User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

For your New Year's resolution a simple suggestion on how to use some of that $60 million

Hello, I recognize that this has been raised time and time again, but might I suggest that some of the money the WMF currently has in its possession be directed towards some form of image filter? As it stands right now, any individual who looks for images of Queen Victoria's consort is liable to find themselves with a face full of penis and little Billy looking for images of an electric toothbrush may have to have a serious discussion with mommy and daddy about female masturbation. Surely this is not desirable.

People often go on about the implementation, but there are relatively simple methods to go about it. For instance, there is already a "bad image" filter for some explicit content that prevents them from being used for vandalism. Anyone attempting to add a tagged image to an article that is not pre-approved will find the image is hidden from view. I am sure it would be simple enough to create a "safe search" function akin to that used by Google, which prevents images with such a tag from being displayed in search results and can be toggled on and off with ease.

Other methods that could be employed include the use of administrative categories on articles and other content that would display a "NSFW"-style warning requiring the reader to approve viewing of the content as is common on countless sites with explicit content. Such tags and categories could be added manually or be added automatically by a bot when prompted by certain key words or based on image information, which would naturally be subject to review by a human admin to determine whether the tag or category is valid. I believe that would be a fine way to use some of the money currently being held by the Wikimedia Foundation. What do you say?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Geez dude, you're a reverse Queen Victoria's consort for making me curious enough to view that. What the heck is up with people. Dave Dial (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of any form is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia.

It is impossible to choose what to censor. If Wikipedia makes any attempt to do so, it becomes responsible for times when it fails to do so adequately.

No matter what argument you put forward, people will find cases which compel us to continue to make no censorial decisions (other than, perhaps, those caused by the legality of the country where the servers are hosted). Igor the bunny (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA did not say anything about censorship. Giving readers some measure of of control over what they see is not censorship. It is common courtesy and common sense, and it is completely consistent with the educational mission of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Neutron (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Igor. Enabling readers to choose to view or not view images they find offensive is not censorship. It is empowerment. Some here think we should oblige everyone to look at an image of a woman masturbating when they search for "electric toothbrush", even those who would prefer not to. These folk are authoritarian ideologues. Try to raise yourself above that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutron: Almost all computers have an 'off' button. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Igor, readers already have control over what they see and it is called off button. -sarvajna (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something? looks clean to me, yeah that toothbrush one probably needs a fix of some kind. I once had an idea of adding a hidden cat to images on commons which were "NSFW" and it won't appear in any searches unless the user explicitly requests it by enabling an option....might be a pain in the a** to do and though our policies are against censorship, this might not be something most of us would be against ...Just think of the little kids Santa!..uhm..I mean Jimmy --Stemoc 07:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something - the result of looking for 'Prince Albert' by name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're also missing that some people are offended by ladies in swimsuits. Or naked feet. Or images of Mohammed. Or excrement. Or bananas. Who decides? Igor the bunny (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who decided that a charitable organisation supposedly set up to create an online encyclopaedia (not an anti-censorship campaign) should instead dedicate much of its image storage space to low-grade pornography, catalogued in such a way that searches for other material entirely will risk offending a significant proportion of its readership? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think nobody decided; it just happened. But what you might call "low-grade porn", another person might call "useful material for medical studies". Or banana studies. Igor the bunny (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing 'just happens' on Wikipedia/Commons. The porn (which is what it is - medical studies aren't based on images trawled from Flikr) is there because Commons has been subverted for purposes beyond the stated remit of the WMF. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, well...this is an old debate, but I'm game.

Define 'Porn'. Igor the bunny (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it again, bunny. No one is suggesting we remove images of penises from Commons or Wikipedia. All the images of penises you may want will still be there, and all our medical articles will be illustrated with graphic penis pictures where helpful to the reader. The filter proposal is that we give you and all other readers the choice to not see them if that is your/their want. Should you go to Human penis with an intelligently-designed nudity filter enabled you can choose to see a penis illustration by simply clicking the blank rectangle where the image should be.

Again. All relevant (educationally useful) images will be on Commons and in our articles, as now. All readers who have opted-in to one or more of the image filtering options will be able to view a blanked image in an article or in a Commons search result by just clicking the blank rectangle.

As for how do we decide what images are filtered by a given filter option: there are multiple possible answers and all worth discussing, but there is no point discussing that question with someone who equates a filter with censorship and so won't be discussing that question in good faith. I'd be happy to discuss the question with anyone who recognises that filtering isn't censorship and that, rather than restrict our readers' freedom, it offers them more options. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Filtering should and can happen at the users end. Moreover, I've been on the internet since ca. 1987, I've been on Wikipedia since 2003, and the only time I've ever even had the idea of searching Commons for images was in reply to one of these threads. I stipulate that people who actually do perform image searches there know what they are doing and what to expect. Filtering is a problem in search of a solution. It also opens yet another secondary front (well, several, actually) for user conflicts, namely about how to classify which pictures. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't need it or want it. Cool. Don't work on it. Don't use it. Simple. Why would you stop those that do want it from offering/having it as an option? It is an option. "I don't want it, so I don't want you to have it" seems a little ... I don't know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So you don't want a big military? Well, don't use it. You don't want a gun? Well, don't use it. So you don't want large scale government surveillance? Well, don't use it. "I don't want it, so I don't want you to have it" seems a little ... I don't know." I hope it's clear that there are at least two points hidden in this analogy. One, you are proposing to use community funding (and other community resources, including volunteer time and good will) to implement image filtering. I may think that it's better to spend those resources on competing projects, or keep a nest egg for bad times. Secondly, once the infrastructure is in place, who knows what it will be used for? And thirdly, maybe I'm of the opinion that seeing the occasional surprising picture is actually good for humanity in general. I have the impression that you want to decide for others what they should or should not see. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you have that impression, since I've made it clear that I want readers to decide for themselves what they see. You are the one saying they shouldn't have that choice. You are projecting some censorship/big government hidden agenda onto me that isn't there. If this initially benign, choice-enhancing measure should in some future version of Wikipedia be perverted to impose filtering or actual censorship on readers, it won't be because it's a part of my evil plan now.

But let's address that possibility. Let's say there is a button at the top of Wikipedia pages called "image filter", and readers can select "filter nudity" or "filter images of Muhammad" or "filter images of Mormon temple garments". Only those offended by such images will select those filters, and if they want to look at a blanked image they'll just click it. Under what circumstances can you see that changing, where people will have the filter forced on them or where they'll be prevented from seeing a filtered image by clicking its blank place-holder? Do you seriously expect this community to !vote for such a change? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "You're also missing that some people are offended by ladies in swimsuits. Or naked feet. Or images of Mohammed. Or excrement. Or bananas. Who decides?". They decide, the people doing the searches. People should be able to decide for themselves what kind of things show up in image searches, and if images were tagged appropriately and the search modified to optionally use those tags, people would be able to choose what to see without anyone forcing anything on anyone else. Squinge (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example, most image libraries make extensive use of tagging and you can search for whatever tags you want. So if you're not looking for images of Mohammed wearing a swimsuit and eating a banana, but only want images of cock rings, it's relatively easy to find what you want. It's not censorship, it's just making it easier for people to find what they're actually looking for. Squinge (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a multimedia search of en.Wikipedia for "electric toothbrush" will deliver up the same result under your proposed system as the current system. NSFW. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not if the images were appropriately tagged and you could include or exclude the tags you wanted or didn't want. So if images could be, for example, tagged as sexually explicit, featuring genitals, showing Mohammed, illustrating bananas or whatever, they could be filtered. It would open up questions of what constitutes categories of images, of course, and who decides - but I don't think that would be an insurmountable problem. What I do think is wrong is the apparent mindset that because Wikipedia is not censored, anyone who wants to find images of toothbrushes has no option but to see them being shoved up vaginas. Squinge (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, and my old response is at User:Wnt/Personal image blocking. Wikipedia offers a very sophisticated system of user-controlled Javascript extensions that permit individual users a tremendous amount of flexibility, which can be used for image blocking. With a limited knowledge of the language and a few minutes I was able to come up with an example at the time of a script that successfully blocks all the Muhammad images in Muhammad.

Yet so far, it appears that censorware is the better answer to the old riddle "He who makes it doesn't want it. He who buys it doesn't need it. He who uses it doesn't know it." There's just not an iota of user interest expressed by anyone, to my knowledge, so far in making any script like this one to allow people to block images they personally object to. (Some other schemes have been demoed, but the interest is in coding them, not using them, so far as I know) The only "sex appeal" in Wikimedia image blocking is in being the one who gets to make the site-wide value judgment of what images are good and what images are bad, then imposing it on someone like an IP user who is deemed incapable of deciding for himself. Until that changes, no good can come of building a stairway to heaven that cannot conceivably reach its goal. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read User:Wnt/Personal image blocking, and it's very interesting. However, I don't think a system based on filenames would be sufficient (and neither would a system that required users to do any coding whatsoever). In the toothbrush search example above, you'd need to know in advance to exclude files with some combination of the words "Woman masturbating with improvised vibrator", but you'd have no idea that's what you'd need to exclude until after you'd seen the search results. But if images like that were tagged as "sexually explicit" they would be much easier to exclude from a search or from viewing in an article. I also don't see any need for anyone to judge what's good or bad for others - there are plenty of tags that could be applied to images that are objectively factual, and then individuals could decide for themselves what they want and don't want. And if there's dispute over what fits in which tag, we could decide and build guidelines by consensus, like we do with the rest of the project. Squinge (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The "programming" involved can be as simple as copying a page like [1] and pasting it to User:Squinge/common.js; that ought to block the Muhammad images, but I have the list written into the script rather than retrieving them from somewhere. The scheme I describe at the Personal image blocking page involves setting up a text file User:Squinge/image-blacklist, which might contain something as simple as

{{User:Jimbo Wales/image-blacklist/sexually-explicit}}

using transclusion to copy his entries; or it might transclude from multiple categories or blacklists. The key is not to rely on "objectively factual" decisions like whether that famous statue of David is sexually explicit or not. Forming consensus on NPOV is at least difficult --- forming consensus on the right POV ought to be impossible. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That example is not remotely close to being a general solution. However simple, *any* specific programming is too much for users to be expected to do, and your suggestion does not address that and does not address the need to know in advance precisely what filenames you would need to filter - unless I'm missing something? Squinge (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not actually necessary to cut-and-paste a whole program; you can import scripts also (but then there are some security issues that apply to ensure no one corrupts the master). It amounts to a few lines' change that could be automated with a widget if someone really cared; the time to approach the Foundation would be then, after you've shown interest in doing the hard part. The hard part, of course, is that in any rating scheme, someone needs to look at every picture. You can't make that go away no matter how you do it. The thing is, the work could be divided out among a group of like-minded individuals - you could transclude Jimbo's list of unwanted pictures, he could transclude those from five other people he trusts, who each transclude from several more... etc. Every once in a while a WP:bot, programmed by any user, could compile the lists into single flat files to remove duplicates and thereby speed execution, while messaging competitors who desire it the list of files that others object to but they haven't, in case they want to look. All of this can be volunteer effort by the people who care about it that affects no one but those who choose to trust those particular volunteers' decisions, either directly or by proxy. And the thing is, free speech advocates such as myself aren't going to criticize you for voluntarily changing your user experience, since we recognize that is your right. It's the part where you try to make that an objective standard for others who don't choose that causes us trouble. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably not too hard to make some Bayesian filter to learn which categories one does not want to see. Or combinations of categories, and maybe also other features. It works wonderfully for email filtering, why wouldn't it here? Enabling users to choose want to see is not censorship. Forcing others to see whatever one think is to be seen is a authoritarian view that should be curtailed. I don't mind about porn, but it sure is a good thing that nowadays whenever I search for "horse" on the 'net I do get images of horses. Running, standing, feeding, whatever, living their normal horse lives. It was not so 20 years ago, and it was not better :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A better idea

I don't know what this $60 million budget exactly refers to, but I propose some of it being used for countering government surveillance and initiatives by racketeering organizations that try to make the Internet less secure for everybody, and for countering attempts to censor Wikipedia itself. That would be more lofty goal than producing more filters for people offended by porn. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Charities aren't allowed to spend donors' money on projects that don't clearly fit their mission statement. The first part of your proposal may fall a bit wide of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While I like the direction of your mind, I don't think it's the NSA but GCHQ which is responsible for infiltrating Wikipedia. Under the ECHELON/Five Eyes scheme, foreign intelligence agencies are prohibited from acting in their own country so collaborate by doing in one another's jurisdiction what they cannot do at home. My perception is that strange aberrations like the David Cawthorne Haines oversight affair on Wikipedia seem to occur most often in regard to British nationals. Also, with Wikimedia servers now firmly established in a high-security area of Northern Virginia, I see the trend as decidedly in the opposite direction. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Re @Anthony I'm not thinking any drastic difference to our mission policy, just to make Wikipedia itself and, by extension, its users more resilient for surveillance. For example, why is Wikipedia hostile towards ToR? Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption says editing anonymously is allowed for "highly exceptional circumstances" only (and is not specifying what those circumstances might be. I opened a query about this in a help desk for new users). Template:Torblock goes even further: it has instructions for ToR exit node admins to prevent people from using their node to edit Wikipedia. It looks like we are embracing the censorship and surveillance state if we are telling people, how to configure their software to disallow editing Wikipedia! I was told that my user account needs to be "confirmed" and someone "patrolled" my userpage so I'm feeling somewhat surveilled already :( (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Re @Wnt You have a point with GCHQ (and other Five Eyes) likely being used as cat's pawn to circumvent 4th Amendment protection of citizens. However as Wikipedia servers reside in jurisdiction where spying with PRISM is the norm, what assurance there is that NSA and its allies does not collect data like IP addresses and text of deleted articles in bulk directly from our servers? WikiMedia staff and Jimbo could have been silenced with a national security letter forbidding them to acknowledge such surveillance. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if I were against government surveillance (I don't particularly care whether they're tracking my internet activity or not.), the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't use donations to fight against government agencies, especially when the donors think that their money is being used to keep Wikipedia up and running (and to buy coffee for programmers). A lot of donors would be angry if the money were being used for such a purpose. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to be neutrally building a repository of human knowledge, not taking political stances. Working against government agencies would be very non-neutral. I'll end this with a couple of comments about don't talk secret's comment two posts up from this one. Patrolling pages is just a measure taken to ensure that pages conform to policy. See WP:New pages patrol. Confirmed/autoconfirmed users are just users who have been editing for four days and made ten edits and are thus unlikely to be vandals, so they are thus permitted to move (rename) pages and edit semi-protected pages. See WP:Autoconfirmed users. We mostly are "hostile" towards TOR because vandals commonly use it to evade IP blocks. Finally, I don't think personally think that there's any good reason to care about government surveillance unless one has something to hide (I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong here on Wikipedia, though), but that's a debate for another forum. --Jakob (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jakec: I think that much of the 'hardening' of Wikipedia is merely a matter of making privacy a consideration in procedure. I recently suggested here that Wikipedia needs to think carefully about what would happen in the event of a large scale hacking spree by North Korea, and many of the actions involved should be the same. We need to learn (a) not to ask for so much private information no matter how 'secret' the forum; for example, ArbCom needs to get out of its recent bad habit of trying to get those on the brink of a ban to confess to every account they've ever held here, even if the information has some marginal value in trying to decide whether someone will be disruptive; (b) not imagine that the private discussions held are really private, even when the Arbcom/internal emails aren't immediately leaked; (c) not build any resources, like records of which IP read which articles, which a spy from any country would have to be stupid not to want to steal, or not to be able to.

As for the claim that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, what do you think of things like this? A person makes an obvious joke containing nothing more threatening than "By GOP", and gets hauled into FBI for questioning over it despite doing everything 'responsible' to make it clear. And still with no guarantee that he will not face some insane prosecution of the sort that the prosecutors of Justin Carter would favor. One can curry no favor with the Angel Moloch by sacrificing the guilty; neither spy nor prosecutor can prove that he is competent at his job except by successfully prosecuting the innocent. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: I agree completely with your comments here and in the linked post. We definedly should take steps to protect editors from corrupt state officials and criminal dictatorships like North Korea. It is too bad that Wikipedia is hostile towards anonymization networks, even for registered editors intending to use them for good purposes like editing "sensitive" articles that might be monitored by the pervasive mass surveillance machinery. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What $60 million?

The WMF had $60 million before that recent and rather annoying campaign. Now it probably has 80 million or more. Even Mr. Wales says: "I’m happy to inform you that our current fundraiser is the most successful in our entire history." 103.41.176.1 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, go to heck, IP editor, for bitching and moaning and linking to some ridiculous GamerGate article, which is certainly the most repellent and repulsive Internet meme of 2014. Every year, those who wallow in negativity criticize Wikimedia fundraising, and the people of planet Earth ignore that narrowmindedness, and support this wonderful project more and more. It seems we can do without your pennies; thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is if "this wonderful project" would you my pennies to get rid of its annoying penis. 103.41.176.1 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

MoodBar retained 9% more editors after six months

Hi Jimbo, I hope you and your multitudinous talk page stalkers will please consider voicing your opinions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Turn the MoodBar back on. I hope this isn't canvassing, because the only "opposition" to the MoodBar before it was turned off, as far as I can tell, was a technical need to remove it in anticipation of testing a Flow component which is no longer proposed for deployment. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a phone call with Lila tomorrow so I'll bring it up to see what the status is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bess Myerson

I was wondering if anyone out there has heard about the former Miss America Bess Myerson dying. We've had her dead for the past two days on the say-so of an IP editor. I've just reverted as I can't find anything in Google News, but if I've missed something please accept my apologies and make her dead again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I realize this is probably vandalism. I just think it's pretty amazing that we proclaimed this fairly well-known individual dead for two days. Maybe I'm not jaded enough to be used to this kind of thing.Coretheapple (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on the Internet and since I live in the NYC broadcast market, I probably would have heard or seen something, and have not. So it appears she is still with us. As for it being "amazing" that we had her as being dead for two days, unfortunately it is not amazing, it happens now and then. It usually gets caught faster when the person is still in the public eye, but she has not been for years. Wikipedia depends on vigilant editors to correct things like this, and in this case you were the one. Neutron (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple years ago, I found this guy proclaimed dead on the Russian Wikipedia for about 10 days. We even have a category to help catch some of this; see Category:Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. It wouldn't have helped this one, but I don't know if other versions of Wikipedia have equivalent categories. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't being vigilant at all. A friend of mine posted "RIP Bess Myerson" on a social media site. Source was Wikipedia. People believe us. Maybe they shouldn't. Coretheapple (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Another quality contribution by an IP editor. Let's sanction this person... Whoops, there is no sign-in-to-edit protocol, we can't... Carrite (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why I think all BLPs should be placed under flagged revisions. We have a good solution to this sort of thing, used with great effect and popularity in other languages, we just choose not to use it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Or semiprotected. Here's a person who would get a page one New York Times obit, and yet we're declaring her dead and it might have stayed that way for a while. The underlying problem is that well-known people of past years, and people and subjects of importance but without much of a following, don't always get a lot of attention on Wikipedia. I'm having the same problem in an article on another notable of past years, a major star of the 1960s, not vandalism but rampant OR and general inattention. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ha! Turns out it wasn't vandalism, it was a scoop![2] Still, it was a BLP, and we needed a source. In fact, I see that her date of death was Dec. 14, and the IP said Jan. 2. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, in all honesty the majority of BLPs never cause an issue and we already have edit filters, the BLP PROD, a number of admin enforcements etc etc to deal with BLP problems. Quite possibly, what is needed more is awareness of WP:RS and WP:BLP. Is there any way that when a BLP is edited, the notification that comes up can be more visible? That may help--5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

All those tools don't stack up to a hill of beans if nobody notices the edit. That was the problem here (or would have been if it was vandalism and not, as it turned out, some insider inaccurately sharing his or her knowledge of Ms. Myerson's death). All it takes is one or two major whoppers, as in the Seigenthaler affair, and Wikipedia's reputation is tarnished. I think this is an existential issue for the Foundation, very much like paid editing if not more so. Coretheapple (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What an irresponsible position, 5 albert square. Jimmy, if you actually care, start an RfC. Do something. You know, act. But do you actually care? Your BLP is fine; any unsourced negative content in it will be reversed in seconds. [3] (So, people who don't even know they have a Wikipedia article should be checking it regularly? That's telling him, Jimmy. Heh. You're really funny, sometimes.) Why don't you stand up to people like 5 albert square? Start a serious row about this and - most importantly - actually see it through? Discuss it when you're at a podium, or on a platform like the BBC. Encourage the wider readership to come and join in the debate. While you mouth platitudes and tacitly defend the status quo, you're cementing the problem.

But you won't do anything, will you? You never do. You'll just whine a bit here on your talk page. I wish there were some way of ridding this project (and the WMF) of you. You're an embarrassment, a net negative. You are crushing this project with your inappropriate alliances, your contempt for scholars, your platitudes and your ineffectiveness. Watch and learn about your hero, Coretheapple. This project needs strong moral leadership. He's sitting on the only leadership position and shrugging, "Duh, gee. What can I do?" --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Stand up to me? I made a suggestion for change--5 albert square (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right, we're just chatting here with my "hero" (groan). Anthony, as I understand the decision-making process here, Jimbo has basically stopped running the place and let the "community" run it. However, I agree that he could push things more forcefully than apparently he has. I've actually gotten disillusioned over paid editing on that very point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole and even Coretheapple overstate the case, but every time I look at this page I see more evidence that the basic governance system of WMF projects is flawed. Very straightforward, simple, adjustments of key issues - supported by 90% of the editorship - are almost impossible to make. The central problem IMHO is the consensus system for issues that need a large amount of input. An RfC for 3,000 editors simply does not work - we all just yell at each other. A concerted minority of 10% can high-jack the "discussion" and prevent almost any change. Any rule can be ignored - even our foundational principles. Any current rule can be twisted, so that Wikipedia now appears to stand for the opposite of what it used to stand for.

We need to begin the discussion on reform of the basic governance system. You, Jimbo Wales, could take a leading role in that. You could certainly ask the Board to begin the long process. I don't know what the reform will ultimately look like, but we need a governance system that will allow - even encourage - change in Wikipedia. We need a system that will be immune to the bullying by small minorities.

So, how about it Jimbo - are you in for fundamental change?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Board's about to start suggesting to projects that they implement pending changes/flagged revisions/whatever you want to call it, because it's not had nearly the positive effect that some like to think it has had. German Wikipedia's current average time for reviewing all pending changes on a page is 8 days, 16 hours; on Russian Wikipedia, it is 365 days 6 hours. (They're the two largest Wikipedias that have implemented widespread PC/FR usage. Data taken from their PC statistics page within the past hour.) Activity is entirely dependent on current editors taking up more work. Jimbo already knows that the real and far more effective change would be to raise notability standards so that many of the marginal BLPs simply don't exist so don't need to be patrolled. Now, I'd still count Bess Myerson as being probably notable enough for an article; however, we all know that we have tens of thousands of articles about people whose notability is so marginal that the people most likely to watch it are the SEOs paid to have created them in the first place. Yes, there's also that pleasant side effect of raising the notability standards: it would be much, much more difficult for paid editors to get their articles under the radar. Risker (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with raising notability standards, especially for BLPs and corps/businesses. There was a recent case of an AfD on an article on a publishing company that expects to publish it's first books this spring. After 10 days the result came back "userfy" not outright delete. Then there was an end-run - a new article on the owner of the company. That AfD eventually came back "userfy" as well. If we can't outright delete an article on a publishing company that has never published anything, we've got real problems. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Risker, am I right in thinking German WP (and Russian?) have "pending changes" on all articles? I think I've heard that somewhere. Most proposals I've read here are for pending changes only on BLPs. If so, the policing burden wouldn't be as onerous.

As well as raising notability standards, another help would be a button at the top of all BLPs saying we can email you when the article changes - that would take a lot of the worry out of it for our subjects. (I know this can be done through Preferences/User profile, but no readers know about it and the WMF could make that complicated process simple - just click, add email, save.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Anthonyhcole, they do have it on all articles. However, given the fact that a good 30% of our articles, if not more, have BLP content in them, even if they aren't specifically BLPs, we'd wind up in the same boat. Right now we have 2000 pages on PC, and there are times when I see pages waiting a couple of days to be resolved (which is really absurd, given that tiny number). They also have automated processes for granting reviewer status after a certain number of edits (and admins can't withdraw it, I understand, without a big community discussion almost equivalent to a desysop), so almost anyone who's been around for more than a month or two is automatically a reviewer; we don't have any of those processes in place, and only about 15% of our regular editors have reviewer permission, 20% if you count admins. As to the email thing, most editors I know don't even turn on that preference because their inbox would be inundated (I had it on for 3 hours and had over 100 emails); nonetheless, it requires making an account and setting preferences. There is no method for "saving" an email address absent an account. Not only that, but if they get that dreaded email...what do they do next? The normal instinct is to go and "fix" the article, something that will get them outed, blocked and ridiculed. Risker (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The current system involves creating an account and adding the article to your watchlist, going to preferences/user profile, and ticking "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed." Then, all items on your watchlist will trigger an email when they're edited. Clearly inappropriate for someone with more than a few articles on their watchlist. That is why I say the WMF should create a new thing - a button at the top of articles to click, add email address, save.

What the BLP subject chooses to do when they're emailed about a change is up to them. Have I got this clear? You are saying this feature would be a bad thing because the subject would then email info@wikipedia.org or ask for correction on the talk page or make a correction themselves - all of which are within their rights (and, incidentally, permitted by our policy).

If adding pending changes to our BLPs results in big delays in reviewing pending changes, then we just keep raising our notability standard until the number of BLPs the WMF hosts is small enough for the volunteers to cope with in a timely fashion. Ultimately, though they whistle and look the other way, the WMF - including, especially, Jimmy Wales - is responsible for the shit that gets said about people here. They just won't do what's needed to treat our subjects with the minimal degree of respect. They. Don't. Care. The platitudes they spout are PR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As the person who had the fortune to be one of the closers of the discussion which switched PC on, and then took on the subsequent round of RfCs on my own, I remember this being floated around then too. There was a lot of concern about mass-applying it to any category of articles for mostly the same reasons elucidated above, and in this case there are a huge number of articles about living people. The impact of having or not having essentially all of them (obviously some really high-profile ones are staying at semiprotection) requiring reviewers to approve or reject a large proportion of edits is something people will have to carefully thresh out. And after all of that, I still have yet to care about whether this feature is used in any form. Oh, and as a final note, with major PC proposals you guys (the community at large, not anyone specifically in this discussion) have a way of leaving closers badly shell-shocked from the experience; the angst isn't too bad, and questioning of the decisions was never a big deal, but the massive walls of text people generate are extremely difficult to manage. If you go that way on this, might I suggest taking it down about 15 notches from the previous discussions? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

When Roger LaVern of The Tornados died in June 2013, an IP editor added it in good faith [4] and it took three days for the media to confirm it. Sometimes this can happen, but the possibility of vandal edits means that a reliable source is always needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We have even subtler issues such as the death of Stuart Scott. His desire was that the type of cancer that killed him or that he had not be revealed and indeed, no press release says anything other than "cancer." It's ambiguous at best since the first diagnoses came after his appendectomy. Nevertheless, there are many that wish to attribute the death to appendix cancer. Regardless of its truth, the overriding factor for me is a) no source attributes his death to that particular type of cancer and b) his desire not to release that information. It's not just the BLP article but it extends to other articles that latch on to it like Appendix cancer. It's gone so far as the media asking his doctor, who declines to discuss followed up with a non-treating doctor expert on appendix cancer. We normally only apply WP:SYNTH to WP articles but it's clear we also have to be careful with sources as well. --DHeyward (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Smallbones

Smallbones writes that the basic governance of WMF projects is flawed. I partly agree. The consensus model for policy changes in the English Wikipedia has become a roadblock to reform, because consensus is so broadly defined and so difficult to achieve that it won't happen, that any reform of English Wikipedia governance will come only from the WMF. Some editors have in the recent past proposed an on-line "constitutional convention" in which decisions can be made, consistent with WMF guidance, by simple majority.

However, more specifically, what is Smallbones saying needs to be changed? In the particular article in point, I don't see a real problem. Myerson was and is dead. Her death hadn't been confirmed, and is now reliably sourced. I don't see the need to lock down all BLPs on pending changes protection, for instance. BLP policy did work. Do we need better enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions? Probably. However, what is Smallbones saying needs to be changed? What should Jimbo or the WMF be doing? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair question (in the 2nd paragraph). I need to shovel some snow, so my answer will be a bit incomplete.

I agree that the Bess Myerson situation was not a disaster. The fact that we can't implement or enforce WP:BLP is more problematic, and we need to improve there, but that doesn't, in itself require immediate Board action.

There was something that Anthonyhcole wrote that struck a nerve however: "Jimmy, if you actually care, start an RfC. Do something. You know, act. But do you actually care?" Please allow me some space to explain my reaction fully.

Governance on en Wikipedia, Commons, and presumably several other WMF projects is broken. We need to do something about it.

We should first recognize that for over a dozen years the governance system has worked. Sometimes spectacularly well. It is responsible for the success of Wikipedia, and that success has been spectacular.

As I understand it, Jimmy Wales and a few others set up this system based upon deeply held beliefs and then set the community free to run the projects on our own. The standard characterization at the time was something like: "Wikipedia is an idea that couldn't possible work in theory, it only works it practice." (but now it doesn't work either in theory or practice!)

Jimmy walked away from control - he is not a tyrant who can solve everything, he is not a benevolent dictator, he's not even the Queen of England. Anything he says or agrees to is likely to get him into hot water with somebody, especially if it is vaguely stated or incomplete - like any proposal for governance reform will be. But he is a very influential person around here, he is on the Board, he is an inspiration to many of us here. In my opinion he is now the "indispensable person" if we are to reform the governance system.

anthonyhcole's comment seemed to say that Jimmy's modest proposal for using Flagged Revisions for BLPs was a copout. Nothing is going to happen on that line and Jimmy knows it. Why not take the bull by the horns and actually *do something*?!!!

All I am proposing is that we start a process that *will* result in a workable governance system.

How about it, Jimmy? What do you think?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(note the edit conflict with Coretheapple immediately below.) Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I think that Smallbones is making a general statement about paralysis in Wikipedia's governance, and he has a point. It's impossible to get a "consensus" on any meaningful change. That's pretty indisputable although, as you say, one can make a case that the status quo is OK. I would suggest that it isn't, and that the Myerson case is a good example. She is and was a prominent person, as evidenced by the fact that she got a page-one obit in the Times today and her article yesterday received almost 18,000 views, and I'm sure there will be at least as many today. Yet she does not have a dedicated bunch of Wikipedia watchers, as evidenced by the fact that one IP was able to state that this person died, without any sourcing, total OR, and it stayed that way for two days. It could have been a lot longer; I'm told there are other examples of that being the case. We have the Seigenthaler incident to consider. As Jimbo pointed out, one can simply implement flagged revisions for BLPs but that has not been done, and as Smallbones correctly observes, nothing like that can be done as things are now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, Coretheapple, exactly what are you saying doesn't work in practice? Also, what are you proposing is a process that will result in a workable governance system? The one proposal that I have seen that makes sense is an on-line constitutional convention, but there is no guarantee that will result in an improved governance system? What in particular are you (Smallbones or Coretheapple) saying is broken that can be fixed somehow? (I am not saying that nothing is broken. I am asking what in particular either of you say is broken.) What should Jimbo or WMF do? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

RMc has lots of questions above and is asking for lots of specifics. I'll concentrate just on the specifics on how to start the process, recognizing that other specifics may work there as well. As far as specifics on what the biggest specific problems are ... please just read the archives of this page. Folks come here all the time saying something like "this problem is crucial to the future of Wikipedia and nothing can be done." And then nothing gets done. Maybe I'll list of few of these topics at the end - the ones that particularly interest me, but I'll suggest RMc (or anybody else) can come up with a list of a dozen issues pretty quickly. I don't want, however, for my list of specifics to be taken as some sort of "ultimate goal". I just want to say that our governance system is broken and somehow we need to start the process of fixing it.

How the WMF can get the process of governance reform started

1st - admit that there is a problem - big issues can't be solved. Major controversies that require surgery, are treated with band-aids.

2nd- the WMF should issue a statement saying that they have begun the process of governance reform. They will be consulting with academics, legal advisors, trusted editors, readers, the open information community, and other stakeholders to come up with proposals on how to best organize a governance system for the community.

3rd - various proposals that the Board believes will work are vetted by the editing community (but not necessarily approved via an RfC - if that system was expected to work, we wouldn't need governance reform!)

4th - the Board - on its own authority - writes the new "constitution" or governance system, with approval taking place over a 1 month period, on meta, essentially as a yes/no vote, open to any editor or reader.

As far as what specifics I think are wrong with Wikipedia now/the current governance system, just a quick list:

RfC, RfA, RfD, ANI, ArbCom, notability requirements, enforcement of rules against personal attacks and incivility, inconsistent enforcement of all rules, the size and opacity of our rules, treatment of women editors, treatment of newbies and BLPs, paid editing (still!) and advertising in articles, development of new technologies. I'm sure everybody has their own list to add.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• (replying to Robert) Right now I'm preoccupied with preventing Bess Myerson from being dismembered by a singularly difficult editor, which raises one of a number of issues I've seen discussed in the past year or so but never acted on. I.e., how to handle bad editors. Should the RfC/U process be simplified/fixed? That's just one of the perennial issues that can be dealt with. But what Jimbo mentioned above was one that in fact had been already dealt with quite a while ago, flagged revisions for BLPs. Robert, why not ask Jimbo why he feels it is a good idea? He apparently doesn't have the power to enact it on his own. That's a good start. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	:) t 1234567890Number c 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That should actually be a "Defender of Jimmy Wales's foundation" star. Wikipedia and Jimmy's foundation are two different things. (Edit) On second thoughts, the latter would be inappropriate. Your inaction on our BLPs is leaving the foundation wide open to serious reputational and financial harm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Action: Jimbo tries to go above the community. Response: what gives you the right to go against the community? You should follow consensus.

Action: Jimbo helping out with normal admin duties. Response: why are you doing that? You're just creating controversy!

Action: Jimbo does normal editing. Response: you're not doing enough really.

Action: Jimbo doesn't do anything. Response: why aren't you doing anything?

--Mrjulesd (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)