User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Possible COI editing in WMF network

Jimbo, would you say that a trustee of a Wikimedia chapter would have a conflict of interest regarding direct editing of an article about the future executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation? (Example) - 2001:558:1400:10:514C:ED33:5FD5:596A (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Such edits are best avoided to avoid even a hint of impropriety. However, adding an infobox is not in any way problematic and so this particular edit is just routine and boring. Had I been asked I would have recommended against it but really this is a non issue. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So, would it be okay for paid editors to add routine and boring infoboxes to articles about their clients, so long as the infoboxes do not advocate anything? Sorry to keep asking you to clarify, but it seems like every time you lay down the law on a "Bright Line" Rule, the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections. -2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No that would not be ok and it is completely false to say "the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections". You may wish that were so, but it isn't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The advice I always give to biography subjects and companies is not to edit an article where you have a COI, other than to repair obvious vandalism or correct uncontroversial errors of fact. However, a trustee of a chapter adding an uncontroversial bit of furniture to an article, is very different from an employee of a company adding promotional text to the company's article. There si a bright line rule: don't edit articles where you have a COI. This bright line rule is applied with a leavening of WP:CLUE. Think of it like a speed limit. Nobody gets prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30 limit, most people will get away with 33mph. Drive by at 50 and you are clearly taking the piss and are likely to be stopped.

Interestingly, I have yet to encounter a biography subject or anyone else who was not on a mission, who found this remotely difficult to understand. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor who made that edit is a board member, and doesn't appear to be an employee. Either way, I agree that it's not a desirable edit. But on the scale of crumminess, with 1 being a "editing out of the goodness of one's heart" and 10 being "running an outfit that edits for pay," I put it at 3 at most. It's always interesting to see self-confessed 10s complaining about 3s. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, never mind, you guys. Obviously, there is no way to circumvent the Bright Line Rule! It is all-powerful and indestructible. Like a Pirelli tire, if you will. - 2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Very confused about this video, considering its contents are fake. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the other 56 videos on Pirelli Brasil's channel are also fake? — Scott • talk 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about the other videos or whether they actually did what they said they did. The actual Wikipedia screenshots shown in the video, however, are manipulated. Some of the mentioned articles don't exist, and the file at the end of the video (File:Lap 1, Turn 1 Canada 2008.jpg) does not match up. The Commons image at that title is different than the one in the video, was uploaded back in 2008, and shows no sign of ever being the file shown in the video. It's...interesting. I suppose it's either a hoax or they fabricated the examples to hide their actual edits? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I didn't check that file title, and looking at the various pt.wiki articles that flash up shows no sign of the claims made in the video either. In that case, it looks to me like a marketing department pitch trying to get someone to approve the idea. Why they've phrased it in the past tense though, I don't know - maybe to say "look what we could boast about to other divisions"? This probably wasn't meant to be visible to the public. — Scott • talk 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. It's the work of the São Paulo branch of Havas Worldwide, a marketing company.[1] — Scott • talk 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I suppose it's a potential project, then. It's only visible to those who have the link, so I'd imagine it was being shared internally. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess that people see a difference between adding a template to an article about someone with whom you have a tangential and non-financial relationship, and trying to build a business out of someone else's volunteer-run, charity-funded project, then trying to get it shut down out of spite when you get stopped. People can be funny that way. Guy (Help!) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing that I have learned from looking at Wikipedia behind the scenes is that trolls will always be trolling, trolling, trolling. These poor, sad people simply can't help themselves. Another thing that I have learned is that Jimbo's patience and tolerance seem almost inexhaustible. Thank you, Jimbo, for setting an excellent example for other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the troll has a point, though. If you really have a bright line rule, there's no such thing as "it's only bad at level 3 on a scale of 1 to 10"--a bright line rule inherently means no tolerance for ambiguity or circumstances. It either violates the rule or it doesn't, and if it violates the rule it has to go. Bright line rules are rather like zero tolerance policies in that way. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The troll would have more credibility in making that point if he didn't run a paid editing service. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The video managed to change my mind slightly on companies donating media to Commons. I had thought that any donated image is ok. In the video they emphasize the branding in the images. "Pirelli" banners all over the place in them. I suppose we should still accept images and most media from these advertisers, but placing them in articles should be regulated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No matter what we do, there will be clever ways to game the system. We should not over-react with a moral panic. A gentle adjustment to the rules would probably help: Wikipedia is not to be used for product placement. If an editor is repeatedly uploading images for the purpose of promoting a brand, that editor and those images should go out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should welcome the contributed images --- being sure, of course, to recognize that the product placement is not something valuable. Getting them licensed means we can crop extraneous product placements in some cases. In others, such as Car racing, Stock car, Super Bike Series, the articles they were gloating about, there's an intrinsic problem that all the vehicles and racetracks and plastered with ads. If it's not them, it's someone else, and indeed at least in the current version I see many other companies far more prominently advertised. Our role should not be to discard contributed material, but to try to round up some non-COI editors to push out avoidable or especially visible placements and avoid domination by any one company's forces. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WMF plans for mathematics

A couple of weeks ago some comment were made here by editors concerned about the development of mathematics rendering and editing. The point was made that currently WMF allocates essentially no resources to this and it continues entirely on volunteer effort, which is made less effective by the way it is not integrated into WMF development. At that time I asked [2] what plans WMF had for developing mathematics-based text. Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else was able to answer before the question was aged off [3].

However, just recently I received an answer to my question from User:Jdforrester (WMF) who confirmed [4] in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#VisualEditor_math_formulae that the assessment of another editor [5] that WMF has 0 and no plans on Math was entirely correct.

This is very disturbing. Mathematics support is a key component of writing a serious encyclopaedia and it is quite unacceptable that WMF should devote no resources to its effective development and have no plans to do so. Please would you ask the WMF to reconsider its policy on this matter, and allocate a suitable proportion of its resources to the maintenance, sustainability and development of mathematics rendering and editing? Deltahedron (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here to support everything that was said above. Mathematics on wikipedia is already difficult enough to read and write as it is, any efforts to simplify this process should be encouraged. I understand that WMF is busy with everything on their plate, but at least have someone poke around and see what options are available to improve how math can be better communicated on wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never read the lede of a Wikipedia maths article that I could understand. À Propos of nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite. If any money is going to be spent on mathematics on Wikipedia, it should go towards hiring people who actually know how to write mathematical articles for a general audience. — Scott • talk 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

An excellent plan, and I would be happy if WMF were to spend money on that too. But support for mathematics rendering and editing would still be required. Currently it seems we have none. Deltahedron (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm an excellent mathematician (even if I say so myself) and I rarely understand a word of them too. That's the nature of the mathematical game these days I'm afraid. Still it's true that many articles, even on elementary topics, could do with some Sqrt(1 + Tan^2(x))ing up (this is an excellent mathematician BTW who believes we can get on just fine with the ten digits and twenty six letters the good lord gave us like we used to on Usenet - nevertheless support Deltahedron because we must move on with the nooths I suppose, for better or worse ). Still there are some excellent articles out there, Logarithm for example. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Grants are available to anyone who wants to do technical work, but, as I understand it, the WMF never funds content creation, no matter how sorely needed it is.

It's possible for dedicated people to form their own non-profit and seek funding for content creation, and if you're serious enough about it, then you might want to look into that. I doubt that it would work in practice, though: making some articles completely impenetrable to the lay person (and making sure that even the most trivial facts in it are all sourced to equally impenetrable sources) appears to be a goal held by some long-established editors, so efforts to write good, intelligible articles is likely to produce significant resistance. It would be unfortunate if you went to all that trouble and expense only to have some WP:OWNish editor revert it all to the impenetrable versions. On the other hand, mathematics may be the one area where this is least likely to be a problem. I've personally encountered several editors who really are trying to make these articles more accessible (with variable success).

As a mid-point between these two extremes, it might be possible for you to convince the WMF to fund a structured training program for making mathematics articles accessible, if there were enough editors interested in working on this. meta:Grants:IEG is probably the place to start that inquiry process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although perhaps I might re-iterate that my original request to Jimbo was entirely about WMF planning and resourcing technical elements for mathematics rendering and editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the math articles we have are very useful to people who actually need to know something about the topic. Some years ago Sean Carroll wrote on his blog that he was doing a computation away from his usual workplace and he needed to know the explicit form of some spherical harmonics, and he found them on Wikipedia.

The problem with math really is that the general audience is math illiterate and generally not really interested to learn about the topic. It's therefore pointless to aim too much at the general audience, as we cannot make up for a deficient educational system here. What we can do is present the material in such a way to make it as useful as possible. This means that we relax the Not Textbook rule a bit and write up articles such as Methods of contour integration or Rational reconstruction (mathematics) that are very useful to people who are already into these topics who need to learn more. Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(Notice WMF's usual non-answer answer.) I think we've been sidetracked here. The issue is squarely about the math rendering. Deltahedron has been too polite, so I will be more blunt. Basically, the math support here "sucks" in terms of performance and appearance (png is still standard), compared to other notable sites like math.stackexchange. This is more than a practical problem:

1. It gives an impression that Wikipedia is less hip (at least used to be). This decreases our ability to attract new editors.
2. It gives an impression that WMF doesn't care about the editors, especially those working on serious encyclopedic subjects like math.

(If I'm allowed to say a bad joke, unfortunately, non-math editors and admins are not smart enough to understand the problems that we math editors are having.)

-- Taku (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to give more specific details. "png is still standard" is a tantalizing clue but... what do you recommend instead? What does the dream solution look like? What is currently state of the art on the web in terms of math editing and rendering software? The last time I looked into this (admittedly quite some time ago) what most math editors wanted was LaTex support, and rendering to png was a reasonable way to render. So, that's what we have now. What would math editors prefer today? I'm happy to help but it would be delicious if I had an NPOV summary of the current state of the art, how it compares with what we support, and some basic first step explanations of what the steps are to get from where we are to where we want to be, what help we might be able to engage from the broader math community, and what engineering costs we might expect to shoulder on our end. We have a new CEO now, specifically chosen for tech/product focus, and so a lot of things will be up for discussion over the next year or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that thought-provoking challenge which I have taken the liberty of relaying to WT:WPM for discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I raised the question here a couple of weeks back User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#The problem with developing maths rendering but I think Jimbo was away at the time.

There are a number of problems with the typography of the PNG rendering. A few examples:

texvc / png	MathJax
The most obvious problem with inline formula is the baseline of the formula which is significantly lower than the surronding text. A secondary problem is the font size which is larger the text.	With MathJax the baseline is better, but still 1px too low. The font size matches correctly.
With display formula texvc performs better. There are problems with aliasing giving the brackets and all characters a jagged appearance. There is the same font size problem.	There are a few subtile differences: the superscript on the $b^{2}$ is a little higher in MathJax.
PNG display gets worse if you scale the webpage on the client side. As these are static images you get an upscaled image which looks blurred.	MathJax behaves much better at high zoom levels.

--Salix alba (talk): 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Based on that, it seems like MathJax support is a no-brainer. But are there downsides to MathJax that I should be aware of?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: This would lead one to believe that MathJax support already exists and perhaps just needs to be made the default? Or... what is the current status? Apologies that these are basic questions but I haven't looked into this in a long time, and I assume the same will be true for many readers of this page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are some problems with MathJax at the moment. It requires javascript, which not everyone has so some form of fallback is needed. It can be a bit slow to render a page Help:Formula (a page with very heavy use of mathematics) takes 20s to render because of this @Eloquence: Erik Moeller has put a WONTFIX on Template:Bug the main bug to make MathJax the default. There is a plan to do server side cacheing which should speed up the rendering with the Mathoid package and a major update to the mw:Extension:Math package @Physikerwelt and Gwicke: know more about this. The sticking point now seem to be getting this update production ready and getting it though code review. There seems to be very few developers who have the interest/expertise in mathematics rendering to move this forward.

BWT wikipedia uses the mw:Extension:Math which provides MathJax as a user selectable option and not mw:Extension:MathJax. As its only an option selectable in preferences its not available for anonymous users. --Salix alba (talk): 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer some specific points. "It requires javascript, which not everyone has so some form of fallback is needed" - I think we can basically ignore this issue right now. The number of people without access to Javascript is extremely small, and while they do need a fallback, making things worse for 99.9% of all people in order to help the .1% is probably not the best choice. Let me know if there's something wrong with that thinking. So what you'd like is some help with resolving the issues of Template:Bug and a commitment from the Foundation (Erik, really) that if we get someone to fix that bug, they're open to implementing it.

To make my role in this process clear: I totally trust Erik's judgment on the allocation of the limited resources available to him, and it would in any case be foolhardy for me, with no real knowledge of his production timetables, to put pressure on him to elevate this issue just because I've taken an interest in it. But, two things - I can try to help you campaign to find a community developer interested in this issue. Not sure how effective that will be but I'm willing to try to shine a light on it. And as I said above, we have a new executive director now, one brought on board to ramp up investment in product/engineering capacity. It seems likely that some of the constraints that Erik and the engineering team have faced in the past will be expanded significantly in the next two years, and so now is a good time to make a reasoned case and proposals for improvements that we in the community find important. I've got a few wishlist items of my own. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also a paper that describes the developments in the new version of the Math extension in detail at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.6179v1.pdf. In general I think the code-review process could be improved. Even though me and a few other voulunteers have the permission to push code changes to the repositories, we have doubts that changes we tested locally might influence the performance and stability of Wikipedia in a whole. Therefore we need code review from people with knowelege about the technical details of the MediaWiki installation at WMF.--Physikerwelt (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's product blogging

WP:DNFTT --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, Sue Gardner recently posted a blog about her favorite travel products. Of the Scottevest, she raved, "Scottevest travel vest with many pockets. OMG I love my Scottevest. It has 17 internal zippered pockets...". We're wondering if you believe that this editor in good standing largely agrees with Gardner's review? That's some excellent knowledge, isn't it? - 2001:558:1400:10:6C0E:AF41:1EBD:3C89 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) New products for the WikiMedia shop? Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) This thread strikes me as being a not-so-veiled personal attack against Sue Gardner from a long-banned editor. I don't see anything about the vest being added to the WikMedia shop, so that comment seems just like a stray unfortunate comment by somebody who didn't think before he wrote. The core of the personal attack by Mr. 2001 is the implication that Sue Gardner Wrote the blog in question, and has some sort of connection with Scottvest or the linked editor, beyond just using the vest. If neither of these is true, then Mr. 2001 is just being an attack dog (as usual) and we should pay him no mind. @Sue Gardner:. If you don't think that it is best to just ignore a personal attack like this, please answer these questions: Did you write that blog, or did somebody hack your site? Did Scottevest give you the product or pay you to mention them on the blog? (If they did you should mention this in the blog according to FTC rules) Do you have any business connections with Scottevest or User:Crashingbiscuit? I can see why Sue might properly ignore these questions, but if she does answer them, I'd think this psuedo-mini-scandal should be all over. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Mr. 2001 is trolling, pure and simple. He must be running very thin on material if this is what he's spouting these days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC) It's just not kosher. Though it might be an anagram... Guy (Help!) 23:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) As I've said here not long before\, we should not even consider efforts to criticize people's writings outside Wikipedia. I don't care if you think it's commercial, in bad taste, or just don't like it. I'm not going along even if half the people we meet are brainwashed into thinking that their governments, their employers, their bankers, and even their cable providers should have the right and probably the duty to read everything they say, wherever they say it, and take action to punish them if ever once they say something deemed to be wrong. This is Wikipedia, it's open to everyone, it's free for everyone, and the only thing that can count against Gardner or any WMF person is if they're doing things against policy here. And there's not even the remotest suspicion that this other account has anything to do with her; it looks like a purely random accusation as a smokescreen for the fact there's nothing here. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) I actually don't see a problem with adding this item to the WikiMedia shop, the shop doesn't have a lot of useful stuff for sale. Count Iblis (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Smallbones says, "The core of the personal attack by Mr. 2001 is the implication that Sue Gardner Wrote the blog in question". If not Sue Gardner, then who do you think hacked SueGardner.org and pretended to write that blog under her byline? Talk about "running very thin"... it seems like Smallbones is breathing some very thin air and isn't thinking too clearly. I love how several Wikipedians are so quick to jump to their imagined concerns that Mr. 2001 is engaging in "personal attack" and "scandal" and "suspicion" and "accusation" and "smokescreen", when if you simply read what he wrote (a novel idea), it appears that he was just making a point that no matter where you turn on Wikipedia, it seems that some corporate shill has been trying to puff up Wikipedia with their material, when (in contrast) any decent paid editor (note, not a paid advocacy editor) would have written about a client in policy-conforming style, with appropriate citations. Y'all are so angry all the time; why don't you try relaxing for once? - 50.144.2.4 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (Aaron Levinson) I fail to see how Sue Gardner praising travel products she likes on her personal blog is a matter of concern to anyone here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Right. If actually using and liking something is a COI then we would never have any articles on any products or software at all - virtually all such articles are written by people who have used something and formed an opinion at some point. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Except that the OP never said anything about conflict of interest. You have all simply imagined it into existence. So, "not right". - 2001:558:1400:10:CD75:2F3:222B:E4BC (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) This thread begins by making a nonsensical connection and culminates in feigned surprise that someone drew the obvious implication about what the OP meant. Such a thread should never have been entertained in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

When were admin handed a magic wand?

Brown Haired Girl just did something I do not recognize an admin having the right to do. I would like to hear about whether this can actually be done?

Impossed moratorium with no discussion? Just...I did it. Great...and I don't recognize it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy that I'm aware of that allows an admin to unilaterally impose a one year moratorium on discussion of an important issue. Such a policy would be absurd on the face of it. At the same time, it seems pretty clear that a one year break from discussing this perennial topic is not a bad idea. The right way to accomplish it is not through some fictional admin powers, but through appropriate community RfC. I think that even if the parties to the discussion can't come to an agreement about the title after repeated efforts, they may very well support imposing a moratorium on discussion for some defined period of time, as well as the implementation of a process for assessing the various alternatives and coming to some thoughtful and reasonable compromise solution that can gain consensus.

A moratorium on discussion is not a solution to the problem, without consensus on that moratorium, and without some efforts to build consensus around a process with a path to peace in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, where I noted the moratorium promptly after it was imposed. Seems to be supported so far, but it's up to other admins to decide whether or not to enforce it. When the same questoion is raised repeatedly with the same outcome, WP:TE and WP:DE start to look relevant.

I have suggested there that editors consider a more structured process for examining the question next time round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to cancel the moratorium. I think people are supporting because, in this specific case, a one year moratorium sounds relaxing and good. But just because something is good, doesn't mean that it should be imposed by fiat, particularly not by a single admin, and particularly not when it may set a particularly bad precedent for future custom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have no stake in the outcome of this. It is already being discussed at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, and so far there appears to be a consensus there to support the moratorium. That may change, or maybe not. Maybe someone will take it to move review. But I will let the moratorium stand, and be a focus for a discussion the community needs to have. This is far from the first RM moratorium, and the discussion may trigger a wider consensus on what to do with intractable disputes such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are supposed to look for thoughtful and reasonable compromise solutions. What often happens is a finding of "no consensus" which results in the article staying where it was before the discussion began. The "losing" side has no incentive to agree to a moratorium as you suggest. So what's probably going to happen is a seven day move discussion followed by a thirty day RfC with the same editors making the same arguments. A likely scenario is a finding of "no consensus" again and the re-opening of yet another move discussion. I think BrownHairedGirl presented a nice lightweight solution. An uninvolved admin uses their judgment and then presents it to the outside community for comment. Kind of like Deletion Review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A nice lightweight solution is unhelpful and predisposes to further requests. Countering this with a fiat-like moratorium runs counter to the spirit of collaborative editing. I commented on a more constructive way forward over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The time sink that some of these tendentious and repetitive move request hobbyhorses create (see also Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton) is the greater harm to the project than an admin using her common sense to encourage people to go do something else for a while. Page protection and blocks/bans are also counter to the spirit of collaborative editing, but sometimes such actions are required for the greater good of the project. That being said, things like 'move moratoriums' should probably be discussed then implemented rather than the other away around. Resolute 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is real harm in allowing anyone a special right not grnated to even Jimbo himself. We discuss these things and admin have no special rights granted by anyone anywhere at anytime to impose their own will or decisions on the community and there is a policy for that called: Wikipedia:Consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT which states clearly:

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and other volunteers, and the activities of Wikimedia Commons, are largely separate entities, as are the many non-English Wikipedias. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features, or accepting or rejecting images, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unusual problems sometimes require unusual solutions. BHG has tried to close a never-ending cycle of acrimony, and has correctly taken it to WP:AN#Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative for discussion. That is a valid place for any concerns to be raised and third-parties should support such solutions in order to protect the encyclopedia—perpetual bickering is death for an online community. John resolved another never-ending battle regarding whether a certain game should be called "football" or "soccer" using a similar technique (see here). Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. BHG has recognised the fact that the likelihood of achieving consensus for this move is slightly less than a snowball's chance in hell, so devoting more time and resources to pulling the warring parties apart is a waste of everybody's time. We could, I guess, just topic ban the ones who refuse to accept their failure to gain consensus for a move, that would work too. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You know...this really isn't about BHG, although I really don't agree with what the admin did. This is really about whether editors must follow our policies and guidelines or if they can "go rogue" (and no that is not a comparison to Sarah Palin). Are we or are we not a community of policies and guidelines and then...on the flip of that, does this constitute Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not sure anyone has brought that up yet. Is this case where ignoring the rule was needed to improve the project. I would, of course, argue no, it wasn't as a simple community discussion is all that was needed. Is it possible the admin was simply frustrated with the constant move requests, I wont even try to speak for the admin or second guess her. What is clear is, this isn't the norm nor is it a precedence that is good. I assume good faith and BHG has stated that the discussion she started was to gain a consensus. While it didn't look to me as that was the case from just the prose that was written, I am satisfied it was their intent. I am still very concerned that the way the closing was written, it clearly shows that the admin did indeed impose this on their own as they also clearly admit. But that is also because they seem to have been allowed to do this in the past Other admin have done this in the past with no one really noticing and so, I can see why they would think they could simply do it again as well. That is the real issue, my real concern is not sanctioning anyone. I am concerned that this is being supported in a casual manner for admin to do again, and I simply can't support that and feel this needs a much more detailed discussion. Perhaps at the village pump after the centralized discussion has closed at AN, we can begin discussing whether we should or should not allow this for all admin as part of their bag of tools.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussions to a special page can work well. This is what was done to the debate about "Not Truth" on the verifiability page. This made the discussions focussed and constructive. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think a more constructive result would be to say something like, "It is clear that these move discussions have worn out the community's patience. While anybody is free to start a discussion at any time, there is an increasing chance that such discussions will be speedily closed as redundant, and that editors starting them may be subject to warnings or even sanctions for disruptive editing." At some point starting the same discussion for the nth time for no good reason is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: That's a tempting option, but I fear that it is just kicking the can down the road to a heated dispute when someone does speedy close a move discussion. It seems to me to better to find some way to set a clear timeframe, so that everyone knows where they stand.
    Amongst those who objected to the moratorium, the main concern has been that it is unilateral. I understand that, but since this is a long way from being the first such moratorium, I think we need some broader discussion on how to handle these situations. There are several possibilities, of which the simplest is to ban admin-imposed moratoria, but I the WP:AN discussion doesn't seem to suggest that this would meet consensus. Another option is to treat them the way we treat many other admin actions, which is to review them if they are controversial; that's more or less what happened this time. Yet another possibility is that there is some mechanism for proposing a moratorium. At the moment, the only way would be through an RFC, which opens up a 30-day wrangle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Admins are empowered to evaluate, summarize and enforce the consensus of the community. If there is a discussion where a substantial number of editors support a one year moratorium, then an admin can implement that decision. If you think such a thing would be helpful, please propose it for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, thinking back, I believe the first example of a one year moratorium on discussion I can recall on Wikipedia was when Jimbo finally cut off the idiocy over Brian Peppers. It's not the same thing really, of course, because in that case those on one side were merely gadflies whereas here there are committed Wikipedians on both sides. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The events surrounding the Brian Peppers incident were worse than you remember. As the Signpost article shows, there was a level of wheel warring involved as various administrators salted and/or unprotected the article. The incident does however provide a good example of a one year moratorium allowing enough of a cooling down period that a consensus could finally develop. --Allen3 ^talk 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I chime in here? I think that banning discussion is ridiculous, and should never be done regardless of the situation. I don't particularly want to propose a move, but I think moratoriums should be banned as disrupting possible discussion. 75* 19:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

query about whether Wikipedia is based on what the actual sources say or on what editors seem to think is "the truth"

I agree with NYB on this one, so I'm leaving his comment outside the archive. My talk page is a good place to have a thoughtful discussion of the broader philosophical points, if there are any, but this sounds like a talk page debate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Michael Grimm (politician) was just reverted by this edit [6] As a result, the BLP once again says the incumbent Congressperson was "succeeded by Charles Rangel" using a belief on Wikipedia that Congressional district numbers are what counts, even where redistricting makes such connections ludicrous and risible. I would note that zero reliable sources make such a ludicrous claim - and the NYT is clear as to "who succeeds who"in their usage ([7]} What is interesting is that my motive in making a BLP represent actual fact as claearly stated in reliable sources is under attack. [8] shows me under attack by a multi-sanctioned editor as "duplicitous", "edit waring", " he'll just yell "SOURCES SOURCES BLP BLP" more, which seems pretty much 100% irrelevant to how we deal with redistricting in infoboxes. ", "Either there's an odd ulterior motive or he's being monumentally sloppy. You pickem" and so on. I find such personal attacks on a person ho actually thinks claims must be factual and that using district numbers where there is absolutely no connectionbetween the two people is silly and inane, to be quite contrary to Wikipedia principles entirely. How say you? Collect (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) All of our congressional articles state the line of succession of a district - the representative from the 14th district of NY, for instance, was person A, then person B. Even if said district was redistricted, and person A won election somewhere else. Because Collect, a conservative political activist, doesn't like an article saying Charles Rangel succeeded someone based on redistricting in NY, he reverted an infobox in an article to be different in format than the infoboxes of every other congressperson, and then started yelling and screaming. This kind of behavior was unhelpful. If he wanted to change our infobox model to something else, there are many locations for that kind of discussion - locations he was pointed to, but still has not said a word at. Instead, he's gone complaining to the powers that be. Is that the kind of behavior we want from our conservative activists? Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) If a "status quo" is your best argument for a "status quo" where the result is risible, then the "status quo" ("We have always done it this way, even if it is risible") is insufficient. And I would note that my position has been properly set forth on the article talk pages and the proper noticeboards, so I find your he's gone complaining to the powers that be. Is that the kind of behavior we want from our conservative activists? to be a reprehensible and personal attack here, and anywhere you make such attacks. The policy of WP:V clearly outweighs that poor argument. And I note that I am not and never have been a "conservative political activist" and the Hipocrite seems hell-bent on defaming me as often as possible, including claims that I am a liar and cheat, that I have "ulterior motives" and possibly worse. And I submit his behaviour is seriously deficient in what is supposed to be a collegial project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) "Conservative activist," is a personal attack? You need to grow a thicker skin. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) It is if you are not one. Regardless, an attack is still an attack even if done with a pin prick. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This was raised on my talkpage and I am going to read the material and respond to it. For the two of you to have basically the same conversation on multiple pages strikes me as not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration and COI editing

Jimbo, I was delighted to read a Wikimedia blog post by my personal acquaintance, Jake Orlowitz. The blog emphasizes a joint effort between Cochrane Collaboration and Wiki Project Med Foundation, to hire(?) Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) as a Wikipedian-in-Residence. To learn more about the Cochrane Collaboration, which I'd never heard of, I went to the linked Wikipedia article to educate myself. As I looked at the list of the most frequent contributors to the article, I saw that the top two editors are User:Drsoumyadeepb and User:Manum56. Is it a problem with possible conflict of interest that Soumyadeep Bhaumik's travel and accommodation during research on snake bites was "funded by the South Asian Cochrane Network & Centre"? Is it a problem with possible COI that Manu Mathew is employed as a Research Scientist with Cochrane? Additionally, User:Taelor98 and User:Joshver are the fourth- and fifth-most active editors on the Cochrane Collaboration article, and both are single-purpose accounts, editing solely about Cochrane Collaboration. Does your Bright Line Rule apply to organizations that are in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation projects, or are they exempted, especially if they are doing good deeds like the Cochrane Collaboration. Personally, I am of the opinion that the people most familiar with an organization (who are often paid by that organization) should absolutely be front-and-center in directly editing Wikipedia about the organization. But your Bright Line Rule says that they should only engage on the Talk pages, correct? - 2001:558:1400:10:7CE0:75EB:D589:DADE (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bright Line Rule specifies a best practice which applies to everyone, and I would say applies most strongly and most particularly to Wikipedians-in-Residence and any organizations which may be in some kind of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would have advised both Dr. Bhaumik and Dr. Mathew to avoid such edits as they easily give rise to an appearance of impropriety. One of the great benefits that should come e from organizations like this bringing in a qualified Wikipedian-in-Residence (and surely no one would dispute that Sydney Poore is qualified) is that they will receive very solid advice on how to appropriately and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

So, to answer your question concisely: yes, it seems that there was inadvisable editing in the past, and no the hiring of a Wikipedian-in-Residence does not exempt them going forward, but rather, is probably a very good step towards avoiding such issues in the future. It is worth noting that I'm 100% certain that you already knew my answers to these questions, and so I wonder if you have any questions to ask me which are genuine questions, i.e. questions for which you don't already know the answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that you can see below the net positive benefit of these matters being brought to your attention, whereby regardless of "already knowing the answer", it's important to keep dogged watch on these situations, so that improvements can be made to Wikipedia's policies and practices. Your Talk page is a useful place to keep attention, because it gets far more visibility than other pages. This is one of the burdens that the sole founder of the project should be willing to bear. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D4F:DD4B:A6F3:7A90 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, it is not having things brought to my attention that I am objecting to. It's the snide tone and the trolling. When you asked me "Does your Bright Line Rule apply to organizations that are in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation projects, or are they exempted" you knew the answer. There was absolutely no reason to be sarcastic. And "one of the burdens that the sole founder" is clearly a provocation, referring to a fake controversy that you've been instrumental in keeping alive for years. If you really sincerely are simply trying to help, then stop being a jerk, and sincerely try to help. Don't ask silly rhetorical questions that exhaust people. State your own views clearly and with logic and reason. Bring information to me that is worth me knowing about, without snarky tone. Basically, try to be a decent human being with less threatening behavior and more honesty. You'll be happier for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(To the 2001 IP) I think the best proof that both Jimbo Wales and others are taking these issues, and your input on them, seriously is that your threads on this page have been entertained and addressed on their merits by Jimmy and others, rather than simply deleted as posts by a banned user, as they could have been by Jimmy or anyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(To the Newyorkbrad) I think it's also proof that a relatively small clique of Wikipedia insiders too frequently ban productive users when the insiders would have been better off engaging them more thoughtfully from the start, since these "bans" don't really work in this prolific age of readily-available IP addresses, anyway. That you would even feel the need to bring up such an obvious observation suggests that you're perhaps stuck in the old "battleground" mindset, where you must rattle your sabre to assert your strength. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:2D99:B37E:9910:919C (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Soumyadeep B replies : Thank you for bringing into notice this issue and I will refrain from further editing the cochrane page. I did want to bring into focus on two larger issues

1. I did wonder since the WIR is also being paid by the Cochrane Collaboration how that is exempted from Wiki edit rules to incorporate Cochrane evidence into Wikipedia. Is not the whole scheme of WIR (nothing to do with qualifications of Sydney Poore)then against the grail of COI policies of Wiki - since it aims to cite a particular publishers evidence . It is to be noted that though Cochrane is a not-for-profit the cochrane library which will be cited in the wiki articles and the cochrane database of systematic reviews are both commercial entities being run by "for profit" private publisher Wiley which sells its subscription. Kindly clarify. About engaging in talk pages see end of point 2.

2. One cannot avoid conflict of interest altogether . The only people who have zero conflict of interest are people who have zero knowledge about it. The issue is transparency and that I have maintained that by mentioning COI in all pages and all articles where I have written(and that is how people have come to know about it). Maybe Wiki should also allow a section below each article , just like medical journals do to state competing interest. Otherwise in the name of COI all wiki will be doing is discourage people with high-end knowledge to edit and improve the quality of articles or make them do edits from anonymous accounts. Punishing people for transparency is not the right way of dealing with COI. Another way to go about it is that one might engage in talk page to avoid editing directly but i would still see it as per bioethical principles to be an "undue enticement" or "influence".

These broader issues on ethics and competing interests need to be discussed in details especially with regards to healthcare information and medical knowledge .

This is a very troubling statement. First, there is absolutely no exemption for Wikipedians-in-Residence. And second, it would be deeply inappropriate for someone to favor "Cochrane evidence" because they are being paid to do so. That's just deeply horribly unethical and I will speak very strongly against the practice in all cases. It matters very little whether we are talking about a "for-profit" or "non-profit" entity, although in this case it seems that for-profit publisher Wiley would be the primary beneficiary of this unethical practice.

Second, this idea that "The only people who have zero conflict of interest are people who have zero knowledge about it" is a juvenile argument and a complete and total red herring. Someone being paid to promote Wiley publications over other publications is not someone who is merely struggling with the natural human bias towards what we know. They are a paid shill undermining the integrity of the public dialogue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for raising this issue. I have already stopped working on the Cochrane Collboration's page, I think the last edit was almost 2 years back. But I hope this does not mean that I should not contribute to Wikipedia by adding evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews to other articles. Manu Mathew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but you should by no means favor Cochrane Systematic Reviews over other sources, and if you are being paid to promote Cochrane's work, then you are doing something unethical.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo! Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think I had raised more or less the same issue here on our project page and James Heilman had clarified what is to be done. I do sincerely believe in the idea of being neutral in our edits. If you are interested please, do have a look at the project page too. Thanks again, and thanks for Wikipedia! :) Manu Mathew (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Jimbo and everyone :-) Yes, I'm thrilled to say that I recently took a position with Cochrane Collaboration as a part time Wikipedian-in-Residence. My primary work will be to act as a liaison between Cochrane folks and Wikipedia(s). We want to find the best way for Cochrane and Wikimedia to work together since the missions of the organization are similar--to disseminate high quality health information. One aspect of my work will be training sessions for people who are interested in editing. We are still working out the details, but our plans will be public as they become known. As Jake mentions in the blog, Cochrane is a network of some 28,00 people from over 100 countries so it is likely that we will still occasionally see newbie mistakes from some of these folks when they began editing. In addition to following the usual processes for raising concerns about edits, please feel free to leave me a note on my user page or send me an email and I'll follow up. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I will be glad to see you there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not want people from the Cochrane collaboration writing about the collaboration itself (agree that is a COI). However if people from the Cochrane collaboration write about disease-related articles and use Cochrane reviews there is not a significant problem. These are often the foremost experts in their field. We at WP:MED and much of the global medical community consider Cochrane reviews to be among the best available evidence. They produce nearly always high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses which WP:MEDRS views as ideal sources.

So well FloNight should not edit article about the organizations, her adding Cochrane reviews giving them similar weight to other high quality systematic reviews would not be a problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales per this statement "by no means favor Cochrane Systematic Reviews over other sources, and if you are being paid to promote Cochrane's work, then you are doing something unethical"

1. We at WP:MED prefer systematic reviews over other sources so yes there are others that produce high quality systematic reviews like the United States Preventative Services Task Force and AHRQ and these should not be excluded.
2. Stating this; however, could be interpreted that those at the NIH (who run pubmed) should not use pubmed indexed journals over non pubmed indexed journals. However pubmed indexing is one of the markers of quality and we often purposely exclude non-pubmed indexed articles as sources as they are generally low quality. Common sense must be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As I always say we can make a distinction between paid advocacy editing (which is always inappropriate) and paid editing (which can be perfectly fine, as in the case of an expert who is paid to write about the topics that they know). Real mature editorial judgment must be used whenever there is a potential appearance of impropriety. To shift to a hypothetical context to provide a hypothetical example of common sense judgment, compare these two:

1. A Harvard theology professor who is an expert on Islamic Philosophy works to improve articles about various fairly obscure figures in that field. In doing so, she references a wide range of sources including the Journal of Islamic Philosophy which is printed by Harvard University Publication Services. In such a case there is no paid advocacy editing, and while disclosure of the affiliation is best practice, there is no need to avoid editing in article space. (Remember the "bright line rule" is for Paid Advocacy Editing.)
2. A publicist for Harvard University Publication Services goes around inserting links, some valid, some not particularly relevant, with a view towards making Harvard-published journals more popular to increase sales. In this case, not only is disclosure the best practice, refraining from direct article space editing is the best practice - bright line rule.

Common sense allows us to easily distinguish between these cases and to recognize that whenever there is a "borderline case" of some kind, defaulting to transparency and disclosure is always going to be the more ethical choice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes so our two research scientists who were previously associated with the Cochrane collaboration are content experts rather than "publicists" Thus they would be the first rather than second example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales I’m a new editor to Wikiproject Medicine (and a clinician with no association to the Cochrane groups) and I’ve already found the ability to access users who have specialty knowledge of Cochrane investigations invaluable. In one case, User:Hildabast was able to provide context about the study, its strengths and weaknesses, that we would have otherwise not known. I believe there is a difference in the ethical intent between someone who is trying to shoe-horn in references from a particular organization and one of the experts from Cochrane who happens to be a specialist with their methodology and investigations. The Cochrane reviews are relatively unique and it’s not inconceivable that someone will only be an expert the groups investigations. The studies are universally important to medical topics and I think it would be a loss if those experts stopped adding evidence from Cochrane studies for fear of being publically labelled unethical.Ian Furst (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hildabast is no longer with Cochrane in an official manner either by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that Cochrane has been receiving undue support as an official Wikipedia POV. For example, WP:MEDRS specifically exempts that source and that source alone from its preference for sources written after an arbitrary date, one which is often unreasonably used to limit coverage of medical topics. Searching [9] turns up a torrent of adulation for this source and its use in preference to the exclusion of all others. Now to be sure, I don't mean to suggest that they are not professionals writing high quality reviews, but, that is generally true of most well known medical and biological research journals. And there are a range of POVs on important issues of the day, even in science, even in medicine, which I feel we need to cover more broadly than what you can purchase from Wiley and Sons. I am tired of seeing them promoted as an Emperor over all the others. I should cite [10] which makes it clear that the most important distinction is the source of funding - reviews with industry or undeclared support, unsurprisingly enough, tend to be biased. But other reviews are generally comparable. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant, but interesting to note that former Wikimedia Foundation employee Sarah Stierch (employment terminated for paid editing) had included in a list of her clientele, "Wiley Publishing". (link) Wnt may be correct to say that we need greater scrutiny of Cochrane and its Wiley parent. - 2001:558:1400:10:8076:5512:D294:B14 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find something I'm all ears, but so far I don't have evidence to go there. The MEDRS edit that listed Cochrane was made back in July 2008 by User:Eubulides. He enthusiastically supported use of these reviews on many talk pages but I've seen no evidence that he was anything but a well-regarded and highly productive editor of medical articles. When it was added, it was still contentious whether MEDRS was even a guideline, and people believed that it would be used with common sense, as a recommendation, rather than as the bludgeon we're more familiar with. I myself wouldn't hesitate to suggest that editors looking up sources to improve an article check this source. However, what makes a good search strategy simply makes very bad overall policy. It is far too easy for any open source/free culture project like Wikipedia to become too beholden to a corporation, and it takes an active effort to stay free of that. Wnt (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, we miss Eubulides' reliable voice of reason, not to mention that having an epidemiologist helped in interpreting some of the more densely worded sources.

The scale, nature, and quality of the Cochrane collaboration are such that a large proportion of leading experts on each topic addressed are engaged in writing their systematic reviews. To bluntly exclude all these experts from contributing to WP articles on the precise topics where their expertise is most valuable would be folly of the highest order. Of course such reviewers should be transparent about self-citation here, just like any other contributor should: that is in no was specific to the one publisher. What Cochrane reviewers do is summarize human knowledge for one narrow field of medicine at a time and make it broadly available for free. Sound familiar? The important part is ensuring they understand that WP needs to avoid original SYN, which they can do better elsewhere, in those systematic reviews.

Wnt's concern over being too beholden to a corporation is valid, but cuts both ways. If the quality, relevance, or availability of those reviews should drop relative to their compeditors, so would our usage shift. The emphasis of wp:MEDDATE on recent publications would over time squeeze out the old reviews. Hence WP's citations to some extent serve to incent them (and their competitors) to "do the right thing". I don't see that we have a problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane is pretty much universally held in high regard by (I suspect) the bulk of the medical community worldwide - the sourcing policy of only using Reviews for medical articles narrows down the sources we use considerably, so if cochrane has material pertinent to an article, it is highly likely to be used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Cochrane summaries are readily available (e.g. [11]) and good Wikipedia editing usually focuses on the sort of broad statement they would contain. Nonetheless, the underlying Cochrane Review remains proprietary. (e.g. [12]) I recognize that according to their site, this is no impediment to readers in the UK, and the rest of us really have no good excuse for not setting up a proxy or VPN on some site in the UK and elsewhere if we haven't already. However, I think we should give outright preference, or at least equality, to the more strident PLOS (e.g. PLOS Medicine) model of CC-BY-2.5 licensed content. While Cochrane reviewers are often at the forefront of their field, so are people who write PLOS reviews. Also, the way that WP:MEDRS is written gives the impression that Cochrane goes back and changes reviews without changing the publication date so that somehow it doesn't count - I doubt that. Bottom line: I see no reason to write special privileges for a specific company into policy. If I were to differentiate it would be based on financial support (as cited above) and in favor of open access sources. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should use open reviews if they are of equal quality. Usually though we are using both open and closed reviews as we cannot be that picky. Anyway you can always look at the abstract.

The much much bigger issue we have is the use of primary sources to promote fringe opinions or the use of poor quality reviews to do the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get these complaints about being "beholden to a corporation" for "proprietary" sources. As far as I can make out, "corporation" appears to be a strange slur for "non-profit organization", and "proprietary" appears mean "you have to pay to read it", perhaps with a side order of "you can't just swipe material out of it".

I don't get why a non-profit organization is a scary thing. The recommended alternative, PLOS, is also "a corporation"[13].

I understand why having them WP:PAYWALLed is inconvenient, but we have a policy that says this is okay. Furthermore, we already suffer from FUTON bias in our articles, so I'm not sure that we would improve matters by encouraging that even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, put it this way: JSTOR is a non-profit organization also. Remember Aaron Swartz? We can make nice with publishers, but we shouldn't forget that in a world of copyright we're never more than a few minutes away from a shooting war. With their high executive salaries, lack of requirements of a charitable purpose, and frequent affiliations with for-profits (in this case Wiley), I don't feel automatic trust for non-profits in general. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this sentence may be garbled. What makes you believe that the Cochrane Collaboration, which is a non-profit organization whose charitable purpose is described here, along with certain other facts, like the fact that they are so highly regarded that the WHO gave them a seat in the World Health Assembly, has no charitable purpose? Do you think the UK just hands out non-profit status to anyone, no matter what they're doing? Or is your real complaint that they, like nearly all other scholarly societies, have not created their very own in-house publishing business when they could hire an experienced contractor to do the boring parts for them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hope all this is true but when looking for NPOV we can't count on it. We know too well that what we had hoped was an impartial mechanism of peer review in scientific journals has given way to profit seeking with industry supported biased articles a commonplace, and that in general physicians' recommendations are shaped by what is profitable. Whenever physicians or a certain group of physicians are granted power, they hold that power permanently and tenaciously and doggedly pursue a medical ethics that is synonymous with profit. That is true of anything from prescribed homeopathic "medicines" to ethical requirements that anyone seeking genetic testing for any reason pay the patent royalties on a company's ownership of their BRCA1 gene. So no matter how good the reputation of the Cochrane organization may be, I am confident that no sooner will they be given power than they will start abusing it. There's just too much money at stake. So if we want to keep them honest and reputable, we shouldn't do that. Anyway, I don't believe that reviews are written by organizations, for-profit or non-profit; they are written by people. Cochrane has many collaborators, who therefore widely overlap the people who work on other professional level reviews. Therefore, let's not give them special power or privileges, but welcome a broader range of viewpoints without any particular organization serving as gatekeeper. Wnt (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that this will be unwelcome news, but:

When looking for NPOV, your job is to look at all of the reliable sources, with "reliable" defined by things like whether there is a professional editorial structure in place and not by things like whether the source agrees with your beliefs or meets your ethical standards. To put it another way, an editor's job is not to look only for those sources that would have been published if only holy angels were allowed to publish sources, and to discard all the ones written by flawed human beings. NPOV is defined as representing, in due proportion, the views of all of the high-quality reliable sources, which is a materially larger set than all of the high-quality reliable sources that some Wikipedia editor has decided are untainted by considerations of filthy lucre, fame, self-delusion, or any other biasing or base considerations.

Having said that, Cochrane is currently the best at what they do (which is systematic reviews, a type of review that is freer of bias than many others). If they stop being the best at some point in the future, we could always change the guideline then. It's not set in stone for eternity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The wonderful news is that Cochrane Collaboration is moving to open access upon publication in the near future. The Cochrane Strategy to 2020, Goal 2, Make our evidence accessible, includes an open access component of We will achieve universal open access to Cochrane Systematic Reviews immediately upon publication for both new and updated reviews, and the archive of existing published reviews. [Cochrane Collaboration to 2020, 2014 Targets.] Cochrane Collaboration's decision to have a closer working relationship with Wikipeda/Wikimedia reflects the organization's desire to make Cochrane evidence accessible and useful to everybody, everywhere in the world.
• Of course Wikipedia contributors' decisions about the inclusion of content will be based on what is the most appropriate for each article. I've had specific conversations with my contact at Cochrane about the way that Wikipedia editors make decisions about the inclusion of medical content, and why that sometimes Cochrane content would be a preferred choice and why sometimes other references would be more appropriate. We plan to develop training material for the Cochrane folks to help them understand how to integrate Cochrane content into Wikipedia. Luckily, WikiProject Medicine and Wiki Project Med Foundation have a great group of active and engaged editors who have created many useful guidelines and tools. I have spoken directly already with a few people who work on medical articles, and plan to attend Wikimedia Conference USA at the end of May where we can continue the discussion. I'll be reaching out to engage more editors on site, too. Of course, on site we will work together to make decisions about specific articles that same way we always do. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed wonderful news, and should benefit both organizations. That said, most "open access" (e.g. in PMC articles) is of the "r+w-" variety; journals like PLOS where we can freely take figures and use them to illustrate Wikipedia articles are not common. In cases where Cochrane and a different independently-funded review reach different conclusions (like the three examples given in [14]) I think it would be irresponsible not to cite both. In the more common case that they agree, there is also surely no reason not to cite both for the reader's pleasure. So even with open access I wouldn't favor specifically singling out Cochrane as an exception in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, are you referring to the exception to MEDDATE? It explains its basis is that those systematic reviews are regularly updated after publication. Other such sources might deserve the same exception on the same grounds. Did you have some specific ones in mind? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

On further examination I see there used to be a practice of reusing citations for some updates before April 2012 though that isn't done now [15] (though updating the review may not mean adding any actual studies, which means the updated review may still be exactly comparable to another source with an earlier publication date that came out whenever the last burst of research really was). My feeling is that five years is not really that far to go back - for many conditions treatment hasn't changed much - and it would be a far better practice simply to specify the review date in the article text, whether it is new or old. Where we should consider more discrimination has more to do with the industry funding issue - currently the policy says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." But as explained above, pharmaceutical company funded studies are less reliable. Though I think I'd prefer a recommendation to specify the source of funding when citing a study rather than completely excluding it. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wnt, The decisions about whether an old systematic review is still relevant is going to need to be made on an individual basis for each medical article. Some of the reviews are never going to be updated any further because the topic has broad agreement and no further research is being done. Other times, not enough significant new research is being done despite continuing gaps in knowledge so an old review that acknowledges this gap may still be timely and relevant. Having knowledgeable topic experts involved should help sort this out on individual article. As to your point about research funded by pharmaceutical (or medical device companies), the issue is that not all published research significantly advances medical research as much as the PR department releases indicate and is picked up in the popular media. So in some instances rewriting a Wikipedia article to include newly published research in a peer reviewed medical journal is not a priority, and in some instances would be mostly promotional and probably should be avoided. When in doubt, posting a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine usually gets a helpful reply. This is an interesting discussion but somewhat off topic so maybe we should take the discussion to a different page. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Purrr, purrr, for you !

Thanks Jimbo for creating Wikipedia. I use it almost every day :). Now where the fur ball of mine is...

Dedantemon (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because you made this Amazing Website!

Theawesome67 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI with an upcoming edit-a-thon

Greetings, Jimbo! I hope you are having a good day. Mine is snark-free from here on out, so thank you very much for that excellent advice above! If you have a moment, please take a look at this upcoming edit-a-thon being hosted by DNA Digest. The invitation says the event is made possible with "the huge support of our partners". The partners (judging by the logos) apparently are: Wikipedia, Addgene, Wayra, and UnLtd. Did DNA Digest get permission to use the Wikipedia logo, and is "Wikipedia" truly a partner of this event? Let's take a look at the Wikipedia articles about the other partners:

• Over 90% of the Addgene article's content was created by a single-purpose account, User:STEMGeek. The second-most frequent editor of Addgene is IP User:38.111.37.170, which geo-locates to Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is where Addgene is headquartered.

• Wayra is a startup accelerator owned by Telefónica. Their Wikipedia article was launched and mostly written by an IP User:46.233.70.205, which is a Telefónica IP address in London, where Wayra's UK office is located.

• UnLtd's Wikipedia article was created and most-heavily contributed to by User:Nicolajones83, in 2008. That's a single-purpose account, and there's a Nicola Jones who appears now or at one time to be "the Communications Assistant at UnLtd, working to spread the UnLtd word". The second-most frequent contributor is IP User:195.137.176.7, which geo-locates to Cardiff, where UnLtd has an office. Also IP User:85.133.63.66 has edited about UnLtd from UnLtd headquarters in London.

I already know your answer that you would prefer that the potentially conflicted editors of these articles should disclose themselves and engage only on the Talk pages of the articles where a COI arises. However, I am genuinely curious to know if you (or others) understand that this particular edit-a-thon has "partnership" approval from Wikipedia (the WMF? the WMUK?), and whether you think that given the edit histories of these partners, will the edit-a-thon be carried out with the appropriate level of counsel against COI editing? - 2001:558:1400:10:89C3:7ED2:539F:1B5B (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This edit-a-thon smells strongly of rotten fish. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking into. Who is DNADigest? Did you ask Wikimedia UK if they are involved? Did you check with the Wikimedia Foundation to see if they are aware of it (unlikely as the WMF doesn't usually get directly involved in small local events)? Obviously I do not approve of the kind of COI editing that you reference, but we all know that it happens in no small part because until now we have not been clear enough in our overall messaging and terms of service to forbid it. (That's changing per the resolution at the last board meeting after the community consultation carried forward by the legal team.) Having said all that, as far as I can tell, the event itself seems unobjectionable in terms of being an event to educate people about how to edit Wikipedia and the resources available to them. It would be best if the event included a session on avoiding COI editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, hello everyone. I note the concerns here so let me try and clarify a few things. The organisers of this event applied for a microgrant from Wikimedia UK for £300 to support it in terms of catering and materials. The application outlined the aims of the event and what benefits it would bring to Wikipedia. You can see the application and discussion here on the Wikimedia UK wiki.

The event itself will be focusing on improving articles on genomics, open science and related topics, rather than about any person or organisation. The attendees at the event will be people with an interest in genetics and DNA-related topics with no particular organisations targeted. Anyone with an interest is welcome to attend.

In terms of conflict of interest I appreciate that some people have concerns so I'm happy to report that User:HJ Mitchell, a Wikimedia UK accredited trainer will be attending the event to give an overview of how Wikipedia works in general terms. This includes a session on conflict of interest.

On the organisations noted as “partners”, Addgene is a non-profit organisation which supported DNAdigest in their recent fundraising campaign. Wayra and UnLtd provide the space where DNAdigest and the event are based. None of the three organisations are supporting the event with a view to a more “promotional” article on Wikipedia.

The use of the Wikipedia logo as a “partner” is a result of the confusion between Wikimedia and Wikipedia. They have updated the event page to clarify this and the remaining use of the Wikipedia logo is in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's trademark policy. Sorry for any confusion caused as a result.

I hope that all of this goes some way to addressing any concerns people may have over the event. Of course, I'm happy to answer any further questions people may have. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I applaud Stevie Benton for answering the questions carefully, with detail. This is how potential criticism of Wikimedia Foundation activities should be handled. Just answer the questions with truthful, detailed answers, and the sense of "scandal" disappears. Keep doing it over and over, and the WMF (and affiliated orgs) establish a reputation of being thoughtful, engaging, and far more unassailable than if they deflect and hide from critics' questions as they've done in the past. As an example of past behavior, back in October 2010, the WMF was asked about a research project that had been awarded to the former employer of the WMF staff member who was in charge of the award. We eventually learned, after weeks of asking, that no competitive bidding had taken place. That would have been a simple question just to answer straight off. The WMF refused, and still refuses, to state publicly the dollar value of the contract. The fact that the WMF leadership deflected, ignored, and blocked questions from being asked about that contract only made them look "guilty", and it's clear that the same sort of disregard for properly-framed contracts carried over years later, with the Belfer Center contract that the WMF eventually ended up having to apologize for. Here, above, we see the right way to handle outside questions about WMF-related programs. Kudos to Stevie Benton for that. - 2001:558:1400:10:647B:C762:EC49:56AC (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1400:10:8076:5512:D294:B14 (talk)

Take some of the credit yourself for not asking a question with lots of assumptions and snideness and side insults about unrelated matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN needs help!

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard needs move volunteers to help resolve content disputes. You don't need to have any special qualifications, and there is no election; just sign up and start helping!. You can learn more at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its best

Hi Jimbo. I would just like to comment onBrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs). Her response to my awarding her the admin barnstar blew my mind. She completly (and gracefully) :) disparaged my calling her "brave", and her response is almost the model mission statement of what it takes to be a bloody ideal admin here. See BHG's talk page for what I mean. Agree or disagree with her trajectory on myth v narrative, (and watching the arguments almost since I joined, I think in cases like this admins should have powers of moratorium. She has also advocated focus groups of opinions to be garnered for a more focused discussion at the end of a period of thought), she should be commended as a great asset to the admin corps. Her model admin demeanour, flexibilty and commonsense and consistant application of AGF shines through. Irondome (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, she's great. I still don't agree from a purely constitutional perspective with that moratorium, but that's no criticism of her.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable with some kind of limited expansion to formalise moratoria, in cases where massive energy is being spent to no purpose in frequent revivals of disputes? Some kind of mechanism where a far more definitive and authoritative discussion is commenced at the end of a period of reflection? The concept has strong potential IMO. We could work something out. Obviously this would be arrived at by community consensus. I just dont think the community is actually used to being given that option for these kinds of issues. This is retroactive, but its gathered strong consensus from a variety of viewpoints. It is a useful potential tool. I don't think its stopping free speech. Its just conserving volunteer energy. Constantly reanimating stuff like this is almost disruptive. I think thats somehow different to a hypothetical criticism of it as stopping debate. The debate of itself has become purposeless if too often revisited. Cheers for the response Jimbo! Irondome (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I think sometimes people just need a rest. Folk can get so tied up with a mission to rename this or that article, or some other thing that's been failing to gain consensus for months and half a dozen requests, it overwhelms any attempt to improve the article and frankly bores the bejasus out of most of us! Guy (Help!) 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I apologise big time for going on , and I know I framed my argument badly (TLDR) I would fully understand :). But some kind of more generalised, constituitionally and philosophically based thoughts from you would be sooo appreciated. A steer on the idea of moratoria as a last-resort on tendentious subjects which are regularly resubmitted by a hypothetical consistant group of colleagues who have developed a blind spot. I am totally assuming AGF here on their part. This would be rarely used and would be subject to explicit vote based consensus from the wider community. Uninvolved eds should be encouraged to participate. It would be a time for issues to be reargued and extensively reformatted amongst opposing groups, so new and powerful arguments can be presented. The moratorium would be a developmental time to get a killer argument out there and solve contentious issues in one hit. So much wasted energy and creative vibes get negatively used up by bloody good content creators who get drawn into these spectacles. So much new content could be created if we sorted this. I know I know TLDR :) Cheers Jimbo. Respect as always. Irondome (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Irondome, for taking the time to praise a fellow editor here at Jimbo's highly visible talk page. There is so much negativity and even trolling around here, that your words are refreshing. As for your comments, Jimbo, you consistently set a good example for all of us. Thank you, too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	:) you're contributions are worth GOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDD Tuckertwo (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you tell me...

...why you are promoting "MAURICE LACROIX" on your latest Twitter photo-taking? --37.230.3.23 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

cause, like there's about 23 dozens of companies occupying with a more valuable purpose to mankind than "MAURICE LACROIX"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.3.23 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) --37.230.3.23 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can tell you. Because a friend of mine snapped that photo in the Beijing airport. I find it incredibly amusing.

But also because I had to quickly find something to stick there when twitter upgraded me to the new profile and that photo happened to be handy. I'm sure I'll change it soon. In the meantime, please try to relax and have some fun. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it. This is a photo that I took in a winery I was visiting on my honeymoon. I used the cool 'hdr' setting on my camera. I like the photo a lot. I hope it doesn't disappoint you that it has the word "Toyota' in it. That's just a forklift that happened to be there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ZOMG! U PROMOTE TOYOTA! I will send the posse from Linde to handle you. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi League

So German Admin http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:-jkb- thinks that making other users aware of Nationalsozialismus is actually being a "vandal" http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion%3AHansbaer&diff=130231544&oldid=130231520 + next version Big up!--37.230.3.23 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

37..., thx for your "anti nazi" activities, but do not vandalize talk pages of users on dewiki, who are very good article editors. You arer welcome. -jkb- (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on the URAA

Following on from the vote over at commons to ignore the URAA and the restoration of copyright material following Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:LGA/Files restored by Ezarate and the subsequent non-action by the administrators after the notification here of the copyright status of these files. I would be interested to know your opinion, as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, as to commons hosting images whose copyright was restored by the URAA. LGA _talk^edits 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The WMF has already provided an uncharacteristically clear opinion on this matter and it was foundational to the consensus achieved. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this, however it clearly states that that the WMF "can't provide legal advice to community members", it also has a link to a statement which, among other things, says "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" the above DR was an attempt to do that, and not a single editor (either at the DR or since) has questioned the fact that these images had copyright restored by the URAA and the admin who restored them has refused point blank to comment on the copyright status. Hence why I am asking Jimbo for his opinion. LGA _talk^edits 03:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To some it would look like you are forum shopping. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at LGA's account (a fresh start), I see it's entirely devoted to tagging for deletion. Not here and really a fresh start? I mean there's an ongoing issue about URAA, we all know that, but I do look askance at this attempt to elevate the issue here. One would have hoped at the least for a more disinterested party to be raising. Forum shopping does seem a fair comment to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Forum shopping, as far as I can tell, Jimbo has never commented on this publicly, I am asking him what he thinks. LGA _talk^edits 23:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I should think like everyone else else he thinks URAA is a pain in our evolutionary process apparatus for eliminating waste. But you're wanting to put him on the spot aren't you? I'm not sure he needs to respond. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree that it is a pain, but I still think Jimbo should let us know his opinion on how we deal with it. LGA _talk^edits 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking me in my capacity as a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, I can only answer on behalf of the foundation by pointing to the statements linked above. If you are asking for my personal opinion, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient information to properly form a full opinion about these specific images and this specific case. I can say a few words about the general principles that I think we in the community should follow in making borderline decisions. First, everyone should be careful to follow the law in their own country. It is unwise to bring legal risk upon yourself. Second, we should recognize that differences in jurisdiction will make for many complex and overlapping decisions about copyright and other legal matters. There is no perfect answer. Third, when the Foundation (being based in the US) sees a need to take action based on real legal reasoning about potential risks to the project as a whole, we in the community should kindly and thoughtfully defer to that judgment. Fourth, we should not position ourselves as "copyright maximalists" but should recognize that there are valuable limits to copyright that are important for free culture. Among these limits is the expiration of copyright and the public domain. A principled stance in favor of protecting the public domain is something I personally think valuable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement "A principled stance in favor of protecting the public domain is something I personally think valuable" however would not a more reasoned approach, rather than saying we are going to ignore the URAA (as commons have appeared to say here), be to devote effort into lobbying the US Congress to adopt the Rule of the shorter term into US copyright law which would have a far bigger contribution to the store of public domain information than the URAA took away ? LGA _talk^edits 06:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize winner in 1972) plans to contact the media about his block

See User talk:Brian Josephson#May 2014. The discussion that led to his block for legal threats is at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat at WP:BLPN. As he is Nobel Prize winner, albeit a long time ago and he has been widely criticized for unorthodox statements since then, it seems pretty likely that this will be reported in the media today. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

He has every right to do so, and he has my full support as a fellow Wikipedian. -A1candidate (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

He has every right to do so, but he doesn't have my support. "I'm not threatening legal action, just warning the person concerned that he is putting himself at [legal] risk" is borderline though. That could be seen as a straightforward statement of concern, or it could be seen as unwarranted introduction of legal stuff into the conversation. He can appeal his block and might win through. Going to the press this early is not the Wikipedia way, and I hope that A1candidate is not advocating a dispute resolution paradigm of "Have a short discussion, call the Times if you lose" as a general thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I should have added a link to WP:BLPN#Russell Targ. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh. It's a silly block. Josephson does advocate for the kind of pseudoscience and other nonsense that have, sadly, undermined his reputation of late, but he does so in a civil way and does not overwhelm discussion like some pseudoscience advocates do. I tend to think he keeps us honest, though I often find his input tiresome. This is not legal threats, it's mere rhetorical exuberance.

Targ, on the other hand, is a bit of a problem. There is no way we can give him an article he'd like without completely abandoning WP:NPOV. The consensus on his body of work is... unflattering. Men who stare at goats was not a documentary, it was a not always subtle piss-take. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed related issues recently here and at ArbCom. I think we have a continuing problem where people push rationality too hard, because no matter what they may think, a rationalist point of view isn't a neutral point of view. They know enough not to try to go into an article about religion and take out all the "woo" (as they put it), but when it comes to a biography like Rupert Sheldrake the emphasis seems to be more to condemn the person than to explain his beliefs in a detailed and sympathetic way. I'm not saying we shouldn't say something is pseudoscience when the sources say it is, but it too readily gets pushed toward removing information and references because you think it's wrong, or denigrating someone in a special section of his BLP or creating a special category of pseudoscientists. That's not to say that claims of defamation shouldn't be clarified away from legal notification, but it'd be better to be more confident in our NPOV to start with. Wnt (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a good definition of what constitutes pseudoscience in this Forbes article:

• The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner.
• A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence.
• Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence.
• Claims which cannot be proven false.
• Claims that counter established scientific fact.
• Absence of adequate peer review.
• Claims that are repeated despite being refuted.

Remote viewing undoubtedly meets some of these criteria at the current time. That said, I don't think that Brian Josephson's comments constituted a direct legal threat. They should have been worded better and withdrawn when asked to do so. There is considerable worry in the UK that legal action may result from describing certain areas as pseudoscience, as happened with BCA v. Singh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The good news is that the British enacted libel reform, in large part prodded by that case. We don't generally need to start working through criteria like those above (it'd be called 'original synthesis' here) but there are generally external sources when we say that a field of study, experiment, or invention is pseudoscience. That said, Wikipedia's typical sensibilities on BLPs and a sense of neutral point of view should make us wary of calling people "pseudoscientist" without good, direct sourcing of the term. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

no matter what they may think, a rationalist point of view isn't a neutral point of view. - That's BS. There is nothing more neutral, by definition, than logic and facts. Logic and facts are the definition of unbiased. Bias is what skews logic and facts. --cyclopia^speak! 14:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing something like "Scientist A is a lying cheating sonofagun" is undoubtedly potential libel. Routine scientific debates should never end up in the courts simply because one of the parties has the time, money and inclination to do so. This was the big lesson of BCA v. Singh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The semantics is difficult here. My point is, facts may not have a rational explanation that you or I know of. Wikipedia should show neutrality toward the facts by including a wide range of sources and opinions, even when those opinions support irrational ideas.

P.S. That Forbes article provides a beautiful (and ugly) case of what I would call history repeating itself. My intent here is not to give this sort of worker room to hawk without naysaying; only to ensure that people feel free to explore the details of any idea. You can't refute something until you understand it. Wnt (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not about facts that may nor may not have an explanation. Remote viewing is completely explicable, assessment of the evidence shows that any improvement over chance was down to cues given by the investigators. As far as I am aware, every single rigorous investigation of claims by paranormalists, be they psychics or spoon benders, has resulted in a resoundingly negative result. As soon as you make it impossible for a chance result to be accepted as confirmation, the effect vanishes. And if it doesn't, well, congratulations: you're a millionaire.

This discussion has been round many times. In general, unless there is a really strong reason to conclude otherwise, in any matter that is properly in the realm of scientific investigation, the scientific consensus counts as the neutral point of view as far as our policies are concerned, because by definition the scientific consensus incorporates all significant valid facts and arguments. And the scientific consensus tends to be couched in conservative terms. For example, a scientific overview of homeopathy does not say "homeopathy is bullshit", it says, in effect, that there is no reason to believe it should work, no plausible mechanism by which it can work, and no good evidence it does work (beyond nonspecific effects loosely termed placebo effects). It might also say that homeopathy is based on refuted concepts and that no experiment on homeopathy has ever convincingly refuted the null hypothesis.

A homeopathist will say "homeopathy works! look at all these studies", conveniently ignoring the contrary evidence, the refutation of core doctrines and the absence of credible mechanism. A skeptical activist will say that homeopathy is bullshit and its practitioners frauds. Neither of these is NPOV, the scientific analysis is NPOV becuase it makes clear that while there is virtually no chance that homeopathy is valid, you can't prove a negative. We can be sure enough that it's not worth further investigation, and there's no way the public purse should reimburse it, but science has no position on whether people should be allowed to buy or sell it, only on the expected effect (which is: nothing). Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the devil is always in the details -- for example, Zicam nasal spray was an example of "homeopathy" that was both effective and harmful. (I've seen a few homeopathic formulations of the low-dilution variety are out there, mostly as FDA warnings after the fact) So it wouldn't be good to have an article structured to have one scientific source after another saying that homeopathy is pseudoscience, fraud, etc., but leave out the precise theory and practice of homeopathy (including what 'inactive' ingredients are allowed). The same is even more true for the BLPs - just because Rupert Sheldrake has expressed some ill-defined and unsupported alternatives to morphogens doesn't mean that when you explore some of his essays he doesn't make some good points about the assumptions we make in science. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

True, though to be fair Zicam was only driving a truck through the truck-sized hole the homeopathy regulations left in the Federal Food and Drug Act (in the same way that OxyElite Pro did with DSHEA). As for Sheldrake, I read his book "The Science Delusion", I wish I hadn't wasted my money. If he does make valid points it's largely by accident, there are many better critiques of the process of science written by people who are not rather obviously engaged in special pleading. The problem with Sheldrake (and Josephson and Targ and Chopra and all the others that keep popping up) in recent times) is that their ideas are rejected by the scientific community for excellent reasons. A truism often attributed to Bob Park: It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

News coverage

For informational purposes only. Discussions of purported claims being made require knowledge of the actual claims.. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wired.it

Mass substitution of Dutch articles on medicine

I'm sorry, I'm usually not someone to 'come running to Jimbo'. I also admit that I'm not very familiar with all international Wikipedia/Wikimedia structures, I've just been writing articles on the Dutch Wikipedia for the last eight years. But I have the feeling that writing here can get some international attention for my question, and I believe that can be a good thing.

Recently, we've been notified about a project that aims to select Good Articles on medical subjects from the English Wikipedia, have them translated into Dutch by a group of volunteers, and then the existing articles on Dutch Wikipedia are replaced by the translated version. And I mean the word 'replaced' quite literally. The people from this project go to the existing Dutch article, click 'Edit', select everything that is there, hit 'Del' and replace everything with the translated English article. An example of this happening can be found here. I understand that there are 15 more articles being translated at the moment for this project, and who knows how many more will follow?

Some people (even one or two from the Dutch Wikipedia) defend this with 'but the English people are better'. And indeed, I'll readily admit that some of the English articles are more extensive and better sourced. I welcome efforts to improve some of the Dutch articles in this sense, but have serious doubts if simply mass replacing Dutch articles with translation of English ones is a good way to go about this.

My main concerns are this:

• Wikipedia is a collaboration project. Even if the English article is 'better' by some standard, people have put time and effort in writing and improving the Dutch articles. Their contributions should at least be considered, and an effort should be made to see if they can be integrated in newer versions of the article. Ideally, this should be discussed and a consensus should be sought. Their work should not be simply replaced by something else.
• I am especially sensitive about throwing information away. Already, some pieces of information that were present on the earlier Dutch articles are absent on the newer, translated versions. Standards from the English Wikipedia about sourcing and relevance should not be ruthlessly applied by outsiders to the Dutch Wikipedia to throw information away; it is the Dutch Wikipedia community who should discuss about that.
• Most importantly: I think there is a reason why we have Wikipedias in different languages. I mean, we could just have had one central Wikipedia, write good articles on that and then translate to all languages. But if we really want to write a compendium of the world's knowledge, people who don't speak English might have something to contribute to that. Their contributions shouldn't be simply thrown away. The way people think about medicine is highly culturally determined. For example, people in the Netherlands use much less medicine than in other countries, because we and our doctors have a different cultural model of thinking about medicine. And now this project just wants to throw the ideas of non-English speaking countries away, and put uniform articles about medicine on non-English Wikipedias? What if someone has something interesting to say about dengue on the Wikipedia in Quechua, but her contributions don't exactly meet the standards of the English Wikipedia? The way I see it, this has a substantial risk of imposing a western/North American view upon the rest of the world, even more than is already happening now.

Once again, I recognize that not all Dutch articles about medicinal subjects are on the same standard as some on the English Wikipedia, and I welcome efforts from English contributors to help to improve that. But I don't think that simply mass replacing Dutch articles by translations from the English Wikipedia is the way to go about that. Thank you for your attention. LeRoc (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRoc (talk • contribs)

Please link to one or more discussions (in English or Dutch or both) on the Dutch Wikipedia, in which editors reached a decision to undertake this project, and please translate the most important parts of Dutch text into English and post them here.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The way I understand it, the place where editors reached a decision to undertake this project was not on the Dutch, but on the English Wikipedia. The project page seems to be here. The idea seems to be to mass replace articles on medical subjects on a large number of Wikipedias with translations of English articles. I don't think there has been a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia where we agreed to participate in this (but I may be wrong). The current discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia about this is taking place here. Most of it is in English, you should be able to follow it. LeRoc (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeRoc, it looks like from the post that you linked to that the editors involved are in fact looking for people to assist in integrating the newly translated article into the Dutch language. Isn't that in fact what you are saying that you want to happen, too. So maybe there is an approach that can be found to satisfy your concerns? Getting the well referenced content from the translated article blended with the material that is relevant specifically to the most common readers of the Dutch language Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems very rude. Why can they not put them int he Draft space and invite consensus of editors of the existing article to make the edit? If the translated text is genuinely better then it will be done rapidly, otherwise there might be a merger resulting in an article that is better still (and maybe then the translation team will port it back). Guy (Help!) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It depends on what you mean by 'integrating'. I have much doubts if asking someone to become an 'integrator' will resolve this. Integrating a translation of an English article with a Dutch article can't be done in a couple of hours. For every article a discussion needs to be held, and that can easily take weeks. I agree with JzG's suggestion to put the translated article in draft space and then discuss about it. But not how it is done now. I also think that before undertaking such a broad project on a wide range of Wikipedias, there should be a wider discussion and consensus about it first. I'm not sure if this has happened here. LeRoc (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeRoc, I appreciate your perspective about wanting to respect the contributions of the previous editors to the article, and taking the necessary time to blend the material. Right now, the process is not ideal. But, I hope we can work together to figure out a way to do this well instead of not doing it at all. I know that User:CFCF is trying to get an IEG in order to allocate more time to recruiting people to the Medical translation project. See meta:Grants:IEG/Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing. I sincerely think that the intention is not to be over bearing (but can understand if it comes across that way to you), but to be collaborative. But right now we don't have good prior practices for doing this type of activity. Let's try to figure this out instead of just halting it. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

First I want to make clear that I'm not a spokesperson for the Dutch Wikipedia, I'm just a simple contributor on that Wikipedia without any medical knowledge. I also think that Jimbo's talk page wouldn't be the right place to decide about such a thing. But my suggestion would be to check first on all Wikipedias for which this project is considered if the project was introduced there in a proper way. To check if there has been a discussion about the project on that Wikipedia, if a consensus was reached on that Wikipedia to participate in it, and about how to go about 'integration' on that Wikipedia. If this discussion hasn't been held on all Wikipedias that are considered in this project, I would urge the people from this project to have it. I think a consensus about these points on a Wikipedia is an important requisite for this project to go ahead on that Wikipedia. LeRoc (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Eeep! Nesting issue. I want to make it clear, I am not calling FloNight rude, I am saying it seems rude to just blat the Dutch article and replace it with an import. I hope that was clear. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the meaning of your comment. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A few clarifications:

1. Regarding this edit which replaced previous mostly unreferenced content [16]. It was made by a fully fluent Dutch editor who is also a physician. True he mostly edits in English. But I am sure he read what was there before changing it.
2. This project involves first improving the English content to GA or FA in English followed by translation into other languages. It has generated a bunch of FAs and GAs in a number of languages. It has produced more than 30 GAs/FAs in English and more than 16 GAs/FAs in other languages.
3. I did place the translated text in a work space here [17] I did not replace the Dutch article. The request was that we are looking for local editors to integrate this text with the existing text. If the Dutch community does not want this then I am willing to ask the volunteer professional translators to stop.

We are happy to concentrate our efforts on languages in which there is no content. We are also happy to have the local language community completely manage the process such as in Italian. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting effort. As the German Wikipedia is listed among those in group four coming up next, may I ask what are the criteria according to which the editors involved here decide whether to replace an existing article in a different language version or not? I gather that so far no editor is into German at this point of time. Apart from that, I share the concerns of the original poster as to cultural bias in information. Medicine is a case in point. What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes. This is why the anglo-saxon model of medicine cannot simply be transferred to other societies. This looks to me as though there were an English Wikipedia project interfering with local community efforts without prior consent. Is this so, or am I getting this wrong?—Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if the translator is a Dutch physician, I feel that there still should be some kind of discussion about it first. I personally know a lot about North-East Brazil. But on the Dutch Wikipedia, I can't just take someone else's article about a subject from North-East Brazil, hit Delete, and replace it with my own article. That wouldn't be accepted, even if my article were better. I don't think the Dutch Wikipedia works like that. And it would be worse if I was someone who wasn't known to the community. I'm not against the project per se, but you have to take time and effort to do it together with the local Wikipedia's. LeRoc (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No the translator is not a Dutch physician, the integrator is a Dutch Physician Wikipedian.

With respect to "What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes," it is not really true. When a german person gets pneumonia or HIV/AIDs most of the medical aspects are just the same as if a Canadian or Swahili person got the same.

I have worked in Brazil in cardiac surgery. While they do relatively more valve replacements there than CABGs most cases are still CABGs done with the exact same technique as that in the rest of the world.

With respect to translating into German, this is possible, we will only translate articles that the community tags that they wish translated. There are no real plans otherwise to translate into German. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. This is exactly what I mean by What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes. ;) Of course, if you have pneumonia or HIV/AIDS, your point may hold true. But I've spoken to a German GP who worked in Britain for some years, and the British NHS in many respects takes a completely different approach to what medicine a doctor might give to you than we would expect in this country. It is well known that doctors in different countries may well focus on different diseases and may apply different treatments when being confronted with the same symptoms. There are indeed different approaches to healing which should be described in the different language versions. Also, there is no such thing as a "neutral" translation. A good translation would take these differences between societies and health systems into account. This holds particularly true when content from English Wikipedia is "exported" to small language versions for non-Western countries. Also, alternative views on medicine usually are not properly represented, but this is a general problem on Wikipedia. I agree to LeRoc's suggestion to hold a discussion before simply replacing an article.--Aschmidt (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to sneak in here with my opinion. I think that the whole discussion should have happened within the Dutch Wikipedia community before the translation into Dutch started. With all objections/questions addressed beforehand - in the local language - the misunderstandings (and any arguments) could have been avoided. As the Translation Project continues, I hope that it will have learned from this episode. --Hordaland (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. LeRoc (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That some countries may have different practices is not justification for making the translations different. Rather, the master English version as well as the translation should be updated to explain the national differences. There is not one truth for one language and one for another (nor one verifiablity, to be precise). To have such a problem strikes me as a consequence of an ill-advised notion to impose "best" practices on an article, when really, we should always be giving a sense of the full range of practices and explain the historical and 'alternative' practices as well. That said, in the interim, whichever version is longer should be live until the changes are gone over, with preference for native language versions or well-edited versions when length is similar. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ, be it most of all because this project appears to be a one-way street from English to anywhere else which does not seem to respect other points of view. Of course there are many different opinions on the same topic in all sorts of subjects, including medicine. What we need most would be a transfer from the non-English-speaking world to the English-speaking because the latter tend to ignore us completely. E.g., we usually take into account English scientific papers, while German or French papers are usually not read by, say, American scholars. I gather from the rest of the discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia that they a getting closer to a solution now, but I think this incident is a case in point for the state of the Wikipedia movement as a whole which still is too much dominated by anglo-saxon thinking, while we are all equal. This would probably be the most important meaning of diversity for all Wikimedia contributors.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I have to disagree with you. :) Maybe we could compromise by saying that if an English translation replaces a much shorter Dutch (etc.) article, the article should carry a prominent tag linking to the historical version it replaced, until the Dutch editors decide to remove it. And the article ought to be watched so the changes made afterward can be reverse translated to English for us to review here. But I'm afraid most of the bilingual editors to do that watching and to integrate the changes here would have to be drawn from the Dutch project, since most of us aren't going to do well with it. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Aschmidt that is not true. In fact many of the topic Dutch medical researchers are publishing in English as English is the language of academic medicine. When I trained in Switzerland and Brazil many of the students were studying medicine in English. I include a fair bit of Chinese research in my practice as they are coming out with large cardiovascular studies. The same for literature out of Sweden, Norway and Denmark where they have huge patient databases. Much great literature is from the non English speaking world but they are publishing it in English. German may be an exception, I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about medicine, but German can be an exception in other subjects. As an undergraduate in a humanities subject unrelated to German at an English university, I remember one tutor telling us, "in this section of the syllabus, much of the best research is written in German. If you don't have at least basic competence in reading German, and a willingness to use it, then you are going to be at a major disadvantage". I imagine a proportion of (better?) American scholars will be competent in languages other than English, but admittedly many will not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect to getting permission from each individual community before hand, we tried and no one was particularly interested until I had example to show them. And even then it is a bit of a push.

What happened to being BOLD? Anyway now we have example. We are stopping translation into Dutch until we get uptake from the Dutch community. If they do not integrate them / decide they do not want them than we will stop permanently. Yes these other large languages are much more complicated than small Wikipedias. In many languages were are creating articles were nothing existed before hand. In fact we have started one language for the content we have created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect to differences in evidence based medical practice in different areas of the world, they are very small. Some countries such as the USA are much less evidence based than others so we do see larger differences in actual practice. Wikipedia though is dealing with more evidence based practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to being BOLD? – I wonder what would happen on English Wikipedia if, say, a French WikiProject came here and substituted some articles they had translated into English because they had decided they were better than what they found on enwiki up to then. What's more, I think the Wikipedia communities are now that much under pressure from all sorts of stress—technical from the WMF, psychic, vandals, reverting edits by PR agencies, etc.—that this makes it even worse. It has become more important to communicate more proficiently if you want to be successful with such a project. I think that's it. Besides avoiding the one-way street, of course.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why third party analytic agent?

SearchMe Toolbar's doing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought Wikimedia would be a place free of any 3rd party analytic agent, but suddenly I noticed my NoScript plugin blocked a bunch of third party sites when I was loading Wikimedia projects. I'm not convinced to be spied, even from Google. Actually Google blocks some function if you don't unblock gstatic.com, which is understandable. I am worrying that one day I wouldn't be able to access some feature of Wikimedia if I don't unblock few 3rd party site. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Sameboat - 同舟, are you sure about this? I get no trackers when I visit Commons according to DoNotTrackMe. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC) These are all the 3rd party sites reported by NoScript when I temporarily allow all sites and load Commons watchlist: ajax.googleapis.com, google-analytics.com, akamaihd.net, myfindright.com, tvlsvc.com, mscimg.com, mxpnl.com. Unless NoScript lies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I get no trackers there. Maybe ask at WP:VPT to sort this out? --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Ghostery is also worth trying. As far as I can see, Wikipedia and Commons pages have a zero rating on Ghostery for things like Google Analytics. These sites would not need it anyway, because they are serving no advertisements.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Analytics is useful for a lot more than ads. I use it on my personal website to find out how many views each blog post is getting, which links they are coming from, etc. I don't know whether Wikipedia needs that sort of info, but to me it is valuable. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sameboat, you opened this discussion and then closed it yourself, presumably when you realized that you've downloaded a toolbar that does this to you. I'm just wondering: now that you've looked into it do you think the toolbar is doing something nefarious or untrustworthy or against their own disclosures or terms of service? Or is it just one of those highly intrusive things that people sometimes accidentally install without realizing the consequences, or..? Just curious mainly because there was that "better Wikipedia" extension that I tested out the other day that then wanted to redirect all my pageviews at Wikipedia to their own site in quite an unpleasant manner, and I'm just thinking about such software these days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's in their "privacy policy" which they further water down by referring to third-party apps and their policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I only closed the technical bit I mistook Wikimedia, you can go on discuss the ethic aspect of 3rd party site. The SearchMe Toolbar could be bundled with some free media codec package or plugin and snuck into my PC when I carelessly forgot to uncheck the installation option. I would never ever allow such thing to be installed no matter the intention is, I just feel unwell to be spied or hijacked to do their bidding. Having said that, I would conditionally allow minimal amount of analytic agent in order to enjoy the free commercial services like Facebook (akamaihd) and Google (gstatic). If there was the non intrusive alternative I would definitely go for it for the sake of my privacy, but you know it's impossible these days. Everyone (government, corporation, nonprofit or even individual who lured by corporation) wants to gather stats/privacy as much as as possible. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I use Ghostery and I'm very happy with it. My experience of the web is pretty minimally changed - every now and then I'm forced to allow some third party tracker in order to get some website to function, but unless there's a good reason for it, I only do a temporary "pause blocking" rather than "whitelist site".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the whole reason we have this problem is because Commons never expanded beyond images to allowing file downloads. I understand, of course, that file downloads have a lot of potential problems, but when we look at the disreputable sites that so often are pushed at users, where every download is a battle of wits against being conned into "drive-by downloads that install "PUP"s that rapidly end up being trojans and viruses and botnets, the Internet definitely needs better options. Even the formerly reputable Sourceforge was bought out and announced its entry into "enhanced" installers.[18] Wnt (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Two more WMF donors editing Wikipedia

Jimmy, would you be kind enough to look at the allegations described in this blog post, then comment on them? - 2001:558:1404:0:0:5EFE:A19:F327 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It's a dishonest headline, implying that if you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, you get "benefits" in terms of your article. You know that's 100% false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's 100% false, then you imply that there will be community-initiated repercussions for the COI editing that has been taking place regarding all of the article subjects that Wikipediocracy's series has exposed? Once you show that the Wikipedia community actually takes all of this seriously, and the COI edits are rolled back, and the involved editors are admonished on their Talk pages, then I'm sure that Wikipediocracy would gladly change the title of this blog post, if the title of it is the most disturbing thing you're choosing to react to. - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. You know as well as I do that the community does not give favoritism to COI edits by donors to the WMF. There is a problem with coping with COI edits overall, but there is not a problem with donations to WMF corrupting the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that a donation to the WMF has never corrupted the editing process on Wikipedia? Are you sure? Look, I completely see what you're saying, Jimbo. You're right, that a donation does not actually or even figuratively grant the donor a special exemption on Wikipedia, in terms of editing. (Although, there have been a couple of cases where I've seen comments like "They just gave the WMF a boatload of money, so we should have an article about them.") However, the fact does remain that the WMF's legal department has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a paid editing firm, and the WMF human resources department has fired an employee for the infraction of non-disclosed paid editing. But other than the Belfer Center fiasco post mortem, we have never, ever seen the WMF make any sort of public comment or provide meaningful feedback about any of the dozens of major donors who are participating in COI and/or paid advocacy editing (some with disclosure, many without). However, the WMF has made all kinds of public comments about firms like Wiki-PR or Bell Pottinger, for doing approximately the same thing as the donors are doing, but they didn't donate anything to the WMF. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that one measure of whether the WMF will formally respond to an allegation of COI/paid/advocacy editing or not, is whether the editor has made a financial donation to the WMF or not. Really, would it be so difficult for one of the WMF's legal staff, or even one of the "storytellers" on the payroll, to provide a public statement about how inappropriate it is for donors to the Wikimedia movement to be simultaneously manipulating content about themselves on Wikipedia in ways that skirt or are wholly outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline norms? Is there some reason you or the WMF would decline to do that? - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All the chaff you throw at us makes it hard to tell if there's a real issue in there. That you think that ambiguity works in your favor makes us skeptical of your sincerity. The fact that someone donates has nothing to do with whether some IP or company shill (even from the same company) edits the article. They could do that anyway. The only legitimate accusations - the ones that could stand on their own, if they existed - would be that the WMF Office took actions to skew the article or protect the shills that go outside the stated norms of the community. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania

I invoked thy name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. I agree with you that the analogy may be helpful, but I'm not sure it really holds. Her father was not King of Romania when she was born, and the title was abolished. So a complete set of articles (which I do think is valuable) for the monarchy need not include her (as the monarchy is finished). The UK hereditary Peerages are different - if they are ever completely abolished I would still argue for a complete set of historical articles on the people who held the titles. But the argument for their descendants appears quite weak. To be clear, I think this means that I agree with you completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator AGK sending harassing email, makes legal threats

You may want to take a look at this. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you didn't have the courtesy to notify AGK. I have. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting use of language there. You could have said "I see you forgot to notify AGK ...", but no, you're already trying to set the scene. Eric Corbett 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't ANI, you know. We have a perfect right to talk about people without them hounding every discussion involving them. On topic, these are some pretty serious claims. I don't think ArbCom has the ability to make legal threats without the WMF legal team's permission, and they certainly don't have means to enforce it. Frankly, even if they did, I don't think they should. KonveyorBelt 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It is always so much better to prevent someone accused of malfeasance from defending themselves. Always a fine way to minimize drama. Resolute 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be even better if you addressed the issue, rather than attacked the messenger. I note that you, Dougweller and AGK are all administrators. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous issues to discuss, however. The one I choose to address is the silly notion that AGK does not have the "perfect right" to be aware of this discussion. Resolute 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet another sysop addressing form rather than substance. Eric Corbett 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As much as I always enjoy your hypocrisy, Eric, I do intend to wait for AGK's response before judging. Resolute 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A personal attack from an administrator now, that will no doubt go unremarked. How interesting. Eric Corbett 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You wound me, sir! Of course I would remark. How could anyone not enjoy such witty repartee with a paragon of civility such as yourself? I am merely listening to the advice you have given me but fail to follow yourself and choosing not to attack the messenger - at least not until I have more information. In this case, the messenger I am interested in is AGK. Resolute 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking in my personal capacity, I just want to point out that this was not an e-mail from or on behalf of ArbCom, but rather an e-mail from an administrator who is also a current member of ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So that makes it OK then in your eyes? Eric Corbett 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote was pretty clear. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to me it wasn't, it seemed evasive to me. Eric Corbett 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What Salvio giuliano should have said is "This is not an e-mail from ArbCom, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise." AGK [•] 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thus, he would have even less authority then he pretends to have. Admins can't do anything against anybody offwiki. Impersonating the WMF to appear to have a legal authority is even worse. KonveyorBelt 16:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this case to the extant I know who did what or why a ban was put into place. But I do know about protecting your own website and notifying the @abuse about problem users. I've done it dozens and dozens of times(mostly on my own website) to try and save files and prevent further disruption. Is it a Wikipedia policy to also notify the @abuse admins of persistent ip abusers? It may seem like something one wouldn't want to do, but something someone might have to do if there were little or no alternatives. So you might look at the email in another way, as perhaps reaching out to someone so the last resort is not the only alternative. Or maybe I'm wrong, I don't know that much about this issue. Thanks. Also, Konveyor Belt, you removed my comment. Dave Dial (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I did? I got two consecutive edit conflicts, it must have been a mistake. I'm unclear about our ISP notifying policy. As I noted below, WP:ABUSE was the former policy, but it is deprecated. What I do know, is that admins cannot send emails vigilante-style. You doing these things is ok because it is your own website, and you own and manage it. AGK does not own Wikipedia, and as such he cannot act on its behalf. KonveyorBelt 16:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I figured it was something along those lines(Re - comment removal). as for the @abuse notifications, I've not just done them on my own website. I've been an administrator ...on numerous sites, and have done so there too. Most of the time you are just swatting flies(trolls, hacks, etc), but if one becomes so persistent that you have to do something, notifying the @abuse is a sort of last resort. Heck, after having several of my webpages hijacked I even went notified a proxy at an University. I think it depends on what kind of abuse you are dealing with, and if you believe the individual will stop on their own. You can't just let people disrupt pages and take away the time(and in some other cases money) from other employees/volunteers. Dave Dial (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What kind of disruption were you dealing with, exactly? KonveyorBelt 17:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it depends on what site I was at. Sometimes hackers putting in scripts and redirects to steal customers, other times enforcing community guidelines(such as racism, threats, harassment) that were continuously abused from certain IPs. Dave Dial (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suppose Kumioko does not fall under those categories, and there is probably no need to contact his ISP. What you dealt with is serious vandalism. Kumioko is not a vandal, just a whiner. KonveyorBelt 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, most in not all service providers do provide an abuse@oursite.com means for complaints to be files against the service provider's users. I'd be curious to know just what level of alleged abuse must take place before a designated Wikimedia person can escalate a matter to that level though, which is quite above and beyond the isusance of on-wiki blocks and bans and such. Can individual admins do this? CUs? Stewards? I'm wondering if this has ever been formally discussed anywhere on the project. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The former policy was WP:ABUSE; that is now deprecated. Also, Kumioko would not fit those requirements. KonveyorBelt 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think any concerned editor could write the @abuse admin, unless there is a policy against it. It's common knowledge and you need only do a Whois or even click a button for the information. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim of a "legal threat"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer." is what part of the email said, according to Kumioko. KonveyorBelt 17:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but the fact that disciplinary action may be take by one's employer has nothing to do with "legal action", i.e., as in an action taken in a court of law.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no legal action spoken of. There used to be a group of volunteers who would contact the ISPs of vandals to alert them of the damage they were doing. This sounds like something similar. I've never heard of an admin sending an email like this (but, of course, it would be unlikely to be reported by the editor), but if a long-time abuse editor is editing from a workplace company, it's not illogical to send a notice to the company or organization. I believe that there should be somewhere on Wikipedia where taking this step is mentioned as a possible admin action and such notices can be logged in (maybe on a SPI archive page). If it already exists, please post a link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

There are certain situations in which DoD employees are subject to the UCMJ. So, what the Arb member e-mailed could be construed as a legal threat, yes. According to what is posted on the "Other Site" there, AGK is rather strongly implying that due to the nature of this person's particular employer, this person would be subject to discipline rather more severe than what a normal user at a civilian ISP would be subject to. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I Completely agree with tark myself? one of the others here?how about just:WP:Abuse Response can do that. no legal threats, no impersonation of WMF, just a routine thing, really. 75* 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that Tarc intended to imply that there was a legal threat, so you may want to re-read the posts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most editors here know how to read, thanks. The issue here is, is it really fair to jeopardize one's career over allegations of being a nuisance on a website? There could be legal consequences here, it's not quite the same as forwarding a complaint to a Comcast or a Time-Warner. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your use of tense is rather interesting. Did you mean to say "is it really fair that one's career is jeopardized over allegations of being a nuisance on a website"? Eric Corbett 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

75, Wikipedia:Abuse Response would have been the agent for this action but that project is inactive. Back in the fall, I left a message for every volunteer listed to see if they wanted to revive the project but I got no response, I reported it to WP:AN and the project was marked as inactive (historical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• My take: Kumioko has been a bit of a provocative dick over the last few months (he takes too much joy in throwing metaphorical gasoline bombs) but I find AGK's threat of real life retribution to be abhorrent, repellant, obnoxious, and probably actionable on-wiki. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how even to reply to a comment that plumbs such depths of absurdity. AGK [•] 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Banned users who are socking every evening are usually fought using an ISP Abuse Report. This is fairly ordinary for cases of advanced abuse, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. This tactic has not been used to date because Kumioko's ISP is also his employer. I e-mailed Kumioko after his most recent spree of abusive socking, in reply to one of the long, angry e-mails he sends a few times week, threatening to "never stop", "never give up", etc. My e-mail was not signed or remotely suggested as being for ArbCom.

  This e-mail alerted Kumioko to the fact that when an abuse report is filed, as it inevitably would be if he did not let up, it is likely to affect his employment and cause trouble to his real life. I did not say "I will call your employer and rat you out." This would be abhorrent, and I am outraged at the people who suggest this is what I did. My message was very clearly framed as a plea for Kumioko not to force Wikipedia's hand, with such desperate consequences. I am utterly certain that I would write this e-mail again, even if I knew some people here would misinterpret it, because the alternative is to wreck a man's livelihood and life. A misguided man waging a farcical campaign against a website, but a real, living man nevertheless. AGK [•] 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  "If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer." Could you please explain who this "us" is, as your colleague Salvio giuliano has claimed that you were acting on your own? Eric Corbett 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Wikipedia, collectively; or whichever administrator comes home after a hard day, has to revert more rubbish, decides enough is enough, and files the abuse report. The e-mail from Kumioko, that I said that in reply to, stated (for the umpteenth time) "I don't recognise my ban" and reiterated the "I'll never stop" line. I replied to say "If you don't stop, you do realise your superiors will find out about it? The ISP Abuse Report will go to your ISP!" A reality check, not a legal threat. AGK [•] 21:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

These accusations are ridiculous. no legal threats here. And, Tark, Ubikwit was right. I messed up. I don't completely agree with you. 75* 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts from Ivor Catt

Moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales. I believe this to be a comment from Ivor Catt himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I had a new idea. Any Wikipedia page about an individual, for instance on "Ivor Catt", should begin with an unremovabler sentence; "Ivor Catt comments" followed by a hyperlink to Ivor Catt's website. This will enable the individual to comment on what is being said about him at length, without cluttering up the original document, and without being open to the charge of being egotistical.

This is a subset of the more general point, called "Riposte", which I came up with 15 years ago which has been ignored. The www is a new kind of medium (or could be), since all previous media comprise monologue. In principle, because of hyperlink, the www can be dialogue. For 15 years my websites say I guarantee that anyone who disagrees with anything on my website is guaranteed a hyperlink designated [R] to where he can contradict my statement. Sadly, only two people have taken up my guarantee, and the key idea has been ignored. The final objective is that any government statement can be contradicted by the use of a single letter [R], which will hyperlink to the contradiction. That facility will greatly enhance democracy. Ivor Catt www.ivorcatt.co.uk 13 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.43.94 (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Far too sensible to gain any traction here. Eric Corbett 20:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth pursuing. Not everyone has a website, so I would go further; if they want to respond, and do not have a website, we'll provide a space that only they can edit.I have a feeling it will mainly be used by sales websites as advertising, so we'd have to decide whether that is collateral damage, or can be limited, but worth discussing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like a reasonable request (granted it took me a while to understand what he was actually getting at). I would suggest limiting it to BLPs, but I would think that hosting it here would be the way to go. Not sure how it would be managed though, that may be difficult. How would someone prove that it is actually them that is doing the commenting? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)