User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Eric and Sitush

I know both at times can become a little heated, but I don't know what sort of crackdown you've launched but it's causing even more trouble than before. Whatever you've said has provoked the trolls into stalking them, rubbing their hands with glee whenever they spot even the slightest thing uncivil. This trend in lynching them has emerged and barely a day goes by I don't see a fresh new comment from one of the gang members. It's become a joke and it's highly disruptive, more disruptive than anything either of them could say. Is this really the sort of encyclopedia you want where administrators go about patting each other on the back for playing civility policemen? To me it's far more toxic the way these editors are hounded. And it's not just these two, it's other editors who I respect are also having to deal with the same sort of thing. It's counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and creates far more of a backlash and time wasting than it would if it was simply ignored. Does the need to be perfect people really take precedent over building an encyclopedia? I can understand why you find them problematic, but I don't understand why you think this sort of response is somehow acceptable too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What's counterproductive to building an encyclopaedia is being uncivil in the first place. At any rate, ArbCom now looks likely to accept the GGTF case, which should hopefully put the repeated ANI threads to bed for a while. BethNaught (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a wide range of interpretations defining "uncivil" on wikipedia. I see it used to describes comments not even remotely close to being a personal attack. If content contributors saying something uncivil is indeed counterproductive to building an encyclopedia, is it not worse the fuss which results after it and the civility police patting each other on backs and encouraging an environment of bullying?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert to User:BethNaught: Just noticed 5 now accept it (Arbitrators at Arbcom). However, except for an occasional allusion to the past, the problems seem to be over at GGTF. (Two problems with editors Wikihounding me for a year ended up with their following me to and causing problems at GGTF, but that's been solved by ANIs placed by others.) So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest! (I've run out of 500 words at the request, so am reluctant to say that there now.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"The problems seem to be over." You're assuming the "problems" to be reviewed by any ArbCom case are only the one's you have complained of. Several of the arbitrators have indicated that any case wouldn't be limited in that way. For example, one of the arbitrators who voted to accept today previously said "Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Wikipedia, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving." DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I think the proof is in the numbers of badgering questions over and over again vs. the number of complaints about them. Are you saying the problem is that editors did not go to ANI much sooner instead of trying to make the point on the GGTF talk page? (Which is the first thing recommended in WP:Dispute resolution.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm quite surprised to have to spell it out. Some of the arbitrators have signalled that the behaviour of those complaining was also poor and will also be subject to scrutiny e.g. Salvio said: "In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept" DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest!" — Now, now, you simply must remember masterful way they turned what promised to be three days of intense debate into a six week, ummmm, clusterhug with an 11th Hour intervention in the Private Manning case... But hey, drama is what it has been all about for the last couple months at GGTF, so here comes Act 3. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have little experience with Sitush myself, but the method of communication as often wielded by Eric (and increasingly wielded and enabled by other editors, including more and more sysops over the past 3 years or so) are a significant part of the reason why I gave up my bits. It seems that a few people have gotten an effective 'carte blanche' on our pillar of "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Eric specifically says that he "treats those who deserve respect with respect". But the pillars are not about the judgement of one person, they should reflect the goals and boundaries we set as a community. If we as a community think that he has a pattern of being disrespectful and uncivil (something stated in the discussion all the time even by his supporters), then he is not acting in the spirit of the pillar. They are pillars, not scales to be tirelesly balanced out with excuses and 'good content'. If we are not dealing with that pillar, then it can only mean that either the pillar is useless and should be torn down, or that we need to do more to restore that pillar. It seems that a lot in the community have chosen to either side with, to stop caring and ignore or to leave. So probably the community should tear down that pillar in that case... I think that would be a terrible idea, but it does seem to be the direction that the community (or what remains of it) is adopting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying though is if it's not acceptable for Eric to be disrespectful and uncivil to certain editors, why is it OK for administrators to deal with the perceived problem in an environment which encourages bullying and provoking. Doesn't the constant lynching and feeding him provocative remarks also pose a threat to that pillar?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to endorse Dr. Blofeld's comments. Your answer to the problems that dog Wikipedia have been long awaited. But I have been dismayed more than I can say by your recent attacks on Eric and Sitush. Is it really your assessment that the core problems are due to the behaviour of some of the most able, productive, long term and committed content editors, and that these editors need to be banned? Because it seems to me you are opening the door to a vigilante culture, where it is okay to use politically correctness as a weapon to bait and goad able content builders until they respond immoderately. What I definitely don't see are attempts to create a climate which facilitates content building, and allows content builders to work with some dignity in a non-threatening environment. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this in regards to something specific Jimbo has done or said recently? If so, then good; the project needs to stop giving content creators a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about Tarc? Since when have content creators had "a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time"? That's rubbish. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't play ignorant; Corbett/Malleus has a block log a mile long because few have the fortitude to make a block stick. Sitush makes a threat many construe to be a threat of violence, gets blocked, then unblocked after a day with no explanation...that didn't come til later. It took several years to finally get rid of Betacommand, and that only came about because his ardent supporters started to fade. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then say what you mean. That's not what you said. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, it is exactly what I said; these editors are regarded as prolific content creators; when they are uncivil, even grossly so, to others, it is allowed to slide. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, even if being a content contributor doesn't mean anybody can behave how they like, you're missing the point. There is a whole subcommunity of admins on wikipedia who exist to feed provocative comments to get a reaction and then relish brandishing the civility stick and imposing blocks and preachy comments and seeing the drama escalate. I'm witnessed it so many times. It's intentional, these people know it's going to blow up into something. That sort of environment is more toxic to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no; adults are responsible for their own actions. "Billy teased me so I hit him back!" stops being a viable excuse for bad behavior right around puberty. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Any fan of NFL football or NHL hockey knows that the key to keeping order in the game is to punish the instigators, not those who react and "take the bait." Carrite (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the best of times to be holding up the NFL as a paragon of virtue, bro. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, things tend to calm down more often in hockey when the referee sends both to the box. Punish the retaliator exclusively, and you only encourage instigation. Punish the instigator exclusively and you encourage badgering. Punish nobody effectively and you end up with Wikipedia. Resolute 16:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Four minutes for the instigator, two for the retaliator... Carrite (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was what he said at WikiMania. The problem has escalated since then, and the constant harassment on talk pages has got worse as has the backlash to them. This is not promoting a civil website. I'm not criticising Jimbo for wanting a website where everybody is completely nice to each other and things run without conflict, but I am highly critical if he thinks the lynching and gang warfare in response to perceived actions of "incivility" is somehow acceptable and an appropriate way to deal with it and drive them out. Jimbo might not like a lot of people who he considers toxic to the website, but it's also setting a bad example in encouraging this sort of ham-fisted behaviour from certain admins or people who clearly enjoy the attention beating the civility stick gets and the brownie points it earns from others and Jimbo. Doesn't he think that the taunting and the backlash which inevitably results also contributes to a toxic community? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Several things happened at once: Gender gap task force got going again; someone asked about a possible "Civility board" and Eric Corbett’s 7/24/14 comment “the easiest way to avoid being called a c*nt is not to act like one.”[1] which was mentioned in an ANIs and elsewheres; civility also was discussed on this talk page; Eric[2] and others supportive of such language then joined the Gender Gap project and were disruptive; Wales made his Wikimania statement. No one person is responsible, though if someone is going to act uncivil, some may call them uncivil. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld....there are hundreds of "content creators" such as yourself that don't have anyone ganging up on them. Frankly, until you've had the old encyclopedia dramatica and GNAA gang up on you like I did, you haven't seen a real gang up.--MONGO 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still no excuse to target any editor and lynch him. uncivil or not. And it is real ganging up, and it creates more bitterness and problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to say what I want to say Sitush is a great contributor, agreed. Sitush not editing is a loss for the community, agreed. But can we just ignore anything wrong that they do just because they are good contributors? Well Sitush himself used to say that he had received death threats, I believe that those threats were taken seriously. I wonder what happened to those editors who had threatened Sitush, were they shown the same kind of leniency that we are trying to show to Sitush? What are the reasons to believe that the threats issued to Sitush are any different from threats issued by Sitush? To be honest I feel that this issue has been blown out of proportion. Sitush did something wrong, he was punished. End of the story. I also hope that Sitush gets back very soon. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he issued threats?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that the events detailed in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 173#On-WIki threats of violence happened? Tarc (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

How would you know the content of the alleged threats, Tarc, you are not an administrator (saints be praised)? It has all been scrubbed with revision-deletion. So please spare us all your faux sanctimonious and inflammatory comments. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments are posted in the ANI discussion that is now closed. -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrite, don't be obtuse, the comments in question were paraphrased by editors in the ANI discussion several days ago. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

An out-of-context paraphrase is not the same as reading direct quotations in context and you know it — or should. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Things seem to have come a full circle (wrong idiom, my mistake). 122.177.57.41 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know all that happened Tarc, I didn't see a diff on Sitush's talk page explaining the "indefinite block" but I do know that history repeated itself, again this time with him, and that obviously the block was not clear cut because it was removed by a very respected admin shortly afterwards. Such things make a mockery of the system we have on here and reveal that it is ineffective in dealing with content contributors who occasionally become involved in heated arguments and say something which others consider uncivil. Obviously numerous admins disagree with Jimbo's idea of super strict civility enforcement as most of Eric's blocks ended up being swiftly removed by another, in this instance it was Sitush. All I know is that I'm tired of seeing the same thing all of the time and the civility policing actually causing more trouble and bitterness with the backlash which results than what was said initially. Clearly something needs to change. For all the uncivil acts they've apparently committed, the system of dealing with civility has shown itself to be grossly inadequate every time. And somebody has to be honest and acknowledge that the way it is dealt with creates more bitterness in the long term than it does in solving civility or controlling it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who generally stays out of these things, I have a question: Is it really too much to ask that an editor (regardless of the number of edits or contributions to the project) not call another editor names? Put aside, for the moment, the issue of disrupting a Wikiproject, which requires a somewhat subjective judgment; or the issue of what language is appropriate to use in criticising the 'edits' of another editor (as opposed to calling the editor him/herself a name); or the question of whether there is ever a valid reason to tell another editor to "f*** off"; or the issue of whether telling someone that if you were in their presence, they would be looking down the barrel of serious weaponry, is a threat. I have opinions on those subjects, but just put them aside and explain to me why we tolerate name-calling. I don't see any reason why an editor should be allowed to call another editor an idiot, or a moron, or a piece of s***, or any one of a number of body parts, or any other kind of name, regardless of the circumstances. ("POV warrior" or "nationalist editor" or the like is a different discussion, because those are really shorthand ways of expressing an opinion about someone's 'edits' and to question why they should be editing in a particular area of the project, or at all.) For now what I'm saying is, just don't call people a body part, or some other kind of name. If you can't comply with that simple request, go somewhere else on the Internet where people like to be called names, or where nobody cares. Forget about the past. Starting... now. What's wrong with that? Neutron (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending that, at times when an editor acts insufferably it is easy to do so, but if it wasn't calling somebody a name they'd find another way to brandish the civility stick. If the website truly can't tolerate somebody telling somebody to eff off, then there needs to be some official thing in place which punishes it evenly. I've seen administrators using such language at editors and nobody blinking an eye.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many editors would have absolutely no problem with Wikipedia:Civility if it was applied consistently. That is impossible as long as individual administrators can decide on how severe an editor's violation of WP:CIV was or for how long an editor should be blocked for violating the policy. 122.177.57.41 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is likely that most people get by on the Pedia without often/ever having to even discuss civility, so it's not like it's actually that hard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If that was true, why is it barely a day ever goes by that somebody who I know is warned about civility or blocked? WP:Civility has become the single biggest problem on the website, and not just offending it. Everywhere I look very experienced editors are being templated for personal attacks over the most trivial of comments. It's become a site obsession to berate somebody with NPA or Be Civil. Might there actually be some correlation between those who really care about content and feel passionate/protective of it and the tendency to violate WP:Civility? It seems a strange cooincidence that many of the great content producers I know are often involved in "uncivil" disputes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you hang out with but it seems telling that you don't say that you are warned every day. And so what. If it's a dumb warning ignore it.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not warned every day, although I'll often have a "be civil" remark from somebody turning up on my talk page and it's usually related to their inappropriate nomming of articles for deletion because they can't accept that they made a mistake. I see it every day on the user tlak page or article talk page of somebody or other I know. A lot of disputes come about from lesser prolific editors picking holes in work and the contributors feeling defensive or naturally have a better understanding of what content it should contain. If such editors were not here to defend certain material and in doing so getting into a heated argument, wouldn't content be worse off if every experienced editor gave into people who have less experience and knowledge in editing? I'm not excusing genuine personal attacks or threats of violence etc, but I am saying that it's inevitable at times that editors who truly feel strongly about building content are going to encounter situations where they become inflamed with another editor in protecting it. I see such immense trolling for weeks sometimes over non issues to the point that any normal person would have long walked away from it. It's hardly surprising that sometimes people are "uncivil".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are several obvious realities any editor must know: 1) there are dumb people on the internet; 2) sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet; 3) Wikipedia has adopted a civility policy -- that boils down to discuss ideas not specific people; 4) So, if one can't live with the first three points, Wikipedia will often be an unhappy place for that editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Civility doesn't accommodate for the "sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet;" part though does it? If it did, Eric wouldn't have been blocked or scolded much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because it's a dumb idea for WIkipedia to say all dumb people are banned from the internet -- moreover, there are places that are not openly editable by anyone, it's just that Wikipedia is not one of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the problems come about from editors who certain people consider ignorant and are liberal in telling them so, the civil stick is brandished, they're blocked, unblocked, pressure gains for it to be lifted and it usually is. All unnecessary drama. You could argue don't, call anybody a name and it won't happen, but I honestly believe that most violations of Wp:Civil do come about from genuine ignorance by somebody over something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and whether it's ignorance of not knowing how to just deal with the dumb in a civil manner, or not -- there comes a time when one has to say to themselves, either I can do that, or I cannot. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts

It occurs to me that the increased number of templates about incivility in general and the increased number of complaints about civility by particular editors, said by some to be hounding, may reflect all of the deeply divided mood of the community about civility in general, the frustration by some editors who perceive that there is very little enforcement of civility, and the perception that certain editors are exempt from civility. I have recently offered a few thoughts as to what the owner of this talk page and the WMF can do about this situation. (The owner of this talk page recognizes that the amount of WMF civility police, for instance, would be a bad idea.) I have in particular proposed that the WMF conduct a well-structured statistical survey of both existing editors and former editors to determine, among other things, whether the larger community favors stricter civility enforcement than currently takes place at the noticeboards, or whether concern with civility should be relaxed and restated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the mood at the noticeboards, which has long been difficult, has been particularly ugly recently. On the one hand, in the short run, we should all try to keep our calm and avoid making a difficult situation worse. On the other hand, a survey of the attitudes of editors would help to determine what can be done in the medium run and the long run. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some good points Robert. I'm not saying it is fine to call people names, but I do see a lot of abuse of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I often see veterans (I don't mean Eric or Sitush) templated for comments which are very minor in tone which reinforces my opinion that it's become an obsession on the website. A lot of editors in fact seem to exist purely to to say "be civil". The dominant issue for me is unevenness in standard of enforcement and the fact that admins have the power to make an instant block and override each other and create rifts. Some of the civility police behave in way which seem grossly uncivil yet its tolerated, even encouraged by certain others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some examples (of abuse of WP:NPA, say) would be good. What I see, much more, is editors like Eric behaving with absolutely ludicrous levels of hostility towards other editors, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole, as people see that even the worst possible behavior is something that some people get away with repeatedly. Eric, and some like him, should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago because the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous. I see no evidence that anyone is stalking or hounding them at all. People have legitimate grievances and we lose good community members because of them. It's time to step up and say that we aren't talking about minor infractions or "political correctness" but about the need to get rid of people who violate our standards and do damage to the encyclopedia because of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior" - [citation needed], "the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous" - [citation needed] Parrot of Doom 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You really think that a "permanent ban from Wikipedia" solves everything? Personally, I think it just makes matters worse. - 50.144.2.136 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Too often, Eric's army of sycophants dismiss your thoughts about the editors with cries of "prove it", knowing it's the Wikipedia equivalent of proving a negative. The administrative corps lined up behind him in vigorous defense refuse to recognize they fail the community as a whole when they overturn blocks with cries of, "he contributes so much content!" Fine. Then we might as well all decamp and leave the whole place to him for all they care about the rest of us, who are forced to endure his incivility, the other uncivil editors he emboldens, and the drama that follows in its wake.

It doesn't take a statistician to see the increasingly stronger correlation between the decline of civility on Wikipedia and the growing loss of editors, particularly women editors. I can offer up my own situation as evidence. I have expertise in two areas where I don't edit. The first is professional: in that case, I simply don't need the increase in blood pressure that comes from trying to deal with amateurs who know just enough to be dangerous, but who insist on editing in the area where I have expertise leaving a trail of mis- and half-information, coupled with the hybridizing of the content to fit American and British taxonomy, terminology and practice. Ugh! That's a lost cause. The second, which is germane to this discussion, is a personal area of interest in which I have expertise, but do not edit. Why? Because it would throw me into Eric Corbett's path. And I refuse to be there and be subjected to his dismissive attitudes, his narcissism, his misogyny, and his ridicule, not to mention his foul turn of phrase. Instead, I stay in a relatively mundane corner of the Wikipedia jousting with fanboys and fangirls rather than adding anything substantive to stay out his way, and the way of others like him. And yet he teflon's along, Wikipedia's version of John Gotti. Who needs it? I sure don't. --Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the irony lost on you that a person decrying lack of civility refers to a whole group of editors as "Eric's army of sycophants"? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many problems here, first and foremost the perception of unequal treatment. What would happen to an editor with say 5-6 months experience here who said things like "He knows that I think he's a piece of shit" or "Fuck off , you're not welcome here" ? Tarc (talk 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have a personal recommendation to you (and don't take it hard, we all stumble sometimes): if you want to help with the campaign to make a kinder environment on Wikipedia, try to refrain from comments like the one you made up above on this page. Saying things like "Where do you work, Burger King?" are just not very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Tarc! This is one of the most fundamental problems. --Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Without myself making a comment as to if I agree or disagree with your assessment, if you think so strongly about it, why have you not taken personal action? You retain the power to ban do you not? Have you taken a general position refraining from such action? If you have done so, it may be wise to say under what conditions you will or will not intervene. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I do retain that power, but I do not think it is the most effective way for me to effect change in this situation. (Particularly since Eric has repeatedly insulted me personally on my talk page, there would be a view that I'm just pursuing a personal vendetta.) I think it better to effect change on principle - what kind of community do we want to be? I think we should have significantly less drama about these kinds of civility bans, and the best way to do that is to actually ban them rather than having endless drama about how awful they are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that many of the points you reiterate above are highly debatable and over-simplistic, and that you have been badly advised by people who are not aware of the full picture. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about the BK thing. Curano was being so dismissive and full of contempt towards the user in question that it just kinda hit a nerve. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could simply just get rid of the people that treat a so-called encyclopedia as a social networking service to push their own agendas, and in the process provoke excellent content builders such as Sitush and Eric to lash out against them because they are degrading the project. But of course, that wouldn't fit in with the "new and improved" Wikipedia where any idiot with the basic ability to manipulate a keyboard can whine that people are being nasty to them, would it? In the end, do we want an actual encyclopedia or do we want a nice pretty website where anyone can inflate their ego? When I joined, I thought the answer was the former, but now it appears that it's the latter, and you are enabling them. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled across this discussion at a talkpage I watch. I would like to associate myself entirely with every word BK typed here. At some point, the content contributor vs Wikipedia-as-MMORPG balance needs to swing back in favor of the content contributors. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear! Far too many people spend huge amounts of time bickering and politicking in project space. Just imagine what could be achieved if we closed down the drama boards (including this talk page) and everyone put that effort into writing articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a different process to deal with civility issues. A long time ago I suggested that we could deal with people who have problems with being civil by making it compulsory for them to have a username that reflects their problem. I guess this would work better with icons that would be displayed; e.g. if someone has been judged to be uncivil then that editor must use an icon displaying a pit bull, and the more uncivil that person is judged to be, the more aggressive that pit bull icon will look. After a set time period of good behavior that editor can ask to have this icon removed, or replaced by a less aggressive one.

The welcome message to new Wikipedians should contain information about these icons. If they know about this from the start that will take away most of the problems. It's similar to how real world interactions work where you have plenty of visual signals. You can see that someone is a drunk person on the street or some gang member. And obviously, you'll handle an aggressive pit bull differently than a poodle. Because a system like this allows uncivil people to continue editing, a community debate about imposing an incivility icon is less likely to degenerate into a big fight. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That is very interesting idea! --Epipelagic (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be rather childish and kindergarten like though wouldn't it? In the real world you don't get punishments for swearing at people in disputes so it does seem questionable on wikipedia. Your boss might fire you though if you say something to him/her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily "punishment", some people here will admit that they can sometimes be uncivil and they usually don't see that as a big deal. Then this is just about making them owning up to that in a transparent way (newcomers who are not familar with such editors can then deal with these editors better). Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all people are equal. Tolerance goes a long way in dealing with swearing. If I meet someone who lived on a housing estate in central Manchester I would not be surprised if they sworn every second sentence. That's just the local vernacular. Sometimes communications is a struggle in text words via the internet but a dose of tolerance can go a long way. For those that are offended please watch this. That's not to say uncivil behaviour isn't a problem on Wikipedia, because it is, but swearing is not a problem, although intolerance to swearing maybe. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Something needs to change with the way civility is enforced. There's way too many double standards and disagreements in what constitutes a personal attack and then an argument on content contributors vs civility. And the system where an admin can block and another can unblock shortly afterwards is quite frankly an embarrassment to the site. Often the unblock is the right solution, but by then it's too late, the drama and bitterness has broken out. Me personally I think the best solution would be to simply ignore it or have some editors who operate on here simply removing the more sweary personal attacks. That doesn't of course account for those who may be genuinely offended by something said and actually leave because of it. If not, then something more extreme is needed which completely does not tolerate anything whatsoever and overrules admins and prevents people from debating blocks or bans. It would seem pretty ludicrous to me to ban a veteran editor for instance for simply calling somebody a sweary name, and we'd lose most of our editors that way, but you'd have a stronger civility enforcement with severe consequences. It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself. A severe way to deal with it might be something like a 3 strikes and out scheme every year. Every year an editor is given three "lives" so to speak and one is taken away after something serious has been said in an attack and once all out the editor is banned for the remainder of the year which cannot be questioned. Whatever the case, IMO the power in enforcing civility needs to be taken away from administrators, at least in dealing with experienced editors over relatively minor incidents of "uncivility". Admins are a large part of the problem with causing unnecessary drama.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be too crude, prone to a bout of Christmastide truthtelling, but perhaps a system of demerit points would have advantages. I'm not really thinking of the system for driving that our article is about, but the older use of it in the educational system, though I've never actually seen it used (not sure why). The interesting aspect of such a numeric system is that it might invite the possibility that editors can work off demerits by useful editing. With so many admins acting as if 100,000 good edits can't make up for the one time that you cite a reliable source somebody doesn't want to have talked about, it would be veritably revolutionary to suggest that our infractions could be quantified and countered by a finite amount of useful work. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends how much you rate civility. At the end of a day we're an encyclopedia, so we should be trying to retain as many editors as possible and worry less about behaviour. Readers mostly aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes. But the way it is dealt with is clearly very poor and creates more problems than anybody can say in the first place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself." — This is exactly right and the central cause of the hubbub. We do (and should) put up with more antics from established, proven volunteer contributors than we do from drive-by IPs or new sock accounts of provocateurs. At some point, the cumulative antics offset the positive contributions and the bad actor is shown the door as a "net negative to the project." The problem lies in the fact that this is a slow process and there are some who are on a fast track to use civility rules to annihilate their enemies, real and imagined. These provocateurs are every bit as disruptive, if not moreso, than the handful of foul-mouthed and periodically ill-tempered yobs that go off every now and again. It all comes down to one's view of how WP content is generated: whether by a comparatively small handful of driven volunteers or through the mass contributions of tens of thousands through the magic of "crowdsourcing." I'd argue that in the case of the fairly well developed, heavily footnoted WP of 2014, it is the former and will quote Wehwalt on the matter: "We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor." — Carrite (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem being that 'something serious' interpretation - it will always be argued about. I'd prefer to see a mandatory brief 'cool down' ban (maybe 3 hours) for any one who directs incivility at the editor rather than the article, Getting sweary shouldn't be the issue - 'That's a c*nt of an article to improve' is different to 'You're a c*nt'. Instead of being debated to death at ANI these blocks should be instant and irreversible by any other admin. Its three hours... if anyone can't wear that (including at times when, if it had gone to ANI, they might not have received anything) then it probably is better that they go. Short, sharp, no appeal, no other admin changing it - lots of us will get slapped on the wrist and we'll all learn to be more careful. Those who don't like it will go. Those who collect substantial blocks won't need diffs on their behavior when it comes to a longer block, or ban, at ANI as the block list will tell the tale. It'd be chaos for a while but it would settle down and remove the trolls and attack dogs as well as reminding everyone to take a bit more time. AnonNep (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is correct, and part of the larger picture that has lead to problems is to do with the way civility is enforced. At present we have well over one thousand admins, most of them legacy admins who were appointed for life, way back when you had to do little more than ask in order to be an admin. There are no missions statements, nor is there the equivalent of a constitution. As a result there is no real direction, and admins just make up their own ideas about what they are here for. With such diverse and often woefully underqualified admins, it is no surprise civility blocks often blow up and are overturned. It is, for example, not uncommon for a loose cannon legacy admin who has never contributed significant content, to come out of semi-retirement and block a high profile content builder just because he can. Anomalies like this will continue until the current system for disciplining content builders is reformed. The ability to block experienced editors should never be part of the tool set for ordinary admins. Instead, able content builders should only be judged by their peers. A special disciplinary and resolution board should be set up, with members selected for their knowlege of the pressure content builders come under as well as their skills in conflict resolution. Then maybe we can start developing pride in the Wikipedia goverance of civility and related issues, instead of what we have today.--Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. First step Jimbo, and a major one, ban civility bans and the way they can be overturned by anybody. I think you've personally seen enough evidence of them creating unnecessary drama and complaints to ban them instantly. As Epi says, you really do need to distinguish between core editors and others. Given the time and content produced, the more you contribute, especially to core articles up to GA and FA status, the more likelihood heated debates are going to break out. So I think you do need to account for that, but I think any decision to impose civility blocks or bans on well established editors is something which needs to be decided by a special disciplinary and resolution board who have the power to make decisions which cannot be contested by anybody. And as Epi says, at least with some people within it who have much experience working under pressure. Then some more official guidelines in terms of sweary personal attacks and what is generally considered to be offensive or whatever need to be laid down if you're really going to enforce them evenly. And that goes for administrators too. In practice, editors really should be able to say what they want, and it does seem like a school having to have rules of civility, but I can at least see why some sort of control is needed within reason. The frequency of the civility warnings and provocative comments I see on here at the moment is one of the biggest problems in causing disruption and further ill feeling. It needs to be stopped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• My goodness, what horrible ideas. Epipelagic is going more of a Star Chamber direction of select committees and members investigating each other, whole Blofeld takes the Animal Farm route, suggesting that a class of editors should be privileged above another and subject to separate rules. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already taken the Animal Farm route. It just has a different set of privileged users. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Any of those ideas would be far superior Tarc to your 1880s wild western approach to dealing with incivility.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I...have no idea what that refers to. I'd have to hunt around for the link, but I believe the last time civility changes came up on Jimbo's page, my suggestion was actually quite the opposite of yours. I'd like to see a civility block put on a similar standing as an Arbcom block, in that it could not be removed by another admin on his/her own. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Tarc, the present set up is exactly how you like it. It maximises the drama mongering. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, if I liked it, I wouldn't be arguing against it. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but after your behavior in the Manning Case (both on and off wiki), I have a hard time taking at face value the ostensibly principle-driven arguments you make. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have in mind a way of getting more drama from it? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring Carrite's trolling and addressing a real comment...do you think it would create more drama if civility blocks were made harder to undo? The blocked party will certainly be out of commission for awhile, and thus making no waves outside of his/her own talk page. Their friends...which is really a part of the current problem, in that AN/I, RfCU and related places become more about how many supporters one cane line up...will certainly squawk, but that's nothing new. You'd have to measure the drama of such a person's continued, unfettered presence in the project vs. the drama that'd surround a hard-to-undo block. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If civility blocks such as the example I gave above are allowed to stand there will be a lot more drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• May I ask you Jimbo to seriously reflect on these thoughts by a serious but savaged content builder. I appreciate it's not easy if you've never been there. But you need to develop some empathy with the serious content builders, or the heart is going to be ripped out of this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether an editor deserves a block/ban or not. It doesn't matter if he/she is a major content contributor or not. It doesn't matter if she/he is a drama seeker or not. What DOES MATTER, is if an editor has a strong support/fan base or not. No matter what the situation, if he/she has a strong support/fan base? she/he will likely not serve an entire block or even get banned. PS: This goes for any editor. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"fan base" becomes much less relevant once it gets to arbitration. It becomes about precedents for conduct sanctions in previous cases...and also dependent the degree with which arbs investigate the evidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom most likely won't take a case, if there's no consensus among the participating editors, for them to accept it. Such a consensus won't come, if an editor's strong base opposes. If such an editor were to get banned? there'd possibly be a huge push to 'change' Arbcom. There would indeed be a big commotion. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of suggestions in previous discussions on this issue and managed to get no replies whatsoever! I'll try copying them here to see if I fare a little better. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment 1 - the BBC

The BBC is paid for by the (compulsory) licence fee and its programmes have message boards. That includes, 10 national TV stations (including BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament), 10 national radio stations, 40+ regional radio stations, BBC Worldwide etc. They employ professional moderators and they have levels of moderation and - deep breaths everyone, I'm going to put it out there - pre-moderation (a delay between posting and the message appearing while it is moderated). There are levels to moderation and areas where moderation is more concentrated, a message board for a gardening programme would receive little attention, BBC news which will have threads about the current conflict between Israel and Palestine would receive considerably more attention. Individual accounts which have been problematic in the past may become subject to pre-moderation on everything they post. Excessive swearing is edited out (with a note to say the post has been edited).

What's interesting is the reason the BBC gives in its FAQs to the question "Why must we have moderation on BBC boards?" Answer ".... Moderation is necessary so all users can participate in discussions without fear of intimidation by other users or being subjected to offensive content. Also, people may intentionally or unintentionally post content that is unlawful, putting themselves as well as the BBC at risk of legal action. Moderation helps avoid expensive legal action that could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers' money...." I was surprised when I read it I was expecting something more along the lines of it being the right thing to do, or at least the money argument coupled with a statement that its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure if this BBC-link to the moderation board full FAQs will work outside the UK but anyway... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment 2 - Trigger Street

I used to be a member of Trigger Street Labs, a website founded by Kevin Spacey and his business partner Dana Brunetti where people get feedback for screenplays, short stories and short fims. There is a credit process - review another member's work and you earn a credit, attach the credits to your own piece of work to make it rise to the top of the pile of scripts. There is also a jury system to prevent people gaming the system, an obvious way of earning a lot of credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, "the characters in this screenplay are very interesting", request another assignment, copy and paste, earn credit, and repeat.

The site had a Hall Of Justice for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you think it has happened then the ref. no. from the other review is submitted as evidence), reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review that the reviewer definitely read / watched the submission. If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ. Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level (like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint (e.g. "I think this review is a cut & past of ref. # 'x' ...."). The arbitrator who received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the docket (e.g. "The reviewer has cut and pasted their review from another review") and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add. The same docket goes to a number of different random arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is a limit to how many dockets a single member can request in 24 hrs.)

If the majority think it should go further, it is passed on to the jury. The key thing about it is, in the first instance it is other members with a basic account that make the decision, a similar system could possibly work for disputes on Wikipedia. Ironically the message boards were a mess with one of them called the "Free for all" message board. I also mentioned, at the top of this talk page (just prior to the section Early response from BHG & LB), how BBC message boards are moderated - so it never escalates to that point of needing arbitration in the first place. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Professional staff, pre-moderating comments would mean there would be no need for blocks / bans. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While your ideas are appreciated and worthy of examination I do not think either idea would play well on this website for a variety of reasons.--MONGO 02:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Professional staff pre-moderating comments would indeed mean that there would be no need for most blocks and bans. It would also mean that Wikipedia would be an entirely different entity than it is now. The number of professional staff who would be required to moderate the comments would be substantial, probably considerably more than the current number of developers and other WMF employees. The WMF censors would be far more unpopular with the volunteer editors than WMF developers are. It is likely that the cost would exceed achievable donation revenue, and that the transformed Wikipedia would have to be advertising-funded, something that Wikipedia has never done and does not plan to do. In view of the visibility of a transformed Wikipedia, it would still be so much of a target for POV-pushers that it would probably have to maintain a list of banned users simply to save the time of the moderators, so that the need for bans would not be entirely eliminated anyway. It would be a very different compendium of knowledge than Wikipedia is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A pilot scheme would only have a small number of professional staff. They may prove unpopular with volunteer editors who enjoy their bad behaviour, but I think they would also generate new editors and improve retention among civil editors (which is the point of doing it). I think that, just like the BBC boards, there are areas that generate worse behaviour than others, there are also topics that are "hot" for while. It is also difficult to say what it would do for donations, the result could be positive with potential donors having greater faith in Wikipedia's ability to police itself. I didn't envisage that there would be no need for bans whatsoever, just that the current cat-and-mouse over short-term bans / blocks and the personal politics that circulate around temporary bans / blocks would be ameliorated.

In any case something has to change, I just read in another discussion that there were no RFAs for August or September and that long-time admins are quitting. That's unsustainable. From other discussions I get the same impression that you mentioned in your opening post about either relaxing or restating the civility issue. I've read comments from people who are from the "pro-incivility camp" who argue that content is king, and that editors of merit will survive the kicking process. That begs the question, "What is the point of having a civility pillar at all?" I think the pro-incvility ideology fails when it comes to the vulnerable in our society who have valuable contributions to make. Making sure that they are heard would turn Wikipedia into "a very different compendium of knowledge", but I think the change would be a positive one. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The fight against incivility is Wikipedia's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. The easier it is for editors to turn on one another in disciplinary proceedings, the more they will find ways to express their contempt for one another for doing so. The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way. It may be possible to make limited policies that prohibit incivility from being shown in certain forms, such as overt threats of violence, but it is not possible to empty the human heart with policy. The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them. Wnt (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The fight against incivility is Wikipedia's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. ... The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them. - Do you have any evidence to support this Wnt? Or anything that suggests the BBC's way of moderating its message boards has had a backlash? A recent survey of how the British are perceived internationally showed that 46% of those questioned regarded 'politeness and good manners' were the best characteristic of the British. The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way. No comment or content should be censored, only the way that it is phrased is subject to scrutiny. "I don't think that is correct." is a civil version of "That's just f**king stupid!" There is no justification for using the second phrase. Poor retention of editors due to incivility is a form of censorship and the cloud that Wikipedia is currently living under. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying hard not to get started on the British. Put it this way: when French intelligence agents pulled aside an admin here a while back and tried to get him to delete something, Wikipedians made fun of them,^[3] but just recently when the British Foreign Office briefly tried to get media not to say David Haines' name, oversighters and ultra high echelon admins went full mad trying to keep the name totally suppressed anywhere on Wikipedia, deleting AfDs and such, long after even the British press had started printing the name (everyone else had been from the start; his wife was giving interviews). This isn't the first time I've seen weird special treatment for issues regarding that particular country. I think some high-level authorities here forget sometimes that Wikipedia isn't an arm of the British government (like the BBC actually is), even to the degree that I seriously start to wonder if it is (cf. ECHELON), but in any case, no, I'm not feeling like admiring the British right now, nor the BBC, and I definitely have no desire to emulate them. Lady Liberty is an ugly bitch, and we love her! Wnt (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Did you know Eric was in fact a secret Mossad agent based in an undercover cell in Langham Place?! 109.144.231.169 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by that, but if you're being dismissive, I do suggest you see some of the published reports regarding media manipulation.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9]} So the thing to ask is not whether it is paranoid to think they would tamper with Wikipedia, but rather, is Wikipedia special? Has Wikipedia managed to make itself immune from their interventions where news reporting, Hollywood, social media, search engines, and others have failed? I doubt it. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Employing professional staff to pre-moderate comments on the grounds of civility has nothing to do with the examples of censorship mentioned such as the French Foreign Office. Also, BBC programming and the moderating of the BBC's message boards are two different things. Having said that, David Haines wiki-link that has been posted links to a dab page, but I presume you mean this: David Haines. According to the Independent newspaper "Mr Haines’ identity had been kept secret for 19 months to avoid worsening his situation as a captive but the kidnapping was made public following the video’s [of Isis threatening to behead him] release." (link to article).

Discussions about moderating comments for civility as though they were censorship, rather than what they actually are - ending the existing censorship reminds me of this quote from Orwell's 1984 "... at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. ... There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. ... The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've seen these policies abused. I've seen more than one editor get frustrated with admins trying to claim that he violated policy by trying to make his point, then use civility as a coup de grace when he lashes out and calls them "control freaks". I've seen an editor being cyberbullied off-site keelhauled for saying there was a conspiracy against him... when there was! It's one thing to look at an overall pattern of disruptive editing that is fundamentally useless and take action, but it's something else again to say that you can pull out one frustrated comment and take action against someone. And "civility" here generally refers to the latter. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds more like a argument in favour of professionals - as opposed to admins - rather than an argument against. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that professionals are immune from bias on the underlying issues, and definitely I would expect them to crack down hard on any back-talk because they wouldn't want to be seen as being on a level with the unpaid people they block, otherwise why are they paid? But above all of these is a risk that they simply implement orders from a central command to suppress various types of information. My feeling is that the admins are already too professional, and that a jury system would give better results. Wnt (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everybody, is this file still accurate? I just added it to the Workplace incivility page and I am not sure, because I noticed in the meantime, it was on the Commons:Deletion requests in 2012. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this absolutely doesn't belong in an article - not unless a "reliable source" cites it as a symbol of incivility. Half a dozen Wikipedia editors using a graphic is not a sourced indication that it's relevant to the topic. But -- the source you were elaborating in the body in that edit would be worth explaining further, specifically, could you detail what they mean about incivility coming from "asymmetric global interaction"? Wnt (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "Allegedly contributes good content" part of what you said Jimmy. You might not like Eric but he has most certainly contributed a lot of decent content here and at the end of the day it's a volunteer community. He's not being paid to edit. This isn't a formal workplace with salaries, dress and behaviour codes. It is odd that you consider civility more important than content given that it's an encyclopedia, but I can at least understand why you consider him to be a problem. At least acknowledge that he has produced good content though rather than "allegedly" good content, even if you can't stand him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo if you feel so strongly about Eric and those of his ilk, why don't you just block them now - you are still an Admin after all. Either put your money where your mouth is or be quiet. Venting on your high profile talk page is just whipping up the very same ill feeling and hatred of which you accuse others of creating. Is that your intention, or are you hoping that others will do the deed for you? You know very well that if you, or indeed any other editor, has a complaint against a fellow editor there is a correct place and procedure for making that complaint. So make your complaint officialy or drop it. Giano (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

He did say he would but that he didn't want people thinking it was a personal vendetta.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• So Jimbo cares more for his personal reputation than that which he believes to be the good of the project? I don't think so. He knows very well that if he made an official complaint it's unlikely that the majority and the Arbcom would agree with him. Surprising perhaps to you, I too wish that Eric would moderate his language sometimes; however, on an encyclopedia content is king, rather than an individual who shouts and complains from the safety of the sidelines. Jimbo need to leave the safety of his page and make this official or be quiet.Giano (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, just found Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales which describes how his role works including Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales#Blocking_and_unblocking_users. Learn something specific everyday. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric's got more people who support the work he does than a lot of editors combined so I think it would be the inevitable massive backlash which would result from him being the one to ban him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, you make it sound as if there's a big gang. So that anyone who challenges Eric over his obnoxious vile insults, for the good of others, will face violent retribution. Like gang warfare really. 109.154.154.81 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• From what I've heard elsewhere, Jimbo does not exercise his authority over matters here, by and large, which is a good thing. I regard the thoughts here as his personal ones, which he and other people here are welcome to have.
• In general, I find the following rule of thumb sensible: incivility threshold should be lower in a more public place. Related, but separate: there should be a higher incivility threshold on user talk pages, than article talk pages. User talk pages function more as chatting between people. There should be a still higher threshold on your own talk page. This does not mean that gross incivility is permitted; just the threshold is higher. To give my own sense of thresholds (not prescriptive), Sitush's comments would not fall within the threshold, but an occasional "fuck off, don't post on my page again" on your own talk page is fine. This can be tweaked: WP:BITE always applies, and so on, but you get the basic idea. Talk page guidelines do not mention anything specific, perhaps this should be considered. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think you're reading that statement the wrong way. Original, between the commas was "... and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole...". 'allegedly great content contributions' follows with driving content away etc. This doesn't seem to be a diss on the content of Editor X but an opinion that in creating that content Editor X's incivility and influence - always apologised for by them or others - and the example it makes, drives away other potentially great content contributors such as Editor's Y, Z, A, B, C etc. AnonNep (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is still false. Read Enid Blyton for instance, that allegedly wrote itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It struck me as a permutation of the old "Not A Real Wikipedian" canard when I first read it. As has been mentioned above, the fundamental cause of the controversy relates to differing levels of importance that people place upon "community values" vs. "content creation." For some the most important thing about WP is the aspect of "community" — the Wikipedia process itself has an almost metaphysical significance. Those who act abrasively and obnoxiously and with a mean-spirit are a very serious, serious problem indeed for those who feel the Wikipedia-crowdsourcing process is responsible for continued content generation and health of the project. At the other pole are those who feel the encyclopedia is what matters, not the romanticized and often dysfunctional process, and that it's a matter of simple math: so long as crabby people that sometimes act like jerks do more good than harm, they should be endured — or better yet, ignored. The wise slogan "Don't feed the trolls" has a corollary: Don't feed the grouches. There are some people who are just here for the drama, however, and they like to either poke the grouches to cause them to roar or else stalk the grouches so that they can throw drama petrol onto every spark. Those are the people who really need to be shown the door, if you ask me — they're the "net negatives to the project" that cause these enormous controversies over stupid crap that is easily ignored. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Whatever it is, it is not binary. Why do we want editors who focus on ideas and not individuals, per our civility policy, because this project is about ideas, and the more focus on personalities the worse-off, it is. Moreover, it is often incongruous to hear, 'we must give leeway, to this or that person' by some who then turn around and argue, 'not a social network', because it is those who argue, 'we must give leeway to this or that person' that seem to be make the Pedia into a social network. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC) (struck stray word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

• Sorry Alanscottwalker, I'm not a native English speaker, could you rephrase the above for me; it's left me confused. Giano 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Not binary means, not this or that (as the comment I was responding to suggested) . . . and . . . our civility policy advises discussing ideas and not people, and that goes along well with being an encyclopedia (perhaps a simplfying quote helps [10]). . . and . . . one is arguing for a social network, when one argues that a particular editor needs special dispensation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton and The Magic Faraway Tree aside, (theoretically) I read it as how does protecting one great content contributor, who's behaviour drives off another couple of dozen potentially great content contributors, equal a net gain for Wikipedia? It doesn't, so the first is an 'allegedly great' content contributor because, while we can point to what they have done, we don't what net loss they're causing to the project as a whole. AnonNep (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because when Eric knuckles down and avoids the drama and improves content from what I've seen his editing skills are worth those of several dozen of some of the editors we have here combined. Yes, there's a few editors as capable, but I've yet to encounter a better general article copyeditor, and how quickly he is able to turn around sloppy prose into something approaching FA standard, not to mention putting order into sourcing and sorting out mess. How many great content contributors who produce FAs or dramatically increase the standards of prose in articles exactly have all left because of Eric? I do honestly wish that he'd avoid saying certain things at times, purely for avoiding the response from others and time wasting if nothing else, but there is a reason why he's still here, and that's because a lot of us have first had experience of what he produces when he puts his mind to it which is pretty valuable. There is nothing "alleged" about it. While it is true that if we lost Eric, content production wouldn't cease or the project internally implode, but at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia who relies on a very small group of contributors to produce the goods. And a lot of people on here know this, which is why he's still here. Most "uncivil" disputes involve a range of people being uncivil Carrite, why do you think he's the only guilty part in it? In most of the disputes I've seen Eric involved in, while he could have avoided saying something in the first place, the response and behaviour from others at times has been every bit as abrasive, even worse, and I see a lot of double standards which go unpunished. If civility is so important to building an encyclopedia, then standards needs to be evenly enforced and it needs to extend to how people bully others psychologically on here too, if not direct sweary attacks. If Eric has to be shown the door for it, what about the many editors on here who exist purely to trolls forums and editors brandishing the civil stick and trying to provoke people into being blocked? What about the many editors who display astounding ignorance towards content and try to AFD notable articles and are uncivil when they don't get their way? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that interpretation flies. He didn't say "allegedly great content contributor", he said "their allegedly great content contributions". DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Same difference. The quality of what they've produced doesn't outweigh the quality of those they may have driven away. AnonNep (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But who precisely (name names) has Eric driven away, or is this conjecture on your part? Giano (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My responses were on the use of the phrase 'allegedly great content contributions' not what the OP meant by it. AnonNep (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if one is upset by what an editor posts on his/her talkpage? then the solution is simple. Remove that editor's talkpage from your watchlist. If an editor is being obnoxious to you? merely sidestep them & concentrate on the topic/not the editor. As I mentioned at Wikipedia: WikiProject Editor Retention, the best aproach is to be calm. There's been too much reporting of editors & dramatics. Concentrate on the content & things will go more smoothly. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AnonNep. The "take a chill pill / survival of the fitest" attitude to incivility goes against the civility pillar and drives potentially great editors away. If the system needs changing to deal with incivility without being drawn into dramatics then be bold and change it. That way will attract greater diversity amongst editors, more charitable donations to the foundation and improve content. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to my current status, I shall neither support or oppose such attempts to tighten or loosen WP:CIVIL application. I do predict that there'll be a huge fight ahead, however. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am struck by the irony that in a discussion about measures to improve civility there should be so much talk of potential "backlashes" and "huge fights". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that changes could be made that neither tighten nor loosen existing restrictions, yet improve the situation. The biggest problem is that WP:Civility is 24k of mealy-mouthed blather that gives almost no idea what is acceptable and what isn't. Admins here seem to like ambiguity so that editors can't "game the system" -- problem is, the harder it is for editors to game the system because of the rule's vagueness, the easier it is for the admins to game the system, to protect those they like and punish those they don't. I actually tried editing down the policy, with very little change, to about 8k at WT:Civility/sandbox. Bugs in the existing policy include that it doesn't reference WP:EQ except in the navboxes, while restating big chunks of other policies, and it links to sexual harassment de novo in a very weak way because it's not part of WP:HARASS (I commented on that before, but no action). The appeal of a non-vague policy is that instead of trying to ban every hostile sentiment of the human heart, you could pick out just a few key things that are important and try to be fairly serious about them. Now, I lack confidence even that is a useful thing to do, but such a policy would be far easier for editors to follow (a.k.a. "game") than what we have now. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe a tightening of WP:CIVIL is coming. It will (regretfully) cause some editors to retire, but newbies will replace them. Thus is the nature of Wikipedia, always changing. We'll all have to adjust our conduct in the future. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't be enforced on many guys, mostly on uppity women. A woman can get a topic ban for a few frustrated outbursts against BLP-violating harassers, but a guy gets a 24 hour block for making threats/jokes about shooting other editors, including possibly me. We'll see how it works out getting the Foundation or Admins or Arbitrators taking a relevant case to let me know just what the threat really was. Male violence rules and females who object to it are made fools???? Well, that's the way of the world. Let's see if Wikipedia can set a higher standard. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I think we're both appalled at the very person-specific responses to civility around here. I tend to see the admin excesses, and my innate reaction is to take away their power so everyone is on a level. You seem to be hoping that they can be made to enforce the same strict standards on everyone. But what we both agree is that unfairness is a bad thing, and a clearer standard, whether strict or loose, is better than a vague one of the same intensity. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot emphasise this enough - if Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off, ignore it. Per WP:NPA, "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact". Have a look at an article Eric took through FAC - Moors Murders and read what happened to those victims - things really do pale in comparison when you've digested what's been written there. Do I condone such language? Not at all, I simply tolerate it to the best extent I can, while simultaneously setting a good example myself, and trust people can make up their own minds about whether what's said in a discussion is justified. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's the kind of place you want WP to be, fine. But the problem, as Carolmooredc pointed out, is that inconsistencies of civility enforcement mean that not everyone would get that pass you want to give Eric, and that people whom admins have taken against, for reasons fair or foul, would live in fear of being leapt on for trivial infractions. Or we could tighten civility and make this a calmer and happier place to be – sadly though, that won't happen, because certain sections of the community have a habit of flaming whoever they take a dislike to. BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer that Wikipedia not be dominated by pedantic walls of text littered with blue links that are intended to sustain passive-aggressive attacks against other users. Sadly, that form of incivility is nowhere near as "sexy" as cursing, so very little is done about it. A fair number of solid contributors have been driven off by such users and their tactics (either through engineered blocks/bans or by frustration), but apparently that loss isn't considered vital. Intothatdarkness 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignore it? Tolerate it? You have quoted an essay which opposes the spirit of civility pillar in every way, and then you have quoted NPA policy from a section which is clearly headed "First offenses and isolated incidents", and ask that it should be applied on any ocassion that Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off - I cannot emphasise enough that that is a contradiction. The first time an editor does it, or if it's an isolated incident, then it's a friendly warning. After that they are knowingly in breach of WP:NPA and should expect action to be taken against them. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors found to be uncivil could be restriced to using an account with a username of the form "Eric Corbett X". Newcomers will be told about these "Eric Corbett editors", that will mitigate most of the problems some newcomers face when they encounter uncivil editors for the first time here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Around the time I became active on Wikipedia in 2006, an arbitration decision captured the core of the civility policy in one sentence: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." If there's a reason we can't aspire to that at least as a baseline, I don't know what it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The baseline moves with some editors to fit whatever it is they say. Jimbo has this right and if Eric is so offended by it....he can stop adding content at any time or start trying to be more civil.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User-created free video versions or articles and/or related multimedia

Hi Jimmy, would you be kind enough to let me know what your position is on User-generated free video content?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SidurisAdvice.webm 166.137.8.20 (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that's almost certainly a copyright violation. A "fan club" can't just take work by the person they are fans of and upload it to Wikipedia. This is separate from any questions relating to what kinds of video are appropriate for Wikimedia Commons. If you want my answer on that, it will be very different from the answer of the community there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is a "fan club" permitted to take work by a person they are fans of and upload it to Wikia, as in this example, this example, this example, this example, this example, this example, and this example, and then Wikia profit from the ads surrounding the copyrighted content? Checking the checkers (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What do these girls have to do to get their free user-created videos onto Wikipedia?

If their video does not have high production quality their video is not used because it is not "professional enough", exhibit A:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siduri%27s_Advice.webm

If their video has high production quality their video is not used because it is "almost certainly a copyright violation", exhibit B:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=627159434&oldid=627159052

For the record, just because a User may have model quality looks, great speaking ability and can make a beautiful production quality video, does not automatically mean that their video is copyrighted material. The use of the term "fan club" is irrelevant as it refers to an ancient Mesopotamian Goddess/philosopher Siduri. Indeed, there is actually NO evidence whatsoever that this is copyrighted material. The video does not exist anywhere else on the internet. Has not been published or copyrighted. The only version of this video that exists is on Commons, where it was released as free content. Please remember to WP:AGF. Some of us are doing our best to improve WP...

66.14.164.195 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, would you consider supporting the creation of Wikiproject-Video (or some such similar name) which would be focused on facilitating the creation of free User-recorded/edited video content for Wikipedia? Is this in line with your vision for Wikipedia's future? 66.14.164.195 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough Already

You need to consider locking this whole thing down, then polishing it for a final edition. You once needed an army of anonymous volunteers (all with varying degrees of qualifications and intentions) to build this project... but not it's built. Keep continuing like this, and it will start to erode and deteriorate. - ^theWOLFchild 07:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is a good point to start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting on my AGF hat here: Anyone thinking that Wikipedia is already "built" really hasn't probed too deeply. Of course, with no central direction it is hard steering any random person that wants to write on something new to deficiencies as they arise. Have a Mississippi High School: Amanda Elzy High School. Here's another one I just found Charleston Orphan House, the first public orphanage in the USA and the subject of a new monograph by John E. Murray (University of Chicago Press, 2013). And here is one for the gnomes that needs attention: Thomas Wilson Dorr. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I had my friends on Wikipediocracy plugging their ears and singing "LaLaLaLa!!!" over the question of whether Wikipedia is improving or degrading. The trend towards improvement is unmistakable: just hit the random article button 10 times (or 50 times or 300 times...) and compare the current state of the article to the first stable state of that same article in the edit history. Nearly 100% have either improved or stayed more or less the same — which means that there is no inherent dynamic for editable WP articles to "degrade," that they are improving... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carrite, I happened to see this on my watch list. I'm not sure whether that's the best test of improvement. By way of analogy. The question is really whether WP is fulfilling and keeping pace with user expectations and whether it's keeping pace with alternative sources of information. I don't have an opinion, but I note that Sears, Barnes and Noble, Best Buy and other retailers are offering much better web and bricks and mortar shopping experiences than 10 years ago while at the same time losing ground to other competitors who are improving at a faster rate. It's a tough subject to evaluate. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, I'm not quite sure how to apply this insight to our situation. I can tease out two separate questions from what you've written. The first is, are we keeping up with our competition? Well, we don't normally think in that way but one reason we don't is that we don't really have "competition" who are doing what we are doing. Britannica? WebMD? Anyway, if that's the question, I guess one answer is that there is no one obviously outpacing us. The second is, are we improving as fast as we could? That's a very valid and very interesting question, but of course doesn't invalidate the point that the original poster (like thousands before him) is mistaken to claim that Wikipedia needs to be locked because it will "start to erode and degrade". There's simply no evidence for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed all language Wikipedias have their own unique way of doing things, so it might be worth looking into that for comparisons. Obviously English Wikipedia is on top, but if there are things we can learn from them - things we like and think all Wikipedia's should have (be it the cosmetic aspect of sites, Wikiprojects, the way the community is structures etc) - we could streamline some aspects.--Coin945 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrite and just to be contrary, your test is a good sign that the quality of individual articles improve over time, thats not the same thing as saying wikipedia is improving over time. For example, if you do that random test now, and that random test again in a year, what to the quality histograms look like compared to each other? If every article improves at 10% per year, but a billion new articles are created at quality 0.1 is that improving or degrading the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole? Or course to be valid, one would need to maybe weigh the articles by which ones are actually read, or important - if one assumes a somewhat stable "core" of articles, those probably are improving steadily (except the ones that are politically/socially controvercial, which I think are engaged in a constant war of the tides ) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the point you are making, but I don't think it invalidates what Carrite is saying other than in some extreme cases that don't appear to be the case. Yes, we should worry not just about whether articles that have existed for N years have improved, but whether new articles are bringing the average quality down. But without any reason to believe that latter (for example if someone tries to create a billion stubs), I am pretty comfortable with looking at random articles to see how they are doing as a reasonable first cut at showing that Wikipedia is continuing to improve. A more sophisticated analysis might try to look at specific areas of Wikipedia. For example, we might have steady progress in technology articles but very weak or no progress in humanities topics. I don't think so, but I'm acknowledging that more in-depth study is likely valuable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Think of your example like a sports team: There's the star players (featured articles), the second-stringers (good articles), and the others that don't get a lot of attention. If a bunch of rookies (new articles) get added to the team, what would the coach do? Probably work to make them better players rather than kicking them off the team. Is the team improving overall? Maybe not short-term, but definitely long-term. The difference here is that we're not really competing in a set time frame or having to work within a maximum number of players, so that weakens the short-term badness. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

individually, one guy isn't making a billion stubs (Although there are some that seem to be trying). Collectively it might be close ;), Personally I have run into

• An article for every episode of the pink panther animated show, all sourced to one single book about the show that had a synopsis for each episode Prehistoric_Pink
  • Along with almost every other tv show that airs
• Article for pretty much every televised MMA match
• An article for every player of every sport past the school level (Scan any random day of the new page list, and count how many are soccer players or clubs)
  • a random smattering that are on the new page list right now F.C. Haifa Stephanie McCarthy 1902–03 Southampton F.C. seasonBilly Baker (footballer born 1894)
• every election in 1800 wales Aberdare Urban District Council election, 1894
• Every geographical feature of germany Striegis
• Every plant/bacteria/animal Geum coccineum (Dwarf orange avens) Commersonia borealis
• Every individual military (and in some cases commercial) ocean vessel RV Sally Ride (AGOR-28)

And I'm sure others are aware of a great many others in similar situations. Personally I would like to see more content encouraged to be moved to wikia. Game of Thrones deserves an article or two. Does every episode and char require an article? No. Move it to http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/

Also, I think WP:N should be tightened up to say something about "If sources (an encyclopedia, book, etc) collectively cover every individual X, that is a sign that the collection is notable, not each individual item" and likewise "If sources A, B and C WP:ROUTINEly reviews every periodic instance of X, every instance is not notable, only the ones that gain non-routine coverage."

Now, are these articles degrading the quality of the FAs? no. But they are noise, and noise that takes up considerable admin and editor time for very little value. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality never was our strong suit, and quantity always was. Quantity is one of the only advantages we have over traditional encyclopedias. If we get rid of it, then we won't have any advantage over Encyclopedia Britannica or other encyclopedias. So people will go to Britannica. What we need is more articles, not fewer. Under the current notability guidelines, there are tens of millions of topics that can have articles. If anything, we should loosen the notability criteria slightly. I'm not an extreme inclusionist who thinks everything should have an article, but there are many guidelines that are stricter than WP:GNG (for instance WP:NEVENT), and that should be changed. Everyone should help with adding more articles. You say that the articles are not interesting or useful to anyone, but that is patently untrue--they are undoubtedly considered worthy be the experienced, good-faith editors who create them. And the readers too may be interested in these topics, even if you are not. --Jakob (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Expansion of quantity is an improvement of Wikipedia just like improvement of quality is. The point above that average quality might be falling even though nearly 100% of articles improve over time from first state is valid — although it is not a concern unless one feels that a new, bad article on a topic not previously covered is worse than no article at all. So long as the new, weak article is better than nothing, quantitative expansion implies qualitative improvement. I'm also not concerned about sourced articles on very minor topics — Wikipedia is, in practice, an encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. It is something that is valued by our readers. We can be dismissive of the popular culture trivia, sure, but it's an important part of the entity for most people doing a quick query on their smartphones. I especially don't think that such fare should be systematically farmed off to a for-profit Wiki entity. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I too find every episode of Pink Panther a bit excessive for having an individual article, that is a personal preference and I would find myself strongly supporting keeping an article on every animal/bacteria/virus/etc. Ignoring and recognizing our own personal and collective "I don't like it" knee-jerk reactions is more important than ever at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Unlikely, but who knows some day a collection of Wikipedia articles on the parks and structures of Walla Walla, Washington are all that remains for historians to go on as far as knowing where to do an archaeological dig about 21st century life in eastern Washington. I'm sure the Sumerian student writing with his stylus on a clay tablet didn't realize one day his lesson would be studied and important to our understanding of their grammar and life.Camelbinky (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A mass strike and boycott?

There is a discussion over at Eric's page about planning a major boycott of Wikipedia, with many of the core community going on strike. Just thought I'd make you aware of this public information in case you hadn't stumbled across it. (Please note I am just the messenger and am not involved in any of this)--Coin945 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld: "If you can get 100 core editors of wikipedia to leave the website for a full month with a specific request to the foundation then I think they'd start to notice. The impression I get is that they have a naive outlook on wikipedia development and think that even if we lose contributors there'll be more along to take their place. The impression I've always got is that they consider the ip or newbie who adds some unsourced content in entries and the seasoned editor who writes featured articles as all in one class, "editor". I don't think they truly appreciate the "core community" or if they do they their efforts to interact are very poor.."

Eric: "The boycott is underway, it's no threat."

[Insert diff of above dicussion.

Isn't it traditional to make your demands clear when engaging in a boycott? All I can see here is that you want the foundation to "start to notice", anything more specific? Chillum 17:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... this has nothing to do with me. I'm just the messenger.--Coin945 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Chillum was being sarcastic. I don't recommend it in written communication because so much depends on the nonverbal - too easy to misinterpret. Still, as I've done below, I can't resist on occassion. Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic, I was sincerely wondering what the boycott is all about. What is it trying to accomplish? Chillum 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OMG! The encyclopedia will blow up and leave a crater where it used to be! Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, who is Eric? Nyth83 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How long have you got? I'll be back in a few with some diffs, otherwise I'll be here all day, and I have some content that I want to work on... No, on second thought, I'm not going to waste my time. In a nutshell, he is a long-time editor whose work is admired by many and whose behavior is defended by mostly the same many. He thinks that having a civility policy is a mistake, and he regularly drops the word "cunt" into discussions.[11] FWIW, he used to edit under the name Malleus Fatuorum. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was actually just fishing for a link to this supposed strike discussion. Nyth83 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Here:--Coin945 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did find it on my own about 8.3 seconds before you replied. Pretty funny reading for people who take themselves to seriously. Nyth83 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So that thread started 29 days ago and ended 23 days ago. Not much happening drama to stir there... Carrite (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What is a "core community"? Is it Eric, Dr B and a few others? If so, why do they describe themselves as core and by implication others as peripheral? 122.177.153.68 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably they're the highest scorers in Wikipedia:The Core Contest? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I'll tell you, you can improve Wikipedia's core, "most important articles" all you want, but if those articles are the handsome face of WP, then its porn articles are that face's big, black eye. If a dozen good editors cleaned up that cesspool of bad sources floating BLP turds... Holy cow! I'm wrapping up my business there in the next day or two as a promise to someone whose advice I try to respect, but WP porn articles make it hard for me to endorse the project. [Drops mic] Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's your hint: if you wanna get rid of that bilge, the first step is conducting a RFC to have the Special Notability Guideline for Porn actors removed and winning a consensus there. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models is the relevant link. Putting porn stars to the same test that regular film stars must face, or meeting GNG, would eliminate about 95% of them in one fell swoop. There have been a number of people at AfD who have indicated that an SNG for porn actors is an absurdity and the debate on eliminating that would be very interesting. I'm not sure how that turns out. Carrite (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I promised someone that I'd leave the (porn) project, and I just did. Frankly, I think they should spin-off (or whatever it's called) Wikipornia or Pornopedia or something like that, but I'm washing my hands of that WP back-alley for now. (Actually, I'm off for a decontamination shower and then lunch.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Come on now people, if you're going to start a thread on Jimbo's page, shouldn't you think long and hard about whether it is really worthwhile first? This is the most high profile editor talk page on the project (whoops: after Eric's, lol). The "the boycott is underway" comment is from August 30, and from one of the most drama-creating authors on the project. And Blofield's "100 core" comment is September 3. They are blowing off steam. Neither are apparently participating in this alleged event. If anyone is looking for articles to write I can identify loads of topics to take your mind off creating topics here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Malleus get banned? If not, it's a shame. Thought that's why I hadn't seen the annoying SOB in a while.Camelbinky (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Camelbinky....Corbett is essentially banned from this usertalk but even if he wasn't, that sort of comment is unhelpful.--MONGO 20:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's amazing. I keep saying "there probably are only 100 editors on wikipedia who are chronically insulting and uncivil and get away with it" and that's just the number Eric comes up with. Great minds think alike! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that what this "strike" will achieve is somewhat (at best) obscure. I also agree that I can't see any real value in a debate here on JW's talk page - although there's absolutely nothing wrong with one editor notifying another of a discussion. What puzzles me more is this attitude that a strike will cause some kind of harm or damage. Self-evidently the main space contributions of these editors (and many more) have made wikipedia a valuable first line reference.

So, let me post a thought. Lock the database right now, totally. The work already done is valuable for at least 10, probably 30 and maybe 100 years - longer as digital-archaeological research. The "Ah, well I could have made it better but screw you" line is unfortunate. Yes, indeed, we want it better. The argument of these people seems to be it will be made worse. Regretfully for them that's not true. It will just become outdated. So have many things. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why these editors are leaving anything behind is beyond me. It won't even have a noticeable dip in article edits, and if they want change, they should make it. Leaving Wikipedia behind only serves to illustrate the foundation's point. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be a mass strike & boycott. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising

The WMF has an active, and very successful, fundraising effort that provides ample funds to support WMF operations, staff and grants. It seems that none of it goes directly into content building -- is that correct? (I looked at wmf:Frequently asked questions, but that is now rather out-of-date). How would you feel about a parallel fund-raising drive aimed specifically at supporting content creation, via scholarships, fellowships, and similar grants to academics and subject matter experts? Could that be made compatible with the issues around paid editing, and set up to support rather than compete with existing WMF fundraising? Is that something worth pursuing? Deltahedron (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have a unified fundraiser and to discuss, in serious detail, what would be some cost effective means of supporting content creation. I don't think there are any serious obstacles around "paid editing" (which has never been the real issue, as compared to COI/paid advocacy editing).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that paid editing is not seen as an obstacle to this. Here's an example of the sort of thing I had in mind. Next year there will be a large gathering of the UK mathematics community in Cambridge, which graduate students are encouraged to attend, and various organisations and companies support the event by providing bursaries to remit the registration fees or expenses for selected students. It would be great to have an edit-a-thon at or in association with the event to try and clear the backlog of requests at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics (several hundreds of them at the moment). It would be even greater to ne able to offer a bursary to every graduate student who took part. That would cost money. The possible alternatives -- and I hasten to say that I am not on the organising committee for this event! -- might be (1) raise funds independently and not mention Wikipedia/WMF at all (2) raise funds independently and use Wikipedia/WMF trademarks, logos etc by permission (3) raise funds jointly with WMF as a co-branded exercise under the WMF banner (4) raise money for the existing general WMF pot using this as an example of where it would go (5) not attempt to raise funds but simply apply for a grant from existing WMF funds. Which of these would be preferable/acceptable/objectionable, would you say? Deltahedron (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• As an aside, on this topic, I'd like to see funds raised used to extend the reach of the existing content (and I don't see a decline/crisis in content creation that requires paid contributions). I use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a source quite regularly (via my Library card - its a subscription service) and noticed they had recently started a series of podcasts of their articles. I'd love to see Wikipedia use some of that money to do the same with Featured articles. Not only would it benefit the sight impaired (as an alternative to text readers) but, as a former public Librarian, I've seen what a wide reach 'audio books' (and audio content) can have for a variety of those without a sight impairment (those with literacy challenges and pretty much anyone with time to listen - joggers, walkers, non-TV types, regular commuters/drivers etc), especially as local Libraries are establishing or expanding online collections. AnonNep (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If only the Wikimedia shop had more to offer, there would be no need for a fundraiser. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? I'm very skeptical of the idea that Wikipedia could be funded by (for example) more t-shirt sales. And it is unclear to me why it would be better to (for example) start hawking wares (with a small profit margin) rather than just asking people for support (which works reasonably well). But I'm open to ideas and experiments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There were some great novelty condoms I first saw in the 90s that had glow-in-the-dark eyes and antennae at the end. Add the 'citation needed' tag along the length and the shop could promote the safe sex message and have a sales winner ;) AnonNep (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That shop sort of previews how a more organized top down management of Wikipedia works. It doesn't listen to any ideas from anyone, doesn't sell many products, doesn't move any volume, doesn't make any real money, but it makes the people in charge feel good about themselves and that's what really matters... Wnt (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to be nasty and just make up falsehoods out of thin air, please do it elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Shellshock flaw

The Shellshock flaw is said to be bigger than Heartbleed.

• 'Bigger than Heartbleed' Shellshock flaw leaves OS X, Linux, more open to attack—PCWorld (September 25, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)