User talk:Jimbo Wales

Grant Shapps and Chase me

I'm assuming you've seen this [1]. Apparently the Wikimedia functionary who "outed" the alleged Shapps sockpuppet is a LibDem activist. Rather goes to the heart of neutrality of this project I'd say.--Scott Mac 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott, have you seen this? Perhaps not, since I see you're alerting Risker as well. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

I guess he alerted Risker knowing that the RFAR was initiated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Now the arbitration case is getting media coverage too. [2] Everymorning talk 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, according to the story I linked to above, Wales was contacted by Chase Me after blocking Contribsx, so I imagine Jimbo does already know about all this. Everymorning talk 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you not expecting that the public would become aware that it is being investigated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It may not be so wise to discuss this publicly. However, Andrew Gilligan's outing of Chase as a Libdem activist, is another twist. It worries me for two reasons. The story will now run and run, particularly in the silly season of a UK election finale that has had surprisingly little of this type of stuff (the media are bored). Second, Chase will now be personally in the media spotlight. Whatever he's done, that's got real life implications. On that note, I fall back into silence again. But everyone involved in this needs to be aware there will be intense and partisan media scrutiny in the UK.--Scott Mac 15:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Mac, I trust you realise the implications of what you have asserted on this user talk page (and even at Risker's talk page) - particularly in light of the assertion made by Chase that he is not and has never been a Lib Dem activist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've done anything than record an assertion, made by Gilligan, that's clearly in the public domain. To be clear, I have no knowledge or opinion concerning its veracity.--Scott Mac 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• For clarification: Richard Symonds/User:Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry (self-identifies on-wiki with link HERE) is "Office and Development Manager" of Wikimedia UK (See: LINK). So this affair is probably going to have lasting implications for WMF no matter how this turns out... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've spent a huge chunk of today looking into this and talking to people about it. We should all expect the press to jump on scraps of non-information to try to spin this story according to their agenda. The sad thing is that there is no easy or firm definition of what counts as being a "LibDem activist" - to most people it conjures up someone who goes to party meetings and volunteers to door to door campaigning, as opposed to someone who has said online that they support a particular party. But if you want to leave the impression that someone is an activist and is acting in an activist way it's a phrase you can use more or less with impunity. So, there you go. Hopefully Chase can get a correction out of the paper.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The big issue here isn't whether Mr. Symonds has political beliefs or engages in group politics, but whether or not a sock puppet investigation and subsequent "behavioural" block was leaked to the press with a view to damaging a political candidate. The timeline is unclear. We saw during the recently completed GamerGate ArbCom case how easy it was for an opinionated blogger to manipulate Guardian content — it is not a far-fetched question to ask as to whether this might have been done again here. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. See my comment below. Peter Damian (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This can also have political consequences. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And some light relief at Wikipedia's expense... [3]--Scott Mac 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What the problem is

This gets it spot on. Early this month, a left-wing newspaper contacts with a Wikipedia administrator and checkuser, a function "only assigned to administrators in good standing and in whom the community has the utmost trust and confidence in their integrity, judgment and discretion". The administrator confirms on the record, for attribution, that the account was run by Shapps. Some have argued that the evidence was all in the public domain and perhaps no confidential checkuser information was used. This does not matter. The newspaper was investigating a prominent British politician from the other end of the spectrum in the run-up to a nation-wide general election. The newspaper's reason for contacting a Wikipedia administrator was to confirm the suspicion that the account was run by Shapps, and to get a statement on record. The article says "Wikipedia’s administrators told the Guardian they believed that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed ... the account is clearly controlled by Shapps". That's appalling. But not the first time this kind of thing has happened, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed the Guardian story says:

The site’s administrators, selected Wikipedia volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia ... and based on the evidence the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.”

When the Guardian first approached Shapps saying that Wikipedia would be closing down this user account because Wikipedia said it was linked to him, a spokesman for the Conservative party said: “This story is completely false and defamatory. It is nonsense from start to finish.”

That suggests a longer and more complex timeline, namely (1) Wikipedia administrators tell the Guardian that they believe the account is operated by Shapps, then (2) Guardian approaches the Conservative Party with this then (3) Guardian publishes story. At what point were other Wikipedia administrators and checkusers given the information that the Guardian had already been told? What exactly was the sequence of events? Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. It should not matter who brings a problem to our attention or by what route. All that matters is: does the evidence stack up. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Which statement is 'not really no' applying to? On whether it matters who brings a problem to your attention or by what route, no it probably doesn't, but that's not the point. It's not what goes in, but what comes out. Symonds appears to have told the Guardian the identity of the account. That's the problem. Peter Damian (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The immediate problem is a looming election. We should try to bring some clarity to this situation before election day by finding out (1) whether the evidence before Chase at the time of the block justified the block and (2), most importantly, whether in light of that evidence Chase exaggerated the likelihood of the account being controlled by Shapps. If ArbCom focusses initially only on the limited evidence related to these two questions they'll be able to answer them publicly in a couple of days - well before election day - and then they can examine the other issues raised in relation to this scandal at their leisure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The corporate position of Wikipedia

Welywn Times "The Tory candidate said he had spoken to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales yesterday (Wednesday).Mr Shapps told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “He said that the administrator who had posted (we now know he’s a Lib Dem activist) quote to the Guardian didn’t represent the ‘corporate position of Wikipedia’.” Mr Shapps said the Wikipedia boss told him the administrator should have escalated the matter to his bosses, rather than ban the specific account. The Conservative candidate added that the administrator had been “chastised”, and said an internal investigation had been launched." What on earth is the 'corporate position of Wikipedia’. You mean the WMF? Peter Damian (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Porn history

I found this most disconcerting, and of course very disappointing, as I know Mike Adams doesn't lie: [4] This is a strong indictment and requires a response.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a moron. Fuck off back to la-la land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on your WP disallowed verbiage, your edit appears more suitable to the porn sites in question. Further, your name seems particularly appropriate for your writing style.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You asked for a response. I gave one. Feel free to go complain about it if you want to draw attention to your woeful ignorance and abject inadequacy even as a troll. Jimbo's history in soft-core porn is common knowledge (you can read about it in Wikipedia...), and nobody is going to take the ravings of conspiracy-dingbat Adams remotely seriously. Even the regular anti-Jimbo trolls here know better than to link to fuckwit websites if they want to attract attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Its such a secret that it only fills a paragraph of Jimmy Wales and has only one entire article, Bomis devoted to it. Monty₈₄₅ 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He's certainly a bit slow on the uptake. And it's not exactly quite like finding out that your church minister is Ron Jeremy now is it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm........ seems dubious to me. We might need to probe into a full scale investigation to find the playboy magazines hidden under Jimmy's bed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not censored, I do not consider it surprising that Jimbo was once involved with a website that featured images of beautiful naked ladies. As a matter of fact, I think that I have known that for years. Who cares? And why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lazy and sensationalist journalism by Mike Adams in the article mentioned by the OP. Bomis has never been a secret and nothing in this rant piece is new.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Damn. I'd have been thrown out of class if I tried to pass such an article as "journalism" back in school. Critical research failure, much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has presumably qualified for this attack piece because of his criticism of alternative health practitioners, who he described as "lunatic charlatans" in March 2014. If the cap fits, wear it, as the saying goes. This story in today's news is worth a look. The mainstream media loves to criticise inaccurate information in Wikipedia articles, but it often gives an easy ride to people making alternative health claims, particularly if there is a heartwarming human interest story involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The NaturalNews article page is turning into quite a lunatic charlatan's convention - Jim Humble, archbishop or whatever of the 'church' created to promote his 'drink industrial bleach as a cure for HIV/malaria/etc, etc...' nonsense is amongst those commenting. Along with the usual pharmaceutical-conspiracy-mongers, someone claiming it is all a socialist plot, and someone who seems to think that Jimbo is "a closet homo". We clearly need to add more fluoride to the water supply and turn up the chemtrail dosage before this disparate bunch cottons on to the real truth behind Jimbo's reptilian charm... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've already informed the Illuminati to play with the supply and demand of tinfoil. Might as well make a pretty flat penny while we're at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Wales has apparently gone to great lengths to try to bury what you're about to read here", er no he hasn't. What is in that article has been public knowledge for some time now and has even published on Larry Sanger's website.

As for the claim that Wikipedia was structured by Jimmy to be an "online defamation engine to defame and slander people" that he doesn't like, well that claim is just laughable. If that was the case then we would not have policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP would we?

"When the truth about Wales' sleazy business activities surfaces from time to time, Wales seems to exploit his control over Wikipedia to delete the information from his own page". No he doesn't. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that.

The whole article is absolutely laughable. It tells us nothing new and the fact that it's been published years later, it comes across as very POV pushing and an attack on Jimmy and Wikipedia. What a shame that no proper journalism appears to have been carried out.--5 albert square (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Y'all do know that NaturalNews is not an actual news site, and Mike Adams is not a journalist, right? Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

From the NaturalNews article on Wikipedia: "It is dedicated to the sale of various dietary supplements, promotion of alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, and various conspiracy theories". Sounds a legit source to me (!). Prioryman (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, to be honest I'm not sure what the OP expects Jimmy to respond to!--5 albert square (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"...Jimmy Wales ran a porn network called Bomis, which sold membership access to pornography."

But then WikiMedia isn't run by ISIS, so there is no reason why this is controversial, there are no motives to keep such information secret. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm less curious about the Bomis stuff than the Rachel Marsden stuff with respect to the NaturalNews article. Everymorning talk 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Pekay2: Porn built the Internet. If we'd waited for the desire for cat photos to drive the construction of high-speed ethernets, we might still be on dial-up BBS. A couple of DARPA-funded supernetworks for government labs wouldn't have driven the creation of an industry, at least not this quickly. Not that the old dial-up BBSes weren't better than the censors' paradisaical notion of an Internet totally under the control of Facebook/Twitter/Google/Microsoft, that is used only for people to push resumes at one another and to legitimately cyberbully anyone who says a word out of step with the National Party Line in the hope of stepping on them on the way up some ladder of ambitions that don't really even exist anymore. Wikipedia follows an older dream, a dream of universal access to the sum of all human knowledge... and we all know the first question a boy will typically want to ask. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

^^^Wnt You're in the wrong section. This is thread is about COI and fringe views. Move your post up one section. Atsme☯^Consult 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for moving. Atsme☯^Consult 19:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright - I've demoted this section one = = level in order to keep that from happening again. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

COI and fringe views

Seeing this thread, and its source, pop up here, makes me reflect on a question I've had for a while. COI gets discussed here a lot, in a vein of "fierce moral urgency". However, I think most everyone who's been paying attention to that discussion in wider venues (e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks) has noticed that there's an active group of editors that are enthusiastic about new mechanisms to prosecute and enforce real or suspected COI here. They seem to be united by a desire to promote alternative medicine, non-genetically-modified foods, and the like, to denigrate the safety and efficacy of conventional medical treatments, and in general, to advance similar minority POVs. I have no reason to believe any of them have a COI as we define it; they're simply acting as what WP:COI calls "biased editors". I don't recall seeing that discussed here.

The principle of "it's not the editor, it's the edits" has been decried as a cop-out; a way to wash our hands of responsibility, so that when a Keasbey & Mattison IP posts that asbestos is harmless and a useful source of dietary fiber, we can shrug and say, "well, we can't watch every article". That's a pretty compelling argument for doing something more. But I think it's also clear that any new COI enforcement policy is going to be used to bludgeon any editor who makes an extended effort to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in cases where mainstream opinion and evidence support the position of a large, moneyed interest.

I think people putting forth new ideas for the control of COI really ought to address this point. It sort of takes the moral luster off our self-congratulation for saving future Indian students from educational scams if within a year we're telling people with psychiatric disorders that smoking cannabis and taking coffee enemas are great alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Choess (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

COI and fringe views, indeed. It's a bizarre conflation to say anyone interested in COI disclosure is interested in fringe medicine or science. Certainly, it is the right thing to do to disclose COI or not edit (and Wikipedia should insist on that over and over again) but it is a nonsequitor to equate that position with anything fringe ('disclose or don't write' - is a sourced standard, mainstream take on COI). That you run into someone pushing fringe, or someone who does not understand COI is just another error to correct in discussion - tell them they don't understand COI, or they don't understand fringe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a bizarre conflation, but as you're the first one to introduce it to this thread, I'll let you bear the burden of defending it. If I thought the whole project for special mechanisms to detect and remove COI editing was a stalking horse for fringe views, I wouldn't bother posting about it. I think the people posting here advocating a corps of Auditors or whatever the proposal of the week is are responding in good faith to a real problem with the encyclopedia. I am raising this because I see it as a fairly concrete example of how a poorly devised policy for detecting and neutralizing COI editing could be used, by good-faith editors with a strong POV, in ways that damage the encyclopedia by driving off productive editors. My perception (perhaps incorrect) of discussion of COI on this page is that it tends to focus on the urgency of shutting down problems like the Wifione debacle, but does not adequately consider the adverse consequences of making it easy to make accusations of COI and forcing the accused to defend themselves in extenso. Choess (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not anymore difficult to defend a COI claim than it is to defend a POV claim or most other behavioral claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how closely you've been following the threads, Choess, but from what I have been witnessing, your take on the situation is far from accurate. I invite you to take a gander at the editors most interested in COI according to most edits at COI talk. None of those editors are actively promoting alternative medicine. In fact, a look at the most edits to Monsanto shows that there is a conflagration between defenders of GM foods and pharmaceuticals/ProjectMedicine and COI conversations. petrarchan47คุก 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

so FUNNY, P. the initial post was not about the mainstream WP:COI guideline but the fringe-y and FRINGE-attracting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks not to mention its current version User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks.

Choess at play here is the pharma shill gambit, glommed onto the recent concern about Wifione. i believe the thread tying those two things together is a belief that I (jytdog) am a Corrupt Abomination Destroying Wikipedia From Within (of whom Petrarchan is one of the chief prophets) - and I met each of them at articles about GMO or fringe health topics, where i hold down the mainstream view.... and have earned some juicy hate for doing so. I also find the conglomeration of sloppy concern with COI and belief in FRINGE disturbing - but c'est la wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, Jdog as I've told you before - it's not all about you. The above is pure conjecture, and really does sound paranoid. It's also false. At March Against Monsanto you argued against the wording used by the vast majority of sources (regarding the number of march participants), and later agreed that the one source you glommed on to was not a proper estimate and never claimed to be. Your retelling does not adhere to the facts. petrarchan47คุก 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

oh right when you talk about GM articles, you are talking about someone else. In light of this and this followed by this, and especially this.... sure, that is about someone else... . Please tell me who you view as the "head of the GMO articles here, who is known on the web as a Monsanto shill going back many years, is also very active in the Pharma (or "health") articles.." and who are you talking about, when wrote to me "Further, the editing that has held sway over the GMO articles since you have been in control of them is being called into question,... The best encyclopedia articles are written in a dispassionate voice, showing all sides of the story with due weight, and not by industry insiders" (emphasis added). Who are you talking about? (real question) You cannot understand why it is clear as day you are talking about me? (real question) (this is copy paste from April 5 here which you still haven't responded to)Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. I am No. 3 on the list and have no interest in alternative medicine and personally am averse to it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are mistaken as is Choess. Claims that even hint at the possibility the Advocacy ducks essay was designed to attract fringe or promote snake oil remedies sounds pretty paranoid to me and even more far-fetched than the fringe that has big pharma advocates wheeling. The lady doth protest too much. The essay addresses behavioral issues and doesn't discriminate against any particular topic. An essay doesn't trump or change our PAGs - it's an essay. If there's noncompliance of PAGs in an article, it isn't the fault of the essay. The same applies if fringe is being pushed and it's noncompliant with PAGs, or if MEDRS is being abused to keep information out of an article, or if paid editors are whitewashing corporate articles, or if paid political advocates are pushing a liberal or conservative agenda in an article. Jiminy Cricket, the unwarranted criticisms are tiresome. Atsme☯^Consult 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Choess's point is true, as was pointed out to you here, where DGG wrote: "But frankly, I consider the present attempt contaminated by the origins of it in an anti-establishment medicine POV. " These origins and the ongoing efforts by the group around it to push FRINGE views about health and conspiracy theories about editing in WP, are not helpful in the broader effort to address COI and advocacy in WP. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The deleted essays are bygones. The current essay is nothing like the preceding two. The criticisms being made now are just plain silly...which reminds me, BDD, who deleted the first essay, stated rather succinctly: Atsme, let me say more simply what I was getting at: if you leave "big pharma" out of the essay, any critics railing about that are going to look silly. [5]. And then of course there's your comment about the current essay, Jytdog: i gotta say that the essay has come a long way; much of the stuff that got this deleted is gone. i made some edits just now, you can of course take them or leave them. [6] Nuff said. Atsme☯^Consult 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You must think we are Mary Poppins. The same people doing the same thing using the same phrases for the same reasons, means that the result will not be what it needs to be in order to comply with policy, which is a complete reversal of the original thesis. The one person who cannot possibly judge whether the very obvious faults of your original essay have now been rectified, is you. I will be interested to see how you change your advocacy if the RfCs on Talk:G. Edward Griffin close against you, as currently seems rather likely. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme remind me never to try to be nice again, next time i do it. please. i didn't say it was great nor that it was free of disturbing stuff. i do think it has come a long way. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The responses from Guy and Jytdog tell the story. To begin, I didn't consider what Jytdog said about the essay as nice. It was accurate and I thanked him for it. [7] Regarding Guy's off-the-wall statement, You must think we are Mary Poppins. Uhm, not that it's important but he actually stated at Griffin talk: We are here because I have a streak of Mary Poppins buried under my mean, heartless exterior. I like Atsme. [8] Perhaps he was lying? I also find his interest in me rather curious, particularly in regards to wanting to see how I respond when the poorly formatted RfCs close against me. He obviously overlooked my response to him wherein I clearly stated (using the character name, Bert, from Mary Poppins): "Thank you for the explanation, "Bert". I actually do understand how consensus works which is why I conceded as demonstrated by the absence of my edits. I have no desire to see anyone TB or blocked and hope that never happens, more so for you than me." [9] Yet even after I conceded he continues here. The lady doth protest too much. Hmmm. Curious to say the least. He also went after me on the TP of SlimVirgin as did Jytdog. So editors who aren't familiar with this situation are probably asking what the hell has she done to cause such a stir? I authored an essay they didn't like, and I pointed out the policy violations at G. Edward Griffin. And that is what has made me such a horrible person. See how easy it is? My concern then and still is over the unsupported contentious material in Griffin which does not closely follow MEDRS, FRINGEBLP, or BLP policy. Don't be misled - I'm not the one who is trying to source contentious statements in a BLP based on 30+ OR and SYNTH as was pointed to Guy numerous times by several editors, including most recently by TFD here April 24, 2015, but I'm the bad guy? He gets away with insulting me and repeated bad behavior at Griffin and the response from the article's overseer was For goodness sake and hatting? [10]. And I'm the bad guy? And here he is now at Jimbo's TP to further advocate for his cause as a self-professed quack skeptic while trying to make others believe I'm the one with a cause?? It's laughable. However, the part that is not laughable is Guy's intense desire to defame a living person in Wiki voice based on SYNTH, while citing 30+ year old OR, Popular Paranoia and Media Matters - and I'm the bad guy? Atsme☯^Consult 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An organizational idea that may reduce controversy and encourage recruitment...

Jimmy, I'm not sure if my similar ideas have been presented to you before but it the following idea actually came to me recently when I authored an essay that focuses on the behavioral aspects of paid advocacy editing, User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks. My stance on paid editing is neutral as long as WP allows it and the editing/articles are compliant with PAGs. I believe Wikipedia:COI declaration has good intentions and reads well but I also believe it can be further refined to eliminate much of the disruption. I think it all pretty much boils down to whether or not the paid editing aspect actually encourages articles that are encyclopedic or promotional, and therein lies some of the problem. Perhaps a more efficient, organized format would prove beneficial to organizational growth and recruitment, and I think it's doable with a few modifications. My idea is to incorporate separate divisions within the encyclopedia. When I say separate, I mean each division would have its own set of administrators, and a more specialized outlay of PAGs, categories and the like. For example, WP Science and Medicine, WP Health, WP Business, WP Sports, WP Politics and Wikipedia the Encyclopedia, the latter being more closely held to an encyclopedic format. I think it may resolve many of the problems facing editors today and may even be the catalyst for recruiting more qualified editors or experts in a given field. I will be happy to further explain the concept if there's any interest. Atsme☯^Consult 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Which division would be responsible for this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Science and Medicine seems appropriate. Atsme☯^Consult 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. There is next to no debate within the scientific and medical communities regarding the 'controversies' discussed in the article - the argument comes from people who generally reject the scientific method and/or the medical consensus, making it a social/political issue more than a scientific one. I brought up this particular example because it illustrates an obvious problem with your proposal - many legitimate encyclopaedic subjects can't be neatly pigeon-holed into categories. I could no doubt fill this page with further examples, but frankly I can't see the point, since you haven't really provided any evidence to suggest why this proposed division would be beneficial. It is already open to contributors to specialise in subject matter they are interested in and/or have particular knowledge of - and I suspect that most probably do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. To take an even more problematic example, what about climate change? This topic would intersect "science", "health", "business", and of course "politics", at a minimum. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a declining number of admins, we can't afford a proposal to use them less efficiently by balkanising the pedia. Also any reduction in controversy would likely be more than outweighed by turf wars as to which group of admins were responsible for particular articles. Worse we would risk a citizendium style meltdown as the alternative health lobby would be lobbying for a "healing arts" section for a group of articles that the medical community would be loathe to legitimise by officially classifying as medical. There's also the problem that we need uninvolved admins to take decisions, and compartmentalising doesn't help this. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree which probably stems from the vast differences in our background experience regarding organizational structure, experience as directors/founders of nonprofit entities, recruitment of volunteers, publishing experience, and the like. Not that the experience of those commenting here is better or more advanced than mine, but the fact that there are stark differences between them. What I am proposing may be a hard concept for some to follow. Let's see what Jimmy has to say about it. Thank you for your input. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You may know some or all of my background including directorships of non profits etc, but I don't know your background, nor should either of our backgrounds count here other than as evidenced by the clarity and quality of our submissions. So thanks for the flattery, but if you disagree with my points I'd have preferred a response that explained why you disagree. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, WereSpielChequers, I was actually responding to Andy and should have stated so, but I incorrectly believed the indent would be adequate. Atsme☯^Consult 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah threading, not perfect but we will miss it when Flow errh floeth upon us. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have some mixed feelings here on this idea myself. I can and do think that there are a number of articles or topics which logically fall within the scope of several topics. Maybe even most of them, to some degree, will fall within multiple project's scopes. This includes even most of the kinds of animals, which have been, to some degree, given attention in religious systems, occasionally philosophical systems, popular culture, literature, and the lists go on. As a personal ideal, I would like to see all of what we would today consider reasonable encyclopedic content of any sort included somewhere in wikipedia, even if that means the creation of a lot more spinout articles than we even have today. And I could see something like the existing Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles expanded to include other topics, so that it would be easier to quickly determine just how many significant spinout and potential spinout topics are already covered in other encyclopedic sources. And having something like more of those pages would also make it a lot easier for major topics which don't get a lot of specific attention or interest here better coverage. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

John, having multiple project scopes doesn't affect the division. Think organization of the projects in their respective divisions. What we have now looks more like a hoarder's spare room. Atsme☯^Consult 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always possible to imagine ways to 'organise things better'. What we need is evidence that it would actually work, in the face of topics that can't conveniently be categorised. An encyclopaedia needs to accurately reflect the messy realities of human complexity, not impose a bogus order on it for administrative convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see the exampled division Wikipedia the Encyclopedia which will contain all the general encyclopedic content that doesn't fit in the other divisions? Atsme☯^Consult 05:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What I see is a vague proposal, with no supporting evidence that it would actually achieve anything beyond giving us all something else to argue about. We have enough problems deciding whether a subject deserves coverage at all, and if it does, what such coverage should actually consist of. Adding another layer of complexity doesn't look like a way to "reduce controversy and encourage recruitment" to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the exact proposal; it would not be useful to attempt to force editors to focus on specific subject categories or assign them to divisions. However, I could see people accepting nominated positions as experts within a specific area of the encyclopedia and then being a point-person, when editors need help or advice within that area of expertise. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea sounds more easily workable to me. I'm not sure we would want to call them by the term "expert", because that might not be particularly accurate, but something like "[topical] factchecker" or "[topical] researcher" or something like that might work. If, and it is obviously a very big if, I can ever finish the bloody Bibliography of encyclopedias set of pages, that might make it easier for all sorts of people to in general do some sort of fact checking. Maybe with a bit of material included in one of the project banners on the talk page to the effect of "this [specified] version of the article has been checked against "reference source x" and found to contain no particular deviations" might also be something which could be useful. For a lot of really broad topics, it might also be one of the ways to most easily ensure that all the major subtopics are discussed or at least referenced somewhere in the main article or its main spinout articles as well. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So what happens when a "business" admin, a "science/health" admin, and a "politics" admin disagree about the factual quality and weighting of our articles on climate change? MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But sometimes the reference sources disagree, so it wouldn't be enough to check against one source, even if that was the generally well-regarded Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I'm working on an article now that has exposed several errors in otherwise reliable sources, including the ODNB. Eric Corbett 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the questions, the first would probably deal more with the matter of spinout articles and matters of WEIGHT, which could be referenced I suppose in the banner template in some way. Regarding errors in reference sources, even the best make mistakes, sometimes clearly intentionally, as indicators of possible copyvio or something. Errors in reference works and similar would be worth including in articles on the reference works themselves, I would think, and I wish we had more of those sorts of articles. I'm kind of in the early stages of making that easier myself. These are valid points, though, and clearly no source is perfect, but, having said that, making it easier for people to know what others say, and at least mention them, might in some cases be better than the alternative. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to example it a little better. Let's say the topic is about climate change as MastCell suggested. It would be included in the Science division under the category Oceanic and Atmospheric. Science would also have a Biography category, among many other categories relative to that division. Science will have its own pod of admins. Admins will be limited to their respective divisions rather than across the board, the latter of which should encourage recruitment of admins to specific areas (specialty fields) because we are now targeting volunteers based on their interest in a particular topic area. ARBCOM would comprise selections from the different pods.

Analogy - one pod of admins oversees the Atlantic Ocean and land masses within its territory. Another pod oversees the Caribbean and its land masses, another pod the Pacific Ocean and its land masses and so forth. Admins in the Caribbean do not have jurisdiction over the Pacific and so on. What that does is create pods of admins who are well versed in their respective areas of interest rather than lump summing all admins to cover the entire world. Expertise in a particular area also allows for a broader conceptualization of behavioral problems because now some degree of focus can be on content which provides for a better understanding of where the problems arise. More active/populated topic divisions get more admins while the less active areas get the minimum. Atsme☯^Consult 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The major problem I could see here, unfortunately, is whether there would be sufficient departmentalized admins to adequately maintain each department. Also, it would seem to me that it would increase the risk of burnout, because it would have a tendency to make specific admins think they were in some way obligated to specific content areas. Dealing with the same wearisome discussions over and over would burn out anyone, and I know from experience there are a lot of seemingly endless arguments in various places. If admins were actually employees of the foundation, then this might work, but otherwise I can and do see that there would be a tendency to either force admins to remain "on topic", even if they get exhausted by it, or relinquish the admin bit, or retire.

And I tend to think that it might also, to some degree, lead to a form of involuntary POV pushing by these pods. Theoretically, depending on the degree of balkanization we're talking about here, we might have a bunch of religion admins arguing that certain completely non-scientific religious beliefs are scientific or something like that.

Lastly, it would likely make it that much harder for cross-pod vandals to be caught. As is, someone who has tracked a problem editor or puppeteer in one area would have to hand off the baton to another pod if the vandal attacks a related area, and the amount of time that would have to be expended in preparing and transmitting the damning evidence against the problem editor would be a real drain of time, particularly when there is no guarantee, depending on unknown circumstances, whether an admin in the other "pod" would get to the complaint any time soon.

Those are at least a few of the problems. Personally, I wouldn't at all mind having some sort of content committees created, and this effectively looks like something along those lines, but it also maybe looks like it might create a potentially unworkable degree of bureaucracy, particularly for content areas that don't have many particular experts in them. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find the notion that only admins are capable of judging the accuracy of content to be quite revealing, as the requirement for admins to be able to do so has been repeatedly rejected at RfA. Eric Corbett 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It was indicated in the first post to this thread that the groups would be admin only. To a degree, I could support that, provided we opened up the admin corps a bit more than we have. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's always possible that Hell will one day become exothermic, but I wouldn't be holding my breath. How long ago was it that Jimbo declared his intention to sort out RfA? Eric Corbett 21:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your well thought out input, John Carter. I have also mentioned (in other discussions) task forces or what you termed as content committees because I think they would be quite valuable to the project. The disruption stems from content disputes and elevates into behavioral disputes. It makes sense to nip it in the bud and will save our admins a lot of burdensome work. I would support such a plan. Atsme☯^Consult 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Atsme, the original version of your essay was deleted because it actively invited people to assume the "pharma shill gambit". The new version does so less explicitly. A load of people wioth vastly more experience in managing COI and advocacy have told you that your approach is wrong, and the entire motivation for it appears to be that you consistently fail to gain consensus for your edits at Talk:G. Edward Griffin, where you seem to want us to pretend that laetrile is not quackery, the New World Order conspiracy theory is a valid approach to understanding the Federal Reserve, and that a mainly self-published truther, chemtrailer, AIDS denialist and so on, is somehow not a conspiracy theorist. It's become very boring. 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Very disturbing post, Guy. FYI - the essay is coming along beautifully with a great team of collaborators. I am truly concerned over your behavior right now. I've seen you out of sorts before, but right now it appears you are losing it. You do realize you just spewed a toilet full of unsupported assertions don't you? What exactly is your purpose for this unwarranted PA and your relentless attempts to discredit me? I'm actually embarrassed for you at this moment. Atsme☯^Consult 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, Guy - that's not at all what's happening. petrarchan47คุก 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme's point above that content disputes escalate into behavioral disputes, because we do not have a means to resolve them when the focus is still on the content. Regarding the assumption that any new sub-set of editors would be admins; on the contrary, I would think creating a new user-level would be a good work-around to the inability to reform RFA; it could reduce the level of administrative items by fixing issues at the content level, instead of the conduct level. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It will never happen. Wikipedia does not do binding decisions. The issue is well documented: it is the disparity in motivaiton between those with an ideological or financial commitment to an idea, and those committed only to neutrality in the abstract. That's why articles on quackery have to be policed all the time: the quackery advocates will never rest until articles reflect the world as they wish it to be, rather than as it actually is.

Atsme is right, I am losing it ("it" in this case being: patience with Atsme's relentless attempts to change WIkipedia so that she can have a flattering Nice Article on a minor crank). Go and read the talk page archives of G. Edward Griffin and look also at the history of the deleted version of Atsme's essay.

This idea originates in a campaign for content that has failed, time after time, to achieve consensus. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your obsession over Griffin is getting a little scary, Guy. You need to remove the tinfoil hat your wearing and back off because your advocacy behavior is making you look like the very entities you are fighting. Atsme☯^Consult 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea would create thousands of POV forks, such that the science division version would host the science-friendly version, the politics division would host the tit-for-tat debating style where everyone gets an equal say no matter how wrong they are, and the business division would host the capitalist-friendly version which dismisses science as an annoyance. If we want to give up on WP:POVFORK as well as NPOV then by all means, implement this idea. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...are there any librarians in the house? Atsme☯^Consult 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few real ones, and me, who isn't, but is at least working on Bibliography of encyclopedias. Unfortunately, even in encyclopedias, and I speak as someone who has looked at a lot of them, there will be problems. I myself think that pretty much anything covered in any recent "real" encyclopedic type source should be included somewhere in wikipedia, but also acknowledge up front that articles on animals in the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends probably contain material which is not gonna be really directly relevant to the main article on that animal. That content would probably better fir in an "[animal] in popular culture" article. Spinout articles of all sorts probably are one of our major weaknesses. And there will also be real questions regarding WEIGHT based even on encyclopedic sources. So, as a fictitious example, if the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends has a 5 page article on housecats, but cats in popular culture is given such brief coverage as a percentage of the total page in Encyclopedia Britannica and other general reference sources, the question of how much material to include in the main article, and in which section, is probably still going to remain. The same might hold true for content relating to housecats in individual countries, religions, and so on. And there may not, in all cases, even be a subject specific reference book which deals with the topic directly. And, although there are such for housecats in particular, they may be so limited that such peripheral topics aren't mentioned at all. Even consulting all the reference books out there won't necessarily solve all the problems, and I can unfortunately honest see at least a few cases where it might manufacture a whole number of new ones. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable Wikipedia?

I recently returned as an editor, as practically everyone knows, and I have started looking at the suite of philosophy articles. They are all in need of attention, and it is beyond any single person’s abilities to put them all right. It’s partly because there aren’t enough editors with even an elementary education in philosophy. I think it’s also because philosophy, more than any other subject, is considered as a subject that anyone can edit on. The reality is that competence is required here just as in mathematics or astrophysics, but no one has been told this. If you look at the talk page of the article on Free will, you will get a headache. See also the complaint here about the article Socrates. No professional philosophers (who have deadlines on papers and whose contributions to Wikipedia have no CV value) will want to build any sandcastles on the shore here. Astonishingly, it was an early featured article in 2004 so, contrary to the theory of Wikipedia, entropy is increasing.

I am not the first person to suggest this, but why not have a system where specialist writers can develop an article in a the traditional way, i.e. not everyone can edit, the product will to be a defined format and with a defined target readership, no forest of citations but with proper peer review, and in a separate area. Then 'release' the stable article using a link at the top of the current article. That way it does not interfere with the current editorial system of 'anyone can edit', and it gives Wikipedia readers the choice of the stable peer reviewed version versus the current version. By default, the current version would be the one the reader would see, although the link to the stable version would be prominent. Perhaps you could get readers to vote on which version they preferred.

Before anyone objects that 'Nupedia tried this and it didn't work', I will point them to the excellent Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, which is a rough contemporary of Wikipedia, and which has successfully grown into more than 2,000 excellent articles. I am not saying that Wikipedia articles should look like that, because SEP target readership is not the general public, I am merely saying a traditional approach is viable. Also, Nupedia and Wikipedia never properly merged as a two-track system, even though this approach has been successfully used in traditional encyclopedias for centuries. I.e. be broad in many places, be deep where it matters. Commonly this is done by 'flagship articles', namely which cover a single vital subject in some depth. Free will is a level 3 article, and it should not be in the mess that it clearly is.

Could the WMF support such an initiative? Who could I approach? Peter Damian (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always a mistake to look to WMF as a potential savior in matters of content; that's going to come from the community. It will take you a while to get reintegrated, to establish a reputation for high competence, to find others with competence in the subject matter, and to collectively figure out what are and are not problems. My suggestion would be to write, write, and write some more — not about "big" topics like Free will, which will always be contentious and which will likely always attract crank perspectives and controversy, but about topics farther off the beaten path. This doesn't only apply to philosophy, it is equally true for history or politics or what have you: don't waste time or effort on huge and controversial topics, which will always be contentious and tainted by POV-pushers, do serious work on the edges.

As for the idea of creating a means of more or less "locking the thread" once a certain level of completeness and excellence is achieved, that is likely to be a highly controversial change proposal and will take every molecule of political capital that can be mustered. Take some time to build some. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, what is the name of the fallacy where inferences are drawn from a single datum as anecdote, e.g., "contrary to the theory of Wikipedia, entropy is increasing," as opposed to a statistically sound survey? Why don't you just make improvements and defend them like every other editor, instead of trying to exclude others the moment you get re-included? EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ellen no one will be excluded. The idea is to have two separate (possibly competing) tracks. The default version will be the standard ‘anyone can edit’ version. On a ‘statistically sound survey’ I have done more work than this one example but I agree: if the WMF has any commitment to quality, it should be commissioning work like this. I also have a table here comparing the Nupedia style approach of the SEP with the corresponding version in Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, be careful that your abduction is not affected by confirmation bias. I have a feeling you would be just as well served to simply make ordinary improvements and then create a custom watchlist query (like this one I use to keep an eye on econ article changes) to help you and your colleagues maintain quality over time. EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And @Tim again, why do you suggest not writing on flagship articles, i.e. vital articles? Why can't Wikipedia compete with leviathans like SEP? Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian -The Wikipedia model simply does not work well for large, contentious topics. There are multitudes of changes that come and go, with POV pushers galore fighting over the content. Experts should contribute where they have expertise and leave the half-educated anonymous warriorism of "big" topics for others to get worked up over. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit. You're looking for a different project. When you go to McDonald's, do you order foie gras? Townlake (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but it would be nice to have a restaurant next door at the same price, and where you could see if the food was better :) Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can and do see some reason to maybe make some articles on major topics, which get a lot of dubious edits, under some form of semi-protection or pending changes. These would include major topical articles in any number of fields. However, for that to happen, I also think it would be reasonable, and probably required by the community, to have several things happen first. I also tend to think that "pending changes" would probably be preferable of the two options.

1) To the greatest degree possible, establish and bring to a sufficient level of quality the basic spinout articles, which would include all those articles which have a clear "Main article" heading relating to them in the parent article. The level of quality aimed at would probably be the point at which it is clear what subtopics are covered in that spinout, and which aren't. This could probably extend to those spinout articles which themselves have further spinout articles, presumably under the same circumstances.

2) As a condition of the above, check to see what all the requisite spinout articles would be. This would, presumably, be done by consulting reference works of some sort directly relating to whichever article is being spunout.

3) Have some sort of template automatically appear in the edit box indicating that (ideally) the article should only be edited to reflect updates in information already contained in it, or improvement of references, or general housekeeping, but not to add additional information. The template might go on to say something like "please add additional information first to one of the spinout articles" and seek to include the new content only after that spinout is developed to a fairly NPOV level regarding that content.

Now, this would, of course, all be dependent on ensuring that the basic main article is already at a reasonable level of quality. That would probably best be achieved by consulting the most directly relevant recent reference sources. But it might, maybe, theoretically, be workable at some point. It would, however, probably need to have some way to establish at least the three conditions above as easily workable first. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

John I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am suggesting that the main (current) 'anyone can edit' article stays exactly as it is, i.e. anyone can edit it. However, at the top of the article there will be a 'stable article' button that the interested reader can press, and see the stable version. There could also be another button that diff'd to the main version. This would not be intrusive on the way Wikipedia currently operates, and it would provide a better experience for the reader, because they have more choice. And it would not be an exercise in 'exclusion' as one person suggested above. Quite the opposite: everyone could edit the main page, as before. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Such is already more or less available on the article talk pages though, at least for any article which has ever been at a good level like GA or so. And, for some articles in particular, it would probably be a mistake to use such a function. Such an example might be if the last "stable version" of the article on the Catholic Church was written when John Paul II was pope and talked about him in that capacity. And there would be some reasonable question as to determining who would determine when an article is "stable." So, for instance, would an academic in physics who just doesn't like a new theory in his field be able to tag the article with whatever idea he doesn't like as the last "stable" version? And, if the last "stable" version weren't that good in general, would it be "stable"? I can and do see some advantage to, maybe, trying to get the "topical" editors in any field together to get the main topical articles in that field up to a reasonable level of quality, at least in terms of content, maybe less so in referencing or grammar or whatever. But you would still need to develop a specific list of criteria for what is and is not a stable version, and have some sort of review process to finalize it. That's kinda the way it works here. I'd like to see it, and I could certainly see adding some sort of template icon to the article page with maybe a file cabinet icon or something which would link to the last "stable version" as determined through review. But I know from experience with Biography A-Class review finding such people willing to do that sort of thing to the degree that would be required here is difficult at best on its own. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I must say that en.Wikipedia as it stands does have severe problems. I do also edit within de.Wikipedia and must say it runs far more stable and smooth. It is only after a certain number of edits, that have been checked by already registered editors, any new editor can edit articles “freely” in de.Wikipedia. This would put an end to somewhat dubious and explicit IP-edits and would allow new editors to undergo a certain learning curve. This process would not mean edits by unregistered editors are turned down they just have to be given a clear. In recent years we battle each other with guidelines which in the long run hampers us to work on content. A certain quality control to what edit makes it to the eyes of the one seeking information might not be a bad idea. In effect this would mean to put ALL articles under WP:PCPP.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want all articles to be under pending changes, given the ridiculous number of stubs we have here. But I could agree that, as a possibility, any article rated at "C" class or better which doesn't have any quality tags might, not unreasonably, be subject to pending changes. The one question I can see to this would be finding out just how many pages that would mean on a regular basis, and consequently how much of the time of the average senior editor capable of approving pending changes would be devoted to reviewing such changes on a regular basis. If the average admin or senior editor had to spend, on average, two hours a day going through pending changes still not approved or rejected on articles on his watch list, I tend to think that enthusiasm for wikipedia would very likely drop pretty damn fast. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is to maybe use existing protecting levels to allow for things to quiet down and concentrate on what we all came her in the first place – maybe a six months test run. Having said what I said is with my own experience on subjects anything else but uncontroversial. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, your "stable version" is evidently intended to exclude unhelpful "improvements" by Randy from Boise, but do you envisage the "stable version" as permanently forked and diverging from the "open editing" version? If not, how do they keep in touch, so that real improvements to one feed in to the other?

Also, where do you find the specialised writers? Who decides who is, or is not, qualified, and on what basis? In specialist fields where there are competing views and factions, how do we avoid one faction getting control of the selection process, so that the specialist panel reflects their POV? Even if philosophy is a field where there is such general consensus that the specialist panel would have no serious disagreements, there are not many fields like that. Consider the process of selecting the specialist writer panels for alternative medicine, Israel/Palestine, Gamergate, Scientology... JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's avoid any talk of "stable" versions, which brings back all the chaotic debate around pending changes: the idea here seems to instead be "reviewed permalinks". I think there's a good case for it as an improvement on our existing article assessment system. Why don't we have the ability to review particular revisions and mark them as meeting certain quality levels? I'm imagining in particular a lightweight system where newer revisions of good/featured articles could be marked as still meeting the criteria—or, perhaps, as needing a bit of polishing for maintenance—based on the diff from the last reviewed version. I think the idea's worth exploring. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problems indicated above would continue with this quicker system though. I can and do see it as being really useful to have more people involved in GA and FA and the like, and would love to see enough such people to make the processes ones which could have a kind of automatic review every six months, for instance. But questions of how to deal with such GA/FA articles on broad subjects which have significant changes in their subtopics, even if not within the main topic, are going to present problems. I remember Nishidani once asking whether we theoretically would have to update an article on the publication of every new encyclopedia which might mention it. I think the answer would have to be, unfortunately, "yes". And this would include encyclopedias on topics which are tangentially related to the main topic in some way. An example might be the status of housecats as housepets in some Asian country, particularly if there are some sort of recent governmental changes in same. Getting more people who have at least decent access to reference works in GA and FA review would help a lot, and I would love to see that happen. I'm personally, at least, trying to make it easier for people to find relevant reference works, which is sometimes one of the big problems. I like the idea, but I think we are probably at least a bit away from having the structure in place, both in terms of number of involved good editors and access to relevant sources to make implementation of anything soon problematic. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Nihiltres has it absolutely right. Reviewed permalinks. John CD raises all the obvious problems about editorial governance. Regarding contributors, I can't speak for any subject apart from philosophy, but I know many of the specialist editors from the old days i.e. pre-2007 and I think they could be coaxed back if they could be persuaded there would be minimal 'Randy' problems. Editorial governance would be one to think carefully about. There could only be one 'reviewed permalink', to avoid the problem of forking permalinks. I will be away a bit, but thanks for the useful comments. Peter Damian (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Damian: It's an interesting idea, but I suspect that using the existing Wikipedia mechanisms, while exhausting and sometimes fruitless, may be the only way to deal with the issues that you describe. The problem is that many editors who can barely tie their own shoes view themselves as supremely competent, and that administrators are often not that much better. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, can a Wikipedia compete with the Stanford authored control system? I don't think it is set up for that - and don't see it happening. However, what is already doable and useful to Wiki readers is to link to the Stanford article in the external links section of the Wiki article - that would seem to better serve whatever function there is of a locked un-bylined, anon reviewed, wiki-article (for a similar type resource on a different type of article that is often also linked in WP external sections see [11] from the University of Virginia, all with a named academic editor; there are no doubt more such useful types to link to on most important (and even some arcane) topics. 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I doubt we will ever be able to compete directly with the Stanford or the Macmillan/Gale Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any of the other leading reference works in their fields. What we can probably do better than them, however, is cover content to a greater depth than they do. They, probably even the Stanford, have some space limitations, we don't. We could generate theoretically full-length FAs on every work by every author in the field. I doubt any of the print encyclopedias could. So, while it is still the case in a lot of content of a global nature that our thematic overview articles either kind of suck or in some cases don't even exist yet, we can probably do a much better job of covering at length the individual works of philosophers, and possibly probably their lives, particularly if they were ever notable for anything other than philosophy, and the like. We also, at least theoretically, can probably host all the older PD encyclopedias or reference works of a broadly philosophical nature over at commons or wikisource, possibly with the sections or chapters fully transcribed for easier use and downloading. I think I started adding all the old philosophy encyclopedias that were still included as relevant in the 1980s Sheehy guide to reference to the Bibliography of encyclopedias pages, and that older material, even if some of it is outdated through better manuscripts being found or better biographies written, is also something that the Stanford probably doesn't now and never will have. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Wikipedia has always been better at the more obscure articles, which often aren't covered elsewhere, but once the "lesser" articles are covered then it becomes easier to write the bigger articles. The problem with articles in the more respected encyclopedias is that they're written by one expert, who will have a particular point of view. I could, for instance, point to several Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles where the WP version is superior to the ODNB's offering. Eric Corbett 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point regarding the obviously separate "minor" articles. I guess I should specificy that what I meant by minor articles might be something like Historiography of the concept of free will or History of study of free will or something like that, along with individual books by individual experts in the field. Particularly for really complicated articles, those might be easier to write than the main ones, because of the sheer amount which could be included in the main article and all the related WEIGHT problems. And I for one have no reservations about saying that I'm not sure any single print reference source is necessarily better than ours, by and large, unless other sources have specifically said that about their content. So, for instance, the SEP apparently doesn't have a separate article on the City of God (book). We would clearly be in a position to be able to provide articles of that type, possibly better than their own, which in that case isn't a separate article yet. Personally, I've always favored finding the longest reference article possible on a topic to use as a starting point, and given the frankly incredible number of extant reference works/encyclopedias out there, many in the PD, we could be in a position to use the information from them to provide a much broader range of coverage than the SEP does. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nupedia ain't the example where it was tried and failed. Veropedia and Citizendium are the examples where it was tried and failed. As must as free will being an FA is held up as an example of entropy increasing, take a look at it - it wouldn't have a snowball in a gasoline suit in hell's chance of being an FA today. Quality has increased so much from 2004 that our best content then is hum-drum today. It's true we do a pretty bad job at a lot of the "highest-level" articles. They're harder to write than the biography of one person or sum-such. Which isn't to say a "stable versions" isn't worth trying. But it's worth being familiar with the previous attempts that have failed before re-inventing the wheel (to be optimistic, or squaring the circle, to be pessimistic). WilyD 08:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A counterexample, in part The article English language has long been protected from edits by persons other than autoconfirmed registered users. It is a top 500 article in terms of page views. Even at that, it was a dog of an article for years, failing GA review and receiving a very thorough peer review that was then ignored for years. I've developed an interest in elevating article quality of high-page-view articles, and on 30 November 2014, I visited the article talk page of English language to propose raising that article up to good article status. I then relentlessly asked each editor committing edits to that article to mention sources for the edits, and repeatedly asked on the article talk page about what sources would be good for improving the article. As soon as the focus turned from unsupported personal opinions to verifiable information from sources, many formerly hotly edit-warred issues were resolved. As the March 2015 Core contest began, Maunus (the peer reviewer of the article years earlier) decided to join Erutuon (an editor who was beginning detailed updates of the phonology section of the article by then) to fix the whole article from top to bottom. I too joined in on fixing three formerly contentious sections of the article, and English language passed good article review a few weeks ago. It can be done. Editors have to agree with one another to rely on reliable sources to fix articles. I made multiple trips to my friendly local university library to check out books to have at hand in my home office as I fixed English language. Anyone who can circulate books from a good library could do the same. A few editors in agreement that good sources matter can make a huge difference in an article that has lain fallow for many years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "can be done." Have controlled identity and recognized experts author and publicly sign articles? Have recognized experts publicly review, edit, and pass articles? Or, have "people on the internet" "do good" and say, "yah, good" to each-other, whomever each-other is. The later is already done, but it's not a counter-example process to Stanford's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Something to look at

Boys, since when did IP addresses start sending registered users messages like this? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP means well, but I'm concerned why an IP is following a draft in someone's userspace. Kinda stalkerish and sounds like maybe an established user is hiding behind an IP as a sock.Camelbinky (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I was appreciating the IP's message. I have never seen any IP giving such long and useful advice. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Older users, including Jimbo, will recognise the future of the draft as being of interest. There are many experienced IP editors, and I don't know who this user is, but one can often see the ghosts of long-gone registered users wandering the halls of recent changes as IP editors, carrying wise words. You lot underestimate yourselves. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Driving under the influence of Wikipedia?

Flipping around the TV, in a Volvo ad my eyes tune in on a familiar-looking "W" next to the word "WikiLocations", so I look up ... [12]

"WikiLocations gives you access to Wikipedia-based content, a service which is not included in the car's navigation system. You can view articles, images and summaries relating to your car's position and destination...."

"...Use the steering wheel knob for the safest use of the app while you drive."

I'm afraid I still can't cut-and-paste that second part with a straight face. :) Now on the one hand, yes, as an inventor you know you have arrived when the ethics of using your product while driving becomes a matter of public legislation, and you can't be far away from that by now. On the other hand ... I think that browsing Wikipedia while driving may be one of the few things that nobody thought of while writing the WP:General disclaimer! Wnt (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is very similar to what I proposed that Wikipedia should look into with TV commercials and TV shows. Have the familiar W logo and "to learn more about _____ look it up on Wikipedia", would be perfect for TV shows like History Channel's Vikings, or even for Greek yogurt commercials (so you can actually learn what the difference between it and regular yogurt is?). Shazam even does that for some commercials.Camelbinky (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope that human car drivers only access Wikipedia by screen readers. Listening to Wikipedia whilst driving should be no more distracting than listening to the radio, reading it while driving should be as illegal as reading a book whilst driving. (Note to digital archaeologists combing through these archives in the future, yes the driverless car has been invented but it is not yet in normal use). ϢereSpielChequers 05:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Well, the text I quoted said "view", and searching around I found [13] which certainly suggests that small but nonetheless possibly lethal amounts of text might be viewed; I don't see anything there about a screen reader. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wnt, yes I share your concern and hope that drivers only access Wikipedia by screen readers. But if occasionally drivers do try to read and drive simultaneously it isn't for us to stop that anymore than newspaper publishers need to print strictures against reading whilst driving, traffic offences are for traffic cops to enforce. It would be within the licensed use of Wikipedia to use it in many ways that one might not support, we only have a moral duty to put a "health warning" up when a misuse becomes common enough that it makes sense to act. Where I live we now have lots of legislation about knives, but I'm still allowed to have them in the kitchen despite the risk of cutting myself when chopping up vegetables. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed... but I feel that way about many other things in the disclaimers, like not taking the articles as professional medical/legal advice, yet there are many who push for us to act as if that disclaimer isn't even possible to make, let alone automatic. And it would feel strange if you read that someone had had a distracted-driving accident while reading an article you started, or if you knew that article had come up only because you'd added the wrong location coordinates (or even the right ones), etc. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube video

Hi Jimbo, I am curious as to what you think about this new video about you and Wikipedia. Everymorning talk 18:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Health Ranger" is Mike Adams, the same guy being discussed in the above "Porn history" section. Sunrise (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah, the guy behind http://www.naturalnews.com/ - having a fit against Wikipedia. What's new? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

From the same people: Unbiased: The Truth about the Healing Arts on Wikipedia @ Kickstarter - Funding for this project was canceled by the project creator 1 day ago. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very unlikely to bother even watching such a thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't. It's more stupid than you might imagine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lifetime Achievement Award

Well done!

$75,000 - very nice!--5 albert square (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does Jimbo have a stronger jaw than even Bon Jovi there or is it the beard haha? Two guys you'd never expect to be photographed together.. Bon Jovi's hair now looks like my dad's, although more of a bouff! Never saw that one coming either, 10-15 years ago he looked a lot like my mother. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the beard @Dr. Blofeld: :)

Jimbo, I hope you enjoy your award :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think you will add the $75K to your Jimmy Wales Foundation (how is that going, by the way?) endowment, or do you have other plans for the money from PNC Bank? - 50.144.0.138 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Long term copyright abuse

Over a few last few weeks, I have inquired the copyright department of wikipedia and they are not capable of stopping the serial copyright abuse that has been carried out by a single user on wikipedia for years and the friendly environment of wikipedia finally contradicts its core policies. Such exemption from a serious violation is becoming damaging for our publishers leading to endless court battles and plagiarism disputes. Not only the copyright violation is the problem but also using the content in wholly incorrect context is a major problem.

I've been advised to contact you, you and anyone else who would like to help us in this cause may email me.

Thank you and let me know if I can be helped. Jake Heidelberg (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What user, what copyright abuse? We are very strict about such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jake Heidelberg:, first of all welcome to Wikipedia! As Jimbo says, we need more information in order to act on this. Do you have any diffs that you can please provide us with?--5 albert square (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, a good question from a registered user with no contribution history, Do I smell a sock? Nyth63 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gonna ask for a "citation needed" to point out the "good question"... poor English for anyone, especially for some one who is in the publishing industry, and then there's the fact- what lawyer, of any nation, would encourage someone to contact a potential defendant in a civil case, and one must assume that if this person was to work for a publishing company that they'd have plenty of lawyers to ask before coming to Jimbo.Camelbinky (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always puzzled when people post complaints utterly lacking in specifics. There are dozen of admins watching this page itching to block malicious users. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the information regarding the content should and the disputes should be kept private, I cannot paste the copyrighted content here. I have emailed to 5 albert square, he may report back. Jake Heidelberg (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While it's true that you can't post copyrighted material there is would not be an issue with simply mentioning what article the viloation comes from and where it was copied form. if we don't know who posted the viloation or what it is there is literally nothing that can be done.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton move request

The annual move request is on. Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit "consensus can change" applies here. I myself would have opposed such a move request 10 years ago, but the facts of the matter show she is referred only as Hillary Clinton since her presidential run in 2008.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the byline of her own books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the table at the top of Political positions of Joe Biden. When are the Clinton supporters going to get a nice table like that? How do they expect to earn my vote if they can't even keep up with Biden? Although Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Free-market capitalism (permalink) made me laugh, I think our readers would be better served by learning what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks of her stance on issues of free commerce.

For example, this article could be a more accurate description of Clinton's and/or Biden's stance on unfettered commerce than the permalink, or what the Chamber of Commerce says about them. It would really be nice to have honest political positions statements.

Luckily, this cycle we have quality assurance. It turns out that fact checking is how news sites sell ads. Why were the venture capitalists not informed? EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because I always vote based on what the US Chamber of Commerce thinks about the positions of a candidate... Oh, wait, no... nobody should. Ever. And for the record- yes, I plan on voting for Hillary unless some how an even better liberal candidate runs in the Democratic primaries against her.Camelbinky (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)