User talk:Jimbo Wales

Mandatory account creation

When was the last time this was opened up for discussion, debate and consensus for possible implementation? - ^theWOLFchild 21:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the situation that regardless of what we think on en.Wikipedia, the WMF are against it, so it isn't going to happen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an issue for me, unless of course pointing out the threat above is construed as a violation of terms of service. Miep at the embassy (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF was against even an experimental non-confirmed cannot create articles. Both this and registration required are, however, ultimately in the community's hands. For example we can block, or simply revert all IPs. Of course we know that historically the WMF has reacted with al the subtlety of "superprotect"... But if we make up our minds, there's no reason the en:wp community shouldn't run en:wp as it is supposed to. Alternatively the WMF can drop its "common carrier" protection and take over. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

This is one of the perennial proposals. The paragraph at 2.1 offers a good explanation of why banning IP edits would not be a cure-all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I have a philosophical objection to requiring registration. But the Aaron Swartz blog entry shouldn't be an evidential basis for anything. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

I know of no evidence whatsoever that "the WMF are against it". I believe quite the opposite based on the general philosophical approach put forward by Lila and other senior executives: we must be bold in testing new ideas. This is a perennial proposal, but one for which we have never tested. My own view is that we should build a proper A/B testing framework (using cookies that last longer than one session) and randomly test different approaches on appropriately sized subsets of traffic. (For example: 1% of accounts who are not logged in and attempt to edit for the first time, they are offered a login first. Results are tracked over the course of a month.)

"Alternatively the WMF can drop its "common carrier" protection" - this is a very bad legal misunderstanding. Nothing about forcing logins or not would have any impact whatsoever on Section 230 protection.

We are, on the whole, a data-driven community. I think we need to be supporting and encouraging the WMF to develop tools for best-practice testing so that we can finally make these decisions based on something more than faith and anecdotal evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The community manages (in particular) EN:Wikipedia. If the community stops or is forced to stop managing it by such steps as "superprotect" and arbitrary de-bitting of those who support the community, but go against the foundation, then either the project will crumble or the foundation will have to step into the breach. At this point the arms-length relationship evaporates. Claims like those in Cubby V. Compuserve that the publisher cannot feasibly inspect everything it published, evaporate because the community has demonstrated that it is feasible. In the EU the requirement "acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity" also evaporate. In terms of § 230 (c) 1 dangerous legal ground is trodden by insisting in this scenario that the foundation is not the information content provider, they would need to establish who fills the role of "another provider". Indeed even relying on comforting precedent is dangerous, the US Supreme Court has shown itself quite willing to reverse overbroad interpretations of lower courts, and even statute where it conflicts with the constitution, other provisions of the CDA being a case in point.

Away from the hypothetical, you must have been on holiday when consensus on English Wikipedia was established (by User:Scottywong, User:Kudpung and others - after an enormous amount of preparatory work) for a limited test of restriction of article creation to registered accounts, which was turned down by the developers, apparently by WMF fiat.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Not exactly. WP:ACTRIAL proposed limiting creation to autoconfirmed editors, not registered users (you have to be registered to create an article, anyways). As for rejection by WMF fiat, I've looked at the discussion a number of times over the years and I'm not sure that is completely accurate. There seemed to be a tendency in the past for some developers to "speak for the WMF" without any indication they were authorized to do so. Things might have improved after Lila took over but I'm not convinced of that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. The point still stands, though, I was careful to say "apparently" and there were other discussions which said "well we have page curation coming up, so you won't need this", etc. which IIRC came from people with a bit more of a strategic overview.

Hershberger was I thought recruited to resolve some of this disconnect between the community at large and the devs (especially the gatekeeper paid devs) but to no apparent avail. There are still very old fundamental bugs knocking around, which we have more or less given up on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC).

Protections for ISPs from legal proceedings associated with users are typically credited not to common carrier status but (ironically!) to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that ridiculous piece of legislation that tried to ban 'swear words' on the Internet but ended up getting a redemption at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Also ironic is that "anonymous" login is actually deanonymizing, making IP information public that can be used to track down users, including the most crucial first step of allowing a national regime to pick out which users are in its jurisdiction before they file papers.

So I presume the WMF by allowing 'anonymous' contributions substantially reduces the number of lawyers and process servers interested in seeing who logged on from where when, since they already know. My impression is anonymity on the internet seems to be a favorite spook cause celebre since it's always bull; the techies always seem to take time out from their libertarian patter to make sure everything is logged. And there are periodic proposals here to somehow make IP addresses not traceable from the 'anonymous' contributions, but somehow they never seem to amount to anything. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with anonymising IPs, from my point of view, turns largely on dealing with IP hopping vandals. I had a lot of trouble trying to get the WMF to agree to protect named accounts from having their IPs disclosed by autoblock messages, indeed I doubt if anything was ever done on that front, there seemed to be real difficulty grasping the nature of the problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikimedia Commons, UK, IE, IM, JE, GG, BOT, CA, AU, NZ Government works and their copyright (mainly, British passports)

It seems that a few, probably non-British, Commons editors or even administrators, have been selectively disapplying copyright law on dubious grounds, essentially claiming, falsely, that, amongst other things, current British passports, apart from the British Royal Coat-of-Arms (roughly equivalent to the closest thing to a British national seal or a British national emblem) (which they claim to be out of copyright, which is true), are also not protected by copyright, when in fact they are. They had claimed, falsely, that the British OGL (Open Government Licence) [1] somehow essentially allowed them to copy anything and everything from the British Government onto the Commons, when in fact it (unless explicitly stated as being released under the OGL) only applies to otherwise-unpublished documents released automatically or on application by the National Archives of the United Kingdom (TNA) (incorporating the Public Records Office of the United Kingdom (PRO)) which would otherwise subject to the usual terms of British Crown copyright, unless . They seem to not understand the fact that British (and British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories), Irish (Republic of Ireland), Canadian, Australian and New Zealand works of Government are by default protected by Crown (or Government) copyright for a period of time. I think that this is more likely more of a more deliberate, more systematic kind of an abuse. British passports, moreover, are protected in the United Kingdom explicitly by special Crown copyright. [2] -- Urquhartnite (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you are talking about, but I'd love to see if there is another side to the argument. Can you point me (and others who watch this page) to the discussion elsewhere?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[3] Personally, I think, that there is probably this one (probably a French expatriate) Commons administrator, who I think is probably some kind of a "Copyleft" activist, who probably doesn't believe that Governments should be able to assert any copyright on their works (such as the case in the United States of America, as I understand it; I cannot speak for South Africa or Hong Kong, but all I know is, that by default, Government works in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the British Crown Dependencies, and the British, Australian and New Zealand Overseas Territories do not automatically go into "public domain", but are instead subject to copyright (almost) as if the Government were just like any other author); which is all very well; but the trouble is, what would happen when businesses start making use of the non-free Government-owned images on the Commons, and then start getting fined or getting into some other legal trouble for it? -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Stick to the subject of the copyright of British passports, I think that the people on the Commons probably mistake the British Open Government Licence (OGL) as some kind of an "everything-goes free-for-all" on ALL works of the British Government currently under British Crown copyright. It certainly does not cover unexpired British passports and expired British passports younger than a certain number of years. It is a misinterpretation of the OGL by non-British administrators on the Commons. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you on the two images that have gone to FFD over there. However, just as a note - unless Commons' speedy deletion process deviates from EN's (and it is possible), declining a speedy deletion tag means you should go to the applicable files for deletion step rather than simply restoring the speedy tag. The latter would be seen as edit warring and will only set people square against you, regardless of the accuracy of your arguments. Resolute 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Since 2012, the article of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy was [three times] already and is now nominated for deletion for the a fourth time. It would be most helpful to get your personal advice on this important issue.(Diplomaciacultural (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC))