User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Christian POV on wikipedia

What do you guys think about my essay on the Christian POV on Wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is biased against unbelievers like me and Jimbo, for a start ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this POV needs to be countered. The latest example is at religion where an editor thinks a 20 religion symbol image i created (diff) needs to be deleted because some religions don't have enough followers. This subequently forced me to start an rfc on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that attempting to 'counter POV' by promoting another one isn't necessarily the best approach. Why are symbols for 20 religions any better than 12? Where is the symbol for atheists? For agnostics? For people that don't think you can meaningfully reduce complex cultural constructs to abstract symbols... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The essay is inapt. Wikipedia covers a multitude of non-Abrahamic religions qute well -- vide Islam, Hinduism and its subgroups, Buddhism, and even your "Paganism and New Religious Movements" as a whole. I admit Wikipedia does not give huge theological detail on Aztec (32K) and Mayan religions (56K), perhaps, but that may be related to the lack of adherents to those theologies at this point, not due to an Abrahamic bias of any sort. And we do tend to refer to Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods as "myth" which I suppose is POV, but the place to object is on the article talk pages for those gods and religions, and I do not se any "Christian bias" involved. Collect (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, i spent quite a while working on that image and downloaded software for it. So its quite annoying when someone single-handedly undoes your work. Pass a Method talk 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, putting effort on something is not a reason to keep it. I understand it's frustrating. --Cyclopia^talk 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the one with twelve symbols as of now looks better than the twenty and I don't see the twenty adds much worthwhile. At that rate we should be adding Pastafarianism and Jedi religion and people will be arguing that communism andatheism are religions, we'd soon be well over the thirty mark. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as Kelapstick says. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. LadyofShalott 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I noted that to another person - the OP, however, appeared to refer to "Judeo-Christian" bias, thus my listing of a large group of non-"Judeo-Christian" articles. You might also note my opinion later given on the Religion talk page about the impossibility of having one image be of much use to readers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I tend to agree that there is a bit of a Christian bias in wikipedia. Certainly, there is a tendency for the English-language wikipedia editors, many of whom are themselves Christians, to develop content related explicitly to Christianity or their own personal brand of it. However, the same could be said about the comparative lack of development related to towns of population of less than one thousand people relative to the level of development of content related to, say, London. The best way to attempt to counter such bias, probably, is not by basically non-productive essays, but making some effort to find sources to use to add or develop non-Christian content. Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion seems to have been basically created to help develop that content, although, admittedly, it still has a lot to do there. And I do think that maybe actually doing something which directly addresses the matter, a la WP:SOFIXIT, would probably be the much more effective, useful, and productive than simply starting opinion pages. There are a huge number of sources available on the subject of religion in general, with User:John Carter/Religion reference still listing only a small percentage (maybe around 10%?) of those reference books related to religion in general which can be found to have been reviewed in academic journals, with more being published almost monthly.

Regarding the implication that academic sources reflect a Christian basis, clearly, those published by Christian universities or publishers about Christian subjects almost certainly do. Any reasonable person would expect that to be the case there. The fact that there are more of them available in English than, say, journals about Shinto or Islam, is also rather transparently obviously true. That does not mean however that editors who might be interested in developing content related to those subjects would be inhibited from doing so. All they would have to do is find the sources. And, yes, that sort of action would be more useful than writing essays.

The other concern this editor has expressed before is regarding relative weight as per WP:WEIGHT regarding material relevant to multiple religions. Unfortunately, that page is one we are more or less obliged to follow. It makes no sense for the article on a Christian patriarch or pope who had antisemitic tendencies to give as much weight to his antisemitism as to the material related to the topic for which he is more notable. Certainly, there is no inhibition to developing that content in spinoff pages, if they are notable enough, or to have a summary section of that in the main article (or one of the main articles, for really broad subjects like Christianity), but that is another matter entirely, and also covered by existing policies and guidelines which have been found to be broadly appropriate for all content areas. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

John, you are not yourself free of this Christian bias, so the fact you are self-aware of "a bit of a Christian bias" makes it all the more appalling. Pass a Method talk 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How is 'narrative' more neutral than 'myth'?

I'm a bit tired of this claim. My OED says that narrative means "a spoken or written account of connected events." And it defines 'account' as "a report or description of an event or experience." Am I the only one that thinks this suggests that 'account' means an actual account of events? Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality (version of 06:17, 7 December 2012) begins with these statements.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Similarly, the question of naming narratives that some people believe to be myths provides opportunities for commonality in article titles and in article text. The titles "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis flood narrative" are neutral in regard to whether the narratives are true or false. The same naming convention can be applied to beliefs of followers of any religion, without any disadvantage to believers in those two narratives.

The categories Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths can be Category:Creation narratives and Category:Flood narratives, without any disadvantage to anyone, and readers can decide what to believe and what to disbelieve.

See Matthew 7:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21, 22, 23.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Creation Myth has a specific academic meaning. You essentially want to rename them to avoid offending readers sensibilities? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The phrases "creation myth" and "evolution myth" are not neutral. The phrases "creation narrative" and "evolution narrative" are neutral.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You've kind of dodged the issue where the academic sourcing says "creation myth" most of the time, not "creation narrative". I don't know what you are talking about mentioning evolution. Are you comparing science to "a symbolic narrative of how the world began"? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports creation. Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports evolution. The category title "Category:Evolution myths" is not neutral. The category title "Category:Evolution narratives" is neutral. I am discussing a neutral presentation of views.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. 'Scientific' creationism is fringe pseudoscience, and WP:NPOV policy doesn't extend to pretending otherwise. 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a Christian, I'll add a big Amen! to that, whoever you are. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Only me - messed up the signature... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a pagan.....I'll ask.....how does this improve Wikipedia?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What you reckon to be a fringe may be wider than what you reckon it to be.

• In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins (June 1, 2012)
• Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution
• In six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation - John F. Ashton - Google Books
• Reviews of Books with Scientific Evidence that God Exists | X-Evolutionist.com: "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation"

—Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take your soapbox/pulpit somewhere else - creationist 'science' is pseudoscientific bullshit, by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That a god-botherers-bullshit lobby promoting a particularly warped version of 'Christianity' has managed to fool so many rational US citizens is unfortunate, but of no relevance to its validity as 'science'. Anyway, Wikipedia is an international project, and cannot be driven by the misperceptions of a single nationality. If you wish to promote creationism, there is an alternative 'encyclopaedia' available, as I'm sure you are aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You probably meant this one didn't you? *cough* John lilburne (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that 46% of Americans believe in creationism has absolutely no bearing on what the scientific community thinks of it. It is a matter of fact that scientists of the relevant fields universally accept evolution. If anything, those stats are a rebuke to the US educational system. In short: Science is not a vote. Yazan (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fifty scientists sounds like a lot (human beings are just bad at statistics) until one puts it up against things like Project Steve: 1200 scientists – and counting – who endorse the theory of evolution, and who are all named Steve. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', no matter how much one wishes it were. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Ihave to admit that Project Steve is pretty awesome. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The "creationism" side issue is pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion -- Wikipedia has no systemic "pro-Christian bias" as far as I can tell. By the way, two large blocs of creationists are Orthodox Jews and Muslims - the latter making up a very large number of people. Collect (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationism is just plain wrong, but I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the post where I started this sub-section (other than to repeat the mantra 'myth not neutral, narrative neutral'. I'll add that some people think 'story' is neutral, but I always think of stories as something someone made up. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the term myth is that it has two distinct meanings. The technical meaning is an explanatory tool for teaching about a culture or religion's practices, beliefs, and history. The common meaning is an imaginary tale. Unless you have a means of preventing a reader from using the common meaning, even when they are unaware of the technical meaning, then "myth" is a loaded term best avoided anywhere a full explanation of the intended meaning cannot also be conveniently given (such as article titles). --Allen3 ^talk 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And the problem with the word narrative is that it implies that the account is of real events. How is that neutral? Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The word narrative applies as well to a series of fictional events as it does to a series of real events. Ignoring this fact just shows you are, as North8000 points out below, just playing word games. --Allen3 ^talk 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pro-religion scientific atheist so maybe I have a perspective. Billions of people in the world have deeply held views which conflict with scientifically determined fact. I don't see where it's in Wikipedia's mission statement that we have to actively target, assault and disparage the deeply held views of billions of people. Cover facts as science, and cover religions as beliefs without slamming their beliefs with commentary like using pejorative words like "myth" to refer to those beliefs. The common meaning of "myth" is "false", trying to avoid that is just playing word games. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that "myth" necessarily means "false". I would take to mean something that many people believe in, but has no scientific proof. For example, the unicorn is described as a "mythical creature". There is no evidence that unicorns ever existed, but equally there is no proof that they didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming common usage & meaning is "false" or "mis-conception". I Googled it for an example and came right back to a Wikipedia article. Tornado myths, where the first sentence of the lead starts with "Tornado myths are incorrect beliefs...." Here's an article that directly addresses the question and says so. [1] North8000 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that link is not useful either - it claims that a myth is "a statement that almost everyone thinks is true but really isn’t" which is clearly not the case because it's not "almost everyone" that believes in creation, Bible truth or for that matter unicorns. I actually wonder if the word has vaguely different connotations on either side of the Atlantic, as Allen3 suggested above. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be surprised. I've run across words that have completely different common meanings in Europe vs. USA where most believe otherwise. "Liberal" for one. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of the discussion above, I find it interesting that our article on Creation myth says in the first sentence that a creation myth "is a symbolic narrative...", while our article on Genesis creation narrative says in its first sentence that the "Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." It looks to me like "we" (at least currently) are using them interchangeably. As for the meanings of "narrative" and "myth", I think that traditionally "narrative" has implied "truth", but it is increasingly being used in place of "story", meaning it could be either true or false. Academics and journalists will write about, for example, the differing "narratives" of nationalities fighting over the same piece of land, which implies that at least one of the "narratives" (and probably both) are not completely accurate, because they can't both be. On the other hand, there is a sentence in the Creation myth article that says that the word "myth" in that phrase does not imply falsehood, which obviously is contrary to how most people use and understand the word "myth". I was thinking of moving that sentence up to the intro, perhaps as the second sentence of the article, so people will understand that "myth" as used in the article does not necessarily mean what they think it means. I am hesitating because the sentence in question is not sourced. Neutron (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not speaking about any one instance in particular, (I see it again and again, e.g. the "phobia" articles) but I find it beyond ironic that people fight like hell to get the pejorative word used because it is pejorative, and one of their main arguments in that quest is to claim that it isn't pejorative. North8000 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

wikt:μῦθος is simply what is said, true or false. As "myth" carries a strong connotation of falsehood, I don't see an obvious reason not to change consistently to something with somewhat less or no such implication like "story" or "narrative". Myth is of little use for investigating the workings of natural law, just as experiment is generally useless in investigating past miraculous interventions made by omnipotent being(s). Wnt (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You mention what the academic sources use, they use "Creation myth" overwhelmingly in comparison to "Creation narrative". We have a situation where the standard name found in the sources is being rejected in case it offends the sensibilities of some people; and people are arguing based on their personal interpretation of creation myth, specifically the word myth. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller: You're waiting for someone to respond to this:

How is 'narrative' more neutral than 'myth'?

I'm a bit tired of this claim. My OED says that narrative means "a spoken or written account of connected events." And it defines 'account' as "a report or description of an event or experience." Am I the only one that thinks this suggests that 'account' means an actual account of events?'

I don't understand why you say you're tired of that claim and then substantiate it.

Anyway, lots of people have responded to the claim. Here's my 2¢--"Narrative" is more neutral than "myth" to the general public who has not been schooled in the academic meaning of "myth." Since we're writing for the general public, not exclusively for academics, we should use the term less likely to confuse. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. Scientists say General relativity, but we should call it "stuff makes Bendy Space idea", in case people get confused? No, we are a serious encyclopaedia. We are expected to use the standard terminology of a field. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And while we are here: WP:RNPOV: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But if we are going to do that, we need to explain to the reader that the word as used in the title (and the whole article) does not mean what they probably think it means. "Informal meaning" as used in the NPOV policy actually means "what most people think it means." We are not writing for academics, we are writing for regular people. We can use an academic term, in its "formal sense", but we need to explain to the 90 percent or more of readers who think that "myth" necessarily means "false" (which included me, until I read this thread), that that's not what the title or the article mean. Unfortunately, an explanation won't fit into an article title, but it will fit into an article, and it should be in a prominent place. Therefore, I have just edited the Creation myth article to put the "disclaimer" (a bad word on here, I know) in the second sentence. Maybe the NPOV policy also needs to be changed to make clear that if there is a risk that "readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings", an explanation must be prominently provided -- prominent meaning as close to the first use of the "confusing" term as possible. Surely the intent of the NPOV policy is not to leave readers confused. Neutron (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't try and add OR to provide some disclaimer for the ignorant if they are unwilling to click a link to find out what it means. (I see someone has added a reference to your OR that fails verification). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, or am I misunderstanding what particular claim is being disputed? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add any OR there, IRWolfie, the sentence was already there halfway down the article (probably for a long time). I just moved it up - and the person who tagged it was me, too. Professor marginalia added a source which you then removed, but he/she has now added a different source that definitely supports the statement. And yes, I think that when words are being used contrary to their meaning to us common folk, we must provide an explanation, in that article, not just in a link. Neutron (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Neutron. IRWolfie, if you will look at the Gravitation article, you will see that general relativity is explained for the reader, but not as "stuff makes Bendy Space idea," which was uncalled-for exaggeration on your part. Yopienso (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@Neutron-no, I didn't supply a "different" source, but provided quotations and an additional page ref from the same source. For what it's worth, I don't agree the claim should move up into the lead. It's clumsy up there, and heavy handed. To me it casts a patronizing "tone" that undermines the true NPOV we need to achieve with the article. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia-it should avoid getting sucked into any kind of "re-education" type pov. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

General relativity is a direct subtopic of Gravitation, i.e that is why there is a section on it. You aren't comparing like with like. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We are writing for readers. The meaning of word in that communication is the common meaning to readers. The common meaning of the "myth" is "mis-conception". North8000 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article bolstered the notion that "myth" in this context means "misconception". Why isn't it sufficient that wikipedia simply describes the topic accurately? Why is it necessary to grab readers by each ear and force their gaze to these supposedly critical "corrections" of all these "misconceptions" we project they suffer from? Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who taught college courses in mythology for several years, I've been observing this discussion with interest and increasing dismay. (I also don't know why it's taking place here and not at Talk:Creation myth.) This has become one of the all-too-many Wikipedia battlegrounds where religionists and atheists fight a proxy war, to the detriment of the actual topic. At the risk of lapsing into a tirade, one problem is that both sides are confusing creation myth with creationism. Creationism has an argument with evolution and the scientific method. Creation myth has no more argument with science than poetry does, or cuisine. It's as if Wikipedia is turning into some kind of Dark Age scriptorium where fearful monks, some pious and some longing for apostasy, are producing garbled summaries of classical antiquity that they dare not represent with too much fidelity. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The "religionists" vs. "atheists" business is not only tedious, monotonous, etc it's beside the point of what the article should say. And please, people, when you continually find yourself prefacing your arguments with the "I am an atheist/a Christian/a Pastafarian", you need to stop right there and put your head on straight. It does not matter what beliefs you or any other editor hold. The articles are based on what the reliable sources say, and not on what you believe, what other editors believe, or what readers may or may not believe. None of that matters. The sources - they are what do matter. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confusing creation myth with creationism. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look back up towards the top of the thread. Creationism got drug into the middle of things pretty darn quick, further deteriorating what was already promising to become needlessly contentious discussion.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your overgeneralization is wrong. I've been one of those saying to not use the word "myth". I'm an atheist, but am polite to deeply held beliefs that are opposite mine, and certainly see no need to use Wikipedia to bash deeply-held beliefs that are opposite to mine via unnecessary incendiary word choices. The more neutral word "narrative" should be used. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not an issue of neutrality. It's an issue of article scope. The article is about "creation myth". That is the topic, as the term is used in the interdisciplinary study of myth. If sufficient RS analyze a narrative as a creation myth, then what's non-neutral is for the feelings and opinions of Wikipedia editors to override the scholarship. Again, you're confusing creationism as a belief system, and creation myth as an analytical model of comparative mythology. But what I find, well, puzzling about this discussion is that the article doesn't even analyze specific narratives as creation myths; it describes what a "creation myth" is in the scholarly typology of myth. Look, I taught mythology courses at a Baptist college for a couple of years. I was a little uneasy about it the first time, but I was told to teach just as I would at a secular institution. My students were fairly unsophisticated, but they thought Greek mythology was really interesting, and they made their own comparisons to Biblical stories without my ever pointing them out. That's just one experience I've had that makes me characterize this discussion as a proxy war between atheists and religionists. The only people who get upset about this stuff are people who want to get upset about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazon and the WMF/Wikia

Jimbo, if this story is true, you and the WMF might should reconsider your organizations' relationship with this company. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

does Wikia=WMF? I thought the answer was no. 207.239.114.206 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikia does not equal the Wikimedia Foundation; however, the early Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees consisted 60% of Wikia employees, and Amazon has invested two rounds of millions of dollars into Wikia, Inc., and Amazon enjoys over 92,000 external links from Wikipedia to its site and over 319,000 links to one of its main subsidiaries, and Amazon processes donation payments to the Wikimedia Foundation (taking its cut on every transaction), and the Wikimedia Foundation has rented office space from Wikia, even though Wikia wasn't the most cost-efficient option. So, no, Wikia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Amazon... they are not equal, but rather "interestingly" related. -- 2001:558:1400:10:BD98:82E2:4035:E90C (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia articles link to Amazon or to IMDB does not imply that there is any connection between WMF and Amazon. Those links were added by individual editors who thought that they had some encyclopedic value. Also, I doubt IMDB is one of Amazon's "main subsidiaries". It can't possibly generate even a fraction of the revenue of, say, Zappos. As for this business of Amazon renting office space from Wikia - the email you linked seems to suggest that the space provided a good value for what Amazon was looking for even if it wasn't the lowest cost. I don't see much of a reason to infer any more than that based on that email. And Amazon is one of three payment options available. Don't like Amazon? Donate using Paypal. GabrielF (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes... "donate using Paypal". That would be lovely, since that means a cut of the donation will go to Ebay (which owns Paypal), and Ebay is chaired by Pierre Omidyar, and Omidyar Network gave the Wikimedia Foundation $2 million at the same time the Foundation appointed Omidyar partner Matt Halprin to the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. Basically, if you find the Wikimedia Foundation paying or advantaging a for-profit operation, they're going to be tied into the Wikimedia or Wikia gravy train somehow. I know, it's hard to believe, because it's taking place right before your eyes. As for IMDB's profitability, their site gets 37 million unique visitors per month. Assuming 2 page views per visitor, considering the pages are plastered with advertising, we can assume ad income of at least one cent per page view, that's $8.9 million in ad revenue per year, plus goodness knows how many movie DVDs are purchased from Amazon from inbound links generated by IMDB? Analysts have estimated that Zappos clears less than $100 million per year. So, maybe IMDB might not be a "main subsidiary" of Amazon's by your definition, but it's at least 10% as meaningful as Zappos to the Amazon bottom line, which is no small thing. If you look here, Amazon has had at least 30 different acquisitions, and I'll venture a guess that IMDB is among the top five or six of them in terms of free cash flow. So, by that definition, I think "main subsidiary" is a valid description. You might want to go back and look at that e-mail linked to above -- you didn't seem to comprehend that the tenant was the Wikimedia Foundation, not Amazon. I understand, with so many cross-deals going on, it might be difficult to keep up. -- 2001:558:1400:10:BD98:82E2:4035:E90C (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I used to work in a greenhouse in Alabama in the summer - temperatures were routinely higher than the ones reported in the article. Additionally, it sounds like Amazon has worked to correct the problem by installing more fans and cooling units. I don't see any evidence in the article of Amazon behaving in a malicious way at all.

My approach to such things is not to follow anecdotal evidence from inflammatory news articles, but to look at more systematic measures. I'd welcome more data, but here's a start from an employee satisfaction study:

"Among web-only retailers included in the study, Overstock held the lead with 3.2 points overall, while Amazon.com Inc. and eBay were tied for second with a 3.0 rating. Netflix Inc. scored 2.8 points. Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos held an 82% approval rating (down 2 points since last year) among employees, while eBay’s CEO John Donahoe held 64% (a 21-point jump) and Netflix’s CEO Reed Hasting stood at 63% (down five points)."

You can compare other companies ratings here.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Every time I hear this story I am reminded of the years working for summer stock theatre in Sacramento under a circus tent during the unbearably hot summers with only swamp coolers. Hot glue would melt on the props. There are still many jobs that may put one in these conditions.....and oddly enough, warehouse work is one of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And it's a shame and should be solvable, as it sounds like Amazon is trying to do. But let's be clear that Cla68's concern for the workers of Amazon likely extends only so far as snarky remarks on my talk page, although I'm sure he'll explain further if he feels that remark is untrue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy, thanks for one of the best online laughs I have ever had. Cla68 is not exactly my favorite editor either. (...still laughing...) Jusdafax 13:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I like Cla68, but this doesn't ring true. Plus, have we really gotten this soft? I'm not saying I would look forward to working with a heat index of 114, but I worked in a factory with aluminum die casting smelters, and a bleachery with no air conditioning, and steam powered bleaching equipment where the numbers were well into the red zone of Heat_index. I don't want to belittle the conditions, but refusing to do business with a company where these conditions occasionally happen is an over-reaction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe Amazon treats their employees badly, but I do not know any other place in the free world that treats human beings worse than English Wikipedia does. Only on English Wikipedia human beings are constantly getting lynched, and I mean lynched, by the anonymous mob, while others keep silent. So, before expressing concern about Amazon shouldn't you express concern about English Wikipedia? 67.169.11.52 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice trolling attempt. --Conti|✉ 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

    My greatest wish is that my statement were just a "nice trolling attempt", but sadly what I said is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Resolute 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

      • Well, if Wikipedian Resolute says my statement is "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah:, it ought to be "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.", but let me quote not an anonymous Wikipedian, but an award winning physicist, a person who has his own Wikipedia's entry (I know his name, but I would not not like to name him here): "Wikipedia is an embodiment of the opposite. It is a return to the Dark Ages, with an element of chaos that is greatly enhanced by the mass communications tools available in the internet. It involves a reduction of all genuine achievements to parity with the very basest, most primitive notions of the ignorant and undereducated. The encyclopaedists would never have proposed that their work was to be an equal collaboration of the ignorant and the educated. It was to be a vehicle for raising the former from their ignorance by making the most valuable achievements of human endeavor available to all.Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice. It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant", and I am afraid Wikipedian Resolute just proved that the poster is right: Wikipedia is a "Tyranny of the Ignorant".67.169.11.52 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

        • Seeking to dismiss someone as "ignorant" simply because they disagree with you is a fallacy, and serves only to discredit your own argument. Alas, I have already given your agenda-driven trolling more time than it deserves. Resolute 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

          • Well, I do not believe that "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" is a valid argument to express your disagreement, but here again arguing with "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" is probably OK on Wikipedia. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

        • That was, presumably, in reference to the 2008 deletion debates on the so-called Myrzakulov equations. I must say, though, that editors' pay is pretty lousy - probably worse than Amazon warehouse workers'. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Jimbo, the story was in a local newspaper, not a politically-oriented journal. The reporter had obtained both sides of the story, including statements from the Amazon management. The journalist reported that conditions at the factory did not start to improve until after the employees had complained to the government. In the organizations I have worked for, if conditions become dangerously hot, then company put out and installed air conditioning. To prevent appearing to use a straw man approach about what I think your position on this is, I'll just ask you, how would you have handled the situation with the heat at that warehouse? Would you agree that, in order to conserve charitable contributions, that the air conditioning at the WMF and Wikia offices (aren't they in the same building) will be turned off next summer and you all will station ambulances and paramedics outside in the street to treat any employees who pass out? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you are eager to hear that I would have the complainers shot, or, as the other troll on the page says, lynched. But you're just being a jerk for no apparent reason. What would I do if I were the CEO of Amazon and I heard that heat was hitting 95 degrees in a warehouse during a record heat wave, and the managers refused to do anything about it until the government was called in? I'd fire the managers, order an evaluation of company policies and procedures for oversight that led to the situation in the first place, and work to rectify it. If that isn't what Amazon did here, then I'm disappointed, but I don't have the full story and I know that - in general - Amazon is a humane company with a generally good reputation for treating workers well. It's a big company and some of the jobs they offer aren't really great jobs (though they seem to be highly desired). Do I dream of a world where robots bring us our books and DVDs along with a mint julep and a pony? Yes, we all do. Especially the pony. But in the meantime, I accept that sometimes warehouses will get too hot, sometimes managers will be indifferent, and sometimes companies will be disappointed in their own performance. Again, I'm 100% sure that your concern for Amazon's workers consists solely in trolling on my talk page, so please go away now, you're boring me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

    Jimbo, when dozen of anonymous lunatics are voting for the community ban of a named human being with the only purpose to punish this person, and when this person is not even allowed to say a word in his defense because he's already blocked, this process is called lynching whether you like it or not. And you, Jimbo, have the power to stop that lynching but apparently you are fine with it, or maybe you are to too cowardly to stand up against the mob of lynchers. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is lynching. This is not lynching. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Both are, only in the first situation the death comes quickly and in the second slowly, and I am not sure which one is worse. Of course I do not mean all discussions on WP:AN are lynchings, but some of them are, and even, if only one of them is, it is one too many. Of course I do not mean that banning from Wikipedia is a lynching on its own, not at all, but the way it is done here, the way, which involves denunciations, character assassination, excommunication of a person who is not even allowed to defend himself it is what makes it a lynching. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

An important difference is that Jesse cannot tell us how it feels. Whereas you, you think, can? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a better question to ask is why do you want to know how being lynched feels. Are you a sadist of some kind or what? But tell you what, if I were to choose between being lynched or being a lyncher, I would choose being lynched, and I'll let you to figure out why. 67.169.11.52 (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the WMF offices are in San Francisco, the argument is moot since it is colder there in the summer than in the winter. Now if you threatened to turn off the heat, you'd have a more threatening situation! Jusdafax 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

it is colder there in the summer than in the winter I'll assume this falsehood was meant in jest? If not, you weaken your arugument by presenting incorrect information. --Malerooster (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly a falsehood. It's called Indian Summer. Jusdafax was referring to the fake quote attributed to Mark Twain (a quote he never said) about how winter (actually autumn) is warmer than summer in San Francisco, which is demonstrably true. In San Francisco, the traditional summer months of June, July, and August are cooler than the highest temps. in September when summer has already "ended". Hence, the observation. Try to not to read things so literally. The fake quote, "the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco", indirectly refers to this factual observation. Yes, autumn isn't winter, but when someone says "it is colder there in the summer than in the winter" what they really mean is that June, July, and August are cooler than September. Sometimes words aren't meant to be taken literally. This is one of those times (and this is why I only visit San Francisco in September). Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly a falsehood., ok, fine, its sort of false, just like alot of the spin around here. --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. To further explain, "Autumn marks the transition from summer into winter". Reality isn't a series of discrete points but a continuous sequence of events. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am getting it. You can "explain" all you want. Still false fact. Period. End of story. --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo, Amadscientist, and SPhilbrick: the problem is that modern whiners haven't experienced working in real heat. I once worked in a call center where the heat often exceeded 6,000 degrees Kelvin. We didn't complain, although it was a little difficult when the atomic structure of our equipment broke down into superheated plasma. Next thing you know, these whiners will be demanding bathroom breaks -- paid, on company time! Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure...I would love a pony.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ponies poop almost as much as a full sized horse. Still smells better than some of the stuff in this thread though.--MONGO 02:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

MONEY MONEY MONEY

Another quarter another begging bowl from Wikipedia. I can't be the only one heartily sick of these appeals. They remind of the ever--unfilled 'Fighting Fund Appeals' in socialist papers that used to bore me shitless in my old Leninist days. Yet AT THE SAME time we allow FaceBerk to use our content for free??? I don't mind working for free for Wikipedia but I DO MIND working for free for Mark Zuckeberg! Surely an exception should be made to our 'free content' policy for a vastly wealthy organisation like FB? If you want meat to a butchers; if you want money ask the rich! SmokeyTheCat 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is allowed to use WP content for free just like any other organisation is. What are you suggesting, a wholesale change to a non-commercial license?

Incidentally, my experience is that Facebook's use of Wikipedia content (odd though it is) seems to drive Facebook's end users to contribute material to WP, on a very regular basis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I love the idea that "The Free Encyclopedia" shouldn't be free to someone. I think that's plusgood. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the ads drive you nuts, just go to Preferences -> Gadgets, and click on "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under the "Browser" heading. Here's a shortcut. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Before turning it off, make sure you donate a significant amount to make up for the lost donations in the future when you're no longer being reminded :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That said, if Jimbo haven´t already called Zuckerberg to ask for a yearly donation, maybe he should do so, since Zuckerberg uses Wikipedia to enhance his product.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a second, are you saying that it is OK to use Wikipedia, which supposedly is an encyclopedia, to enhance somebody's product as long as that somebody donates money to WMF? 67.169.11.52 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is fine for any company to use any of the fruits of our labor without donating as well. That is the whole point of a free encyclopedia. We hope that other companies that benefit from it will donate, as to help support the very thing that is supporting them, but it isn't required. That is makes it a symbiotic yet independent relationship. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am saying that it´s ok for Facebook to use Wikipedia the way they do. It would also be ok if Jimbo asked them for a donation.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

two versions of the same language

Hello. Intolerable that there are two versions of the same language: one eloquent language (such as Arabic Wikipedia), and one of the colloquial dialect Its dialects (such as Egyptian and Arabic Wikipedia)? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think this is intolerable? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

new idea

make liks to wikipedia to every page that want to copy and paste from this page. it will make wikipedia much more consulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.96.49 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per xyz

Hello,

I am a relatively new editor here and I have been terribly frustrated by people who make votes on proposals with statements like "Oppose per xyz". I totally understand how clumsy it were to be if everyone were to repeat the same arguments over and over again; but it is actually horrible to deal with when you have users who do not have the tiniest shred of idea over what the discussion is about, voting to Oppose a new proposal, "Per above arguments". What makes it worse is the fact that this tends to happen on nearly every single place that the editors have even the slightest tendency to dislike, like new proposal or requested changes in current policies. Such a system is not very conducive for newer editors, who have a tendency to bring with them fresh ideas and proposals (A problem of Wikipedia we have seen time and again).

I hope that this request might help in a rethink and change in WP:Policies that reduce such non-constructive discussions and votings drastically. [Maybe a rule that no place except RfA can have a vote without a rationale - As of now, I believe it is a guideline but not a rule] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think we need more "reducing", or restricting of the rules, for discussions, see WP:CREEP. Also, often it's not possible for every editor to formulate a unique argument to a simple problem, especially in cases where consensus happens to be right. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is not that the editor formulates a unique argument, nor where the consensus is most certainly correct. The concern I have is regards the instances when there might be some doubt on where the consensus is and such discussions being swayed by trivial and non-useful votes like the one I mentioned. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

When there are multiple opinions on a topic, to gauge consensus, isn't it helpful to know the relative proportions of editors that support each position? If editors aren't permitted to state merely that they agree with a certain opinion, then each opinion could end up with only one supporter and minority opinions will be indistinguishable from majority opinions. Peacock (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And what about those editors who just gauge in without knowing anything that has been said? I am pretty sure there must be some other way to stop them, if not this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be ridiculous to assume that if someone merely states that they agree with someone else that they don't know anything about what has been said. Peacock (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The struggle against people agreeing with things they are personally ignorant of is something humanity has been wrestling with for centuries, and isn't something Wikipedia is likely to find a solution to. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree per Til Eulenspiegel. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you just trolling around or was that an actual opinion TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's called humour. Maybe they teach it at your school. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Its pretty irritating when then happens I must admit but unlikely anything that can be done about it. But sometimes if you get to an AFD or something and people have said it previously the valid reasons for deleting/keeping then it saves time for other users who have exactly the same thing to say...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the others that this is a valid thing to say sometimes. We don't always need to reinvent the wheel when we comment on issues, and for the purposes of gauging consensus, it's a relatively easy method for ascertaining that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This just seems like a criticism of others for lacking an "original thought or opinion", which is simply an assumption of bad faith. I do agree with the statements of oppose here and while I am psoting an original comment....sometimes I just vote in a poll with no comment. I watch as people comments are sometimes dragged out by others attemtping to pick them apart.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In often contentious votes, "per XXX" is a rare case where editors get approving feedback instead of criticism for their opinions. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The "Per xyz" form of adding support to this or that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes at Articles for Deletion, for example, someone will make a long and astute argument, or will provide a substantial number of links demonstrating that something qualifies as a pass under the General Notability Guideline. Use of "per xyz" avoids lengthy repetitions. I do agree that it can be overused and is often times a lazy phrasing. "Delete, per the argument made by xyz" or "Keep, per the sources provided by xyz" is a better phrasing, perhaps. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the lazy phrasing, but I agree with others who have said that it is useful for determining consensus. XfD and most other discussions may not be votes, but that doesn't mean that seeing support for a certain argument isn't useful for determining consensus. Shouldn't this discussion be on another page? --Onorem♠Dil 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I generally try to avoid using the "per xyz" formulation myself (maybe just because I'm long-winded), but there are certain times when it can be quite useful - specifically, times where it's important to gauge participation. For instance, if I see an AfD nomination that has three "delete" !votes and has already been relisted once, and I give the article a once-over and see that the three !votes are spot-on in their assessment, then I might write "Delete per <so-and-so>" simply so that, if it gets no more !votes that week, at the end of the week a reviewing admin might decide to delete it as soft consensus or SNOW, instead of relisting it. It can likewise be useful at RfCs on topics of rather limited interest, proposals in fields few people care about, and disciplinary matters where one side might have lopsided support. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia exist for providing a free knowledge or it is looking forward to achieving a global domination?

According to Sue Gardner "Cell phones could be Wikipedia's path to global domination". The words "global domination" regarding encyclopedia just do not sound right, or I am missing something?67.169.11.52 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)