, I am an [http://www.uta.edu/faculty/gtucker/ academic, but I've not once trotted out any qualifications when editing an article.], Did you also note I'm a historian by looking at my user page?, I [https://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?onlyview=1&pid=2895 have a Ph.D. in history for Pete's sake!], It's not like I'm a historian or anything ….

Just goes to show that an academic qualification is no guarantee that registered users will treat BLPs more responsibly than IP editors, many of whom make useful contributions. Now more than ever we need to make sure that users editing BLPs know a bad source when they see it and refrain from using BLPs and BLP talk pages to prove personal points such as adding nine previously dismissed, poor-quality sources in one go, combine making insinuations about other BLP editors with thinly veiled canvassing, or generally behave ways that suggests editing biographies, to them, is about scoring points against other contributors or making disrespectful comments about a notable “subject” to show them who’s boss on WP.

I think it was either you or User:Youreallycan (please correct me if I’m wrong) who suggested that editing BLPs should become a privilege that can be lost, and I fully support that. The current system is unfair to our subjects and can end up making us look like a bunch of vengeful and small-minded amateurs (see also here). Draco^E 05:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Touré got a fair shake, and I'm struggling to see how allowing someone to judge whether someone knows a policy well enough to edit a topic is going to help in the long run. I'm very reluctant to shunt information out of an article on BLP grounds unless there's a very strong case for doing so, and embarrassment or personal reasons (barring life-threatening issues) don't cut it for me. I think caution is a good thing, but I have a serious issue with the way BLP enforcement is being done is doing a lot more damage than perceived issues about individual articles. Right now, the way "BLP enforcement" seems to consist of some great users, but far too many who use gross incivility and argumentum ad verecundiam (it's a BLP issue because the policy says it's a BLP issue with no supporting evidence), and it's really angering many in the community; without the community, Wikipedia fails, and that to me overrides BLP concerns. We can deal with BLP issues if people don't feel alienated, which is exactly what we'll do if we swing the pendulum too far in the direction of caution. There's room for disagreement without the lowest common denominator screaming BLP and actively attempting to bar people from expressing differing views. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say that User:DracoEssentialis, without ever telling me, is bad-mouthing me to the founder of Wikipedia. I don't "regularly refer" to my status as an academic. To say that abuses the very word "regularly." (Her intense research only produced 3 examples from all my edits. Hardly "regularly.") I only trotted it out on the Talk:Touré page when this user and others made viscous ad hominem attacks against me and acted is if I don't know about the history of African Americans. User:DracoEssentialis is grousing because the RfC on Talk:Touré did not go her way. I welcome you to read Talk:Touré, where this user questioned me because I'm Christian, another editor because he is gay. This user can divine what race and gender users are, yet attacks me as a bad researcher. Now on the Talk:Touré page, this editor, who claims I stalked her after she has stalked me, acts as if I am obsessed with her, and she now feels "uncomfortable." Melodramatic much? This user is accusing me of bad Wiki-etiquette after she told me on that very talk page to stop commenting because I disagreed with a "well respected" editor who is somehow better than me. She tried to have an editor she disagreed with banned. Mr. Wales, I welcome you to read Talk:Touré and comment on my behavior, and the behavior of this editor. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Usage of national TlDs

One reason why I think the vast majority of our users are English is the lack of things like wikipedia.fr. Just a thought.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia.fr works fine for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Majority of active editors are non-English: I am not sure what "vast majority of our users" could be called "English" (or from England?), unless that refers to readers who read the English Wikipedia versus the other-language Wikipedias. However, the 82,000 active editors (who make over 5 edits per month) are mostly working on non-English Wikipedias, as 58% of all active editors, whereas editors on enwiki are only 42% of the global editing. Below is the March 2012 data for the 232 active Wikipedia languages, where "34386" is the count of active editors on enwiki:

• Active editors (all languages): 82,000 = 34386 +4212 +4120 +6860 +4546 +5092 +2860 +1508 +1538 +1934 +1428 +456 +822 +652 +632 +618 +707 +360 +596 +770 +650 +546 +836 +293 +307 +284 +310 +284 +417 +161 +146 +258 +224 +110 +161 +159 +75 +156 +124 +59 +34 +62 +26 +74 +109 +95 +51 +96 +51 +62 +44 +28 +44 +80 +20 +25 +20 +51 +17 +67 +38 +73 +60 +26 +35 +14 +89 +31 +13 +26 +12 +11 +9 +4 +16 +2 +17 +14 +7 +4 +14 +5 +7 +9 +27 +19 +14 +1 +5 +5 +4 +7 +2 +8 +6 +7 +18 +3 +11 +14 +5 +7 +2 +13 +2 +15 +12 +6 +2 +4 +7 +9 +20 +7 +8 +8 +5 +3 +3 +6 +7 +3 +5 +4 +3 +3 +2 +2 +3 +3 +2 +11 +1 +5 +2 +6 +4 +8 +10 +16 +10 +5 +3 +3 +4 +7 +2 +42 +26 +1 +3 +35 +5 +3 +1 +11 +2 +3 +1 +3 +4 +5 +1 +6 +1 +1 +2 +2 +4 +2 +6 +3 +1 +3 +3 +3 +4 +4 +4 +2 +3 +2 +2 +2 +1 +2 +4 +2 +1 +1 +1 +3 +1 +3 +1 +2 +3 +1 +3 +2 +3 +1 +3 +6 +1 +2 +20 +1 +1 +5 +2 +2 +1 +7 +1 +2 +1 +2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +6 +1 +1 +2
• Active editors in non-English: 47,614 = 82,000 - 34,386 ~= 58% of total

In fact, the number of active editors in non-English languages has been grower even larger, so the "majority of active editors" as non-English has been becoming even "more non-English" during the past year. -Wikid77 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked or Banned

I think this person, Gwern Branwen, User name User:Gwern should be considered for blocking or banning. According to the information in Mon, May 21, 2012 8:10:37 AMWikiEN-l Digest, Vol 106, Issue 14,(I cannot link but can copy and paste it if necessary to prove an obvious point) it would seem that he or she has a "hacker's mentality", performing unauthorized tests on Wikipedia and further has consistency shown no respect for Wikipedia's editors rules and procedures and therefore has no business on Wikipedia. This in an answer which describes the problem and his and my objection. It is a question to User:Gwern. I quote from the newsletter: Again, what if hundreds or thousands of users, whose methodologies are undiscussed and potentially flawed, were to take it upon themselves to conduct such "experiments" without consultation or approval? ?That's the hypothetical scenario to which I referred.

To which the response was: It's unfortunate that I am such a prominent figure and powerful thought-leader that hundreds and thousands of Wikipedians have even a tiny chance of mimicking my actions; but that's a risk you just have to take when you are as world-renowned as I am. I'm sure Kant would understand. These are informational discussions to similar activities: [[5]] Mugginsx (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Gwern (from the mailing list): "I meant that there would be nothing to stop multiple editors, whose methodologies are unknown and unproven, from *unknowingly* duplicating each other's efforts." —David Levy 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[6] A college professor did a test where they removed external links from articles to determine uh... not sure what they were trying to prove. Seems a bit odd. Dream Focus 15:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Gwern is a respected editor, so always link direct evidence as diff-links: To avoid WP:Witchhunts (WP:HUNT), please include direct diff-links to specific edits where a user seems obviously in violation of Wikipedia policies or core principles. The contributions of User:Gwern go back to 2006, and was given a barnstar-award by Sue Gardner on 3 October 2011 (dif-663). Please link to extensive evidence of problems. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34/16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As Mugginsx noted, the discussion is occurring on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Are public links to specific messages permitted? (I seem to recall a rule against them, but I might be thinking of a different list.)
Gwern has admitted to performing an "experiment", wherein he/she is using IP proxies to vandalise 100 articles by removing an external link and evaluating other editors' reactions or lack thereof. Gwern, whose methodologies have been challenged, has ignored all requests to cease this behavior and seek community consensus or WMF permission. —David Levy 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandals intend to harm, not find loopholes in quality-control: Please remember that WP:Vandalism requires an intention to harm the project, so I do not see vandalism in the concept of removing sources in 100 articles to see if a quality-control alarm is raised. In technical tests of competence, it has been common to introduce spurious errors to see if those can be detected, along with live errors in the system. That is not considered vandalizing the test. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Gwern intends to harm the project. I'm referring to the experiment's parameters; the idea is to gauge editors' reactions (or lack thereof) to "blatant vandalism" (Gwern's description of the edits). Note: Gwern has again described the edits as "vandalism" in this section. —David Levy 18:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've commented on the mailing list, I don't assert that such a study lacks potential merit. The problem is that Gwern has acted unilaterally, with no verification that the methods and procedures are sound or permission (from either the editing community or the WMF) to proceed. Polite requests to stop have been ignored, apart from one instance of mockery:

"There's nothing to answer; and I've been copying the most informative or hilarious quotes for posterity, such as an active administrator in good standing wondering if it might actually increase article quality and not constitute vandalism at all!

The whole thing was worth it just for that quote; I could not have made up a better example of the sickness."

—David Levy 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had the honor and the pleasure to interact with many scholars since I joined Wikipedia and in my experience, without exception, the more educated and/or intelligent the individual, the more polite, considerate, respectful of other's rights and humble they are. As for respect, it is earned and must be maintained by the individual who wishes the respect. If an average editor vandalizes once they are warned, twice, they are blocked. What happens if they do it 100 times? I guess we will see. Mugginsx (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Respect is assumed, disrespect is insinuated: In polite society, a common level of respect is granted in advance, as common courtesy, so that high-level events might proceed faster without proving that every person is respectable before conducting affairs of the day. That respect is strengthened by actions along the way. Most businesses do not search customers for money and background checks before allowing them entry. However, for exclusive events, or interaction among street people, then there are tests to "earn respect" and those situations can proceed slowly due to the extra hurdles imposed. Generally, WP:AGF is a faster method, with emergency reactions for unforseen problems. Meanwhile, questioning the motives of scholars is likely to be seen as a grave insult, as personal attack, so be careful when asking people to justify their actions. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have always respected you Wikid77 but I will have to respectfully disagree with your analysis above and have to wonder at the reference to street people. As for respect it is earned not assumed- Not in America at least.Mugginsx (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fun fact: neither IP that I used has been banned, blocked, warned, or had their talk page edited for any reason whatsoever.

What does it say about Wikipedia if my account can be sanctioned, but the IPs are completely and utterly ignored? I do intend to revert all the edits if that matters to anyone. --Gwern (contribs) 17:19 21 May 2012 (GMT)

Thanks, Gwern, for taking time to clarify the misunderstandings. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What misunderstandings? —David Levy 17:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It only means that Wikipedia has many fine volunteers that work as administrators, rollbackers, bots, etc., to keep the standards of Wikipedia while observing the rules, but sometimes unauthorized or inappropriate activities get through. Eventually, the problems are all addressed and solved. Happy to hear the activity is stopped and I withdraw any inference of vandalism as it is understood on Wikipedia. Apparently Gwern has a different definition of vandalism. I agree with his. Perhaps "unauthorized vandalizing-type interference" would have been a more appropriate description. Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy to hear the activity is stopped

I don't believe that Gwern has indicated that. The edits might or might not be ongoing, and we know that they haven't been reverted yet.

and I withdraw any inference of valdalism as it is understood on Wikipedia.

Gwern described his/her edits as "blatant vandalism". —David Levy 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

...If you read the methodology I posted or even just noticed how I keep using the past tense, you'd know that the vandalism stopped weeks ago. --Gwern (contribs) 18:06 21 May 2012 (GMT)

I read your writeup of the procedure, which uses the present tense. The above reply is the first mention that "the vandalism stopped weeks ago" I've encountered. When you were asked via the mailing list to cease the vandalism if it was ongoing, you provided no indication either way. Your above reference to "neither IP that I used" could have referred to your edits thus far, so I thank you for clarifying. —David Levy 18:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with David, you do not use the past tense in Issue 14 which was yesterday.Mugginsx (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at AN? or ANI? Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all bothered by Gwern's experiment here (especially considering the usefulness of many external links), but I think that this clearly meets the normal definition of vandalism. If someone else were doing the exact same thing, it would be called vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat the question posed above by, I believe, David, what is to stop others from doing the same thing? (I am paraphrasing) Notwithstanding Gwern's statment that no one is that good. (I am again paraphrasing) See my first edit for exact quote in which he seems to compare himself with Kant. Mugginsx (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, Gwern was sarcastically citing his/her lack of Kant-like influence.

But my point wasn't that others will imitate Gwern. It was that indiscriminately permitting editors to perform such experiments without discussion or consultation is likely to result in unintentional duplication of effort (thereby exposing the encyclopedia to far more vandalism than necessary), with no assurance that the methods and procedures are valid and will generate useful data. —David Levy 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Funds Dissemination Interview

Hi Jimmy, our team at Bridgespan wishes to thank you for providing insights on the Funds Dissemination process and committee. Your perspective will play an invaluable role as we identify a process to distribute funds raised from the Wikimedia movement to the highest and best use around the world. Notes from our discussion can be found here. We encourage anyone with comments or questions about this process to visit the Funds Dissemination Committee page. Divya (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the notice about the copyright violation

This is the notice about the copyright violation. You have not any right to use the materials of the club Beatles.Ru http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#.D0.A1.D1.81.D1.8B.D0.BB.D0.BA.D0.B8 (see references also) in any article of Wikipedia (all language sections). If you saw somewhen the license of the Creative Commons at the website of the club Beatles.Ru, this means that it was only the dream. We never used the such licenses. Exists the only one way to find the concensus: you must delete all violations of the reputation of the club (remove the club Beatles.Ru from the black list of the Russian Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&action=history (any Wikipedia) and restore this article: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B1_Beatles.Ru ). We give you 2 hours to implement these conditions (jurists will prepare the documents after this time). This is the notice about the copyright violation (not legal threat). You got the notice and this fact was fixed as PDF. - 2.93.198.181 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC).