User talk:Jimbo Wales

The Knight Foundation Grant

Please bear in mind I have no overall opinion on either the decisions or the processes related to this grant and that my observations/concerns may be of little value given my only recent exposure to the issue and processes. Notwithstanding, I have read through just some of the info available and have already noticed some important words that I find problematic:

1:"Using these platforms as testing grounds, the organization will examine questions around content preferences, queries, the quality and relevance of results, and what information people consume and why."

I do not think we/Wikipedia should be examining or need to try to figure out what information people consume and why, either as individual readers or collectively.

2:"Finding an article on Wikipedia is like opening the first page in the book of knowledge. We have an obligation to our communities to make this first experience captivating for every user."

I don't like the idea that we would want to capture(captivating) the attention/experience of our readers in any way. This is exactly what I was taught as being #1 objective in advertising; i.e. to "get the customer's attention"

To further say this is an "obligation to our communities" is an attempted transference and acceptance of this desire/need to "captivate" from whoever is setting this "captivating" goal to all of us and our communities.

3:BY WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION COMMUNICATIONS ON JANUARY 6TH, 2016

"As the amount of digital content continues to grow, helping people search for and discover relevant information so they can make decisions important to their lives is becoming increasingly essential," said John Bracken, Knight Foundation vice president for media innovation. "This project will help uncover more effective, transparent ways to do just that,.."

I vehemently disagree with Bracken's implication of information being primarily limited to making decisions. This is similar , imo, of saying getting education is primarily to get a job. I also notice he worked for the Ford Foundation, which sets off alarm bells for me.

4:"Jan 29, 2016 Release of further details by Tretikov with the statement that the grant paperwork could not be released due to “donor privacy”"

If our Trustees can see it , we should too, in this case, imo.

What are the activities this grant supports? (quoted text from the grant) Answer key questions:

5:"Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?"

This is cart before the horse; I doubt most members of Wikipedia community want to see it become an "open channel" to other stuff.

6:"Can the Wikimedia Foundation get Wikipedia embedded via carriers and Original Equipment Manufacturers?"

This is another cart before the horse; Hell no is my opinion on this. People should come to us!

7:"Use Key Performance (KPIs) to inform product iteration, and establish key understanding and feature development for the prototypes Conduct tests with potential users Create a public-facing dashboard of key KPIs [24] Measure: User satisfaction (by analyzing rate at which queries surface relevant content) User-perceived load time No results rate Application Programming Interface (API) usage"

I am concerned about all of #7. I think a big part of the fun of Wikipedia is having to think and hunt for info while your mind engages to expand the topics/people you are checking out. I think its just fine if there are no results 30% of the time someone comes here looking for something. We should be encouraging critical thinking by our attendees, not make the platform into a seesaw for babies.

I still have not read all of the available material from Lisa. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Must read actual grant agreement

grant agreement is interesting to read. Like the $2,445,873.00 search engine reference on page 9 and the Intellectual Property clause on page 5. The last sentence of the first paragraph section a: of the intellectual property clause is concerning to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything obviously wrong with this. The WMF keeps the copyrights (with stated intent to allow public distribution) but just to be safe, promises the Knight Foundation that in event of material breach they are guaranteed their own license with right to sublicense. The only thing really wrong with it is that "Foundation" is, of course, confusing, since WMF and Knight Foundation are both Foundations. Frankly, it looks like somebody used a stock form letter and didn't really think about it much ... I've seen apartment leases where at least they would capitalize LESSOR and LESSEE and define them explicitly... but the context here is still obvious, and I think any intentional effort by some lawyer to misread this would be nothing but short-term harassment. But IANAL, etc. Wnt (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I know what you mean. IANAL either but have seen amazing stretches of contract wordings to unintended consequences. e.g., recently some grocery stores or states in the USA wanted to put "country of origin" labeling on retail packages of beef products and Canada stopped it by claiming it was an infringement of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The same thing in reverse has happened with regards to some newer Provincial government regulations which one would think would fall under sovereignty rights. With regard to this agreement with Knight, maybe it comes down to AGF. If we AGF re: "Knight", then there is nothing wrong with the clause or any of the contract; however, if Knight AGF with us, the clause is perhaps not needed at all. But, I suppose, our AGFing is not/should not be conditional upon AGFing by the other side. So, bottom line, I agree with you that the agreement is just fine in the world of written agreements, I just find it very interesting and thought provoking to read. I must say that I would have preferred if it were much shorter. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In Real Life, the Wikipedia letter soup is irrelevant. A contract is a legal binding, describing how conflicts will be solved. At the present time, the Knight Foundation is funding 10% of the first year of the Discovery Team, with some obligations of result, beyond a simple description of how resources were burned (this is the purpose of a restricted grant). In any case, they already received, gratis pro Deo, a large amount of WikiShitStorm©: great investment ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Basic question about the scope of the grant

Note: I am looking for a definitive answer based upon some sort of documentation, not just opinions or assumptions.

Will whatever does the searching just search things that we control (Wikipedia, Wictionary, Wikidata, Wikibooks, etc.) or will it be searching things that other people control (other websites, for example)? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I recommend reading the actual grant agreement. There is nothing in the deliverables which includes searching things that other people control. Whether or not a fully realized future result would include, as an example, a tool for editors and readers to quickly find results in open access research, etc., is an interesting question (I think it sounds great) but not one which is at all proposed for this first stage.

Media reports and trolling suggesting that this is some kind of broad google competitor remain completely and utterly false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no language explicitly referring to "things other people control", but it's very strongly implied. The KE is repeatedly described as a tool for finding information "on the internet" -- not "on Wikimedia projects" or the like.

The agreement is not a model of clarity and directness, being weighed down with (probably unavoidable) legalistic language and techno-jargon such as "surfacing" knowledge. But there are some interesting hints. One is a reference to "a federation of open data sources." I look forward to hearing more. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but focus on the deliverables. The grant document talks about a lot of things which are barely even ideas at this point - the deliverables are relatively precise, but what happens next is (deliberately) kept open-ended.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's good news. First, because Wikipedia becoming a direct competitor to Google or Bing would be the equivalent of walking into a buzzsaw, and second, because fighting the arms race between running a search engine (a job which strives to serve up the results that the users were looking for) and "search engine optimization" (which strives to trick the search engines into serving up results that will make the most money for the site doing the search engine optimizing) is hard. Google is barely able to keep ahead in that arms race. Jimbo, if things ever change and they start talking about searching sites that the WMF doesn't control, please let me know so that I can present some actual data based upon my experience in the trenches of the SEO arms race. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. We don't have, and won't have, the resources at our disposal to even contemplate a Google/Bing style search engine, and all the talk about that is just that - talk based on nothing. I can envision - but this is not current planned and isn't even in a serious brainstorm yet as far as I know, although presumably some of the research funded by the Knight grant should consider this sort of thing - that some important scholarly/academic and open access resources could be crawled and indexed in some useful way relating to Wikipedia entries. Let me give an example, which I came up with in about 30 seconds just now so it isn't even close to an optimal example. We have an entry on Pseudoephedrine. One sentence in it says "Rarely, pseudoephedrine therapy may be associated with mydriasis (dilated pupils), hallucinations, arrhythmias, hypertension, seizures and ischemic colitis..." This is referenced to the (presumably respectable, I'm not informed in this area) Australian Medicines Handbook of 2006. A quick search at doaj finds a more recent source that sounds potentially relevant. This may or may not be relevant to the entry, but it seems pretty straightforward that many things similar to this example would be of great use to editors.

Even this is worthy of skepticism and caution, of course. But one of our oldest values is to BE BOLD and we shouldn't shy away from thinking about such concepts.

It's unfortunate that there's been this silly distraction about whether this is some kind of Google competitor, when it clearly isn't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You and the WMF give partial and vague disclosures, and yet you claim that things are actually "clear". You lie to us, obfuscate, and distract, and you call our questions a "silly distraction." You have the balls to cite our values, but you are not being transparent and you are disrespecting the community. Your entire response to all this has been, in your choice words, fucking bullshit. Stop digging already -- Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, what? I have met Jimmy privately, he could reasonably be accused of idealism, but I find it hard to think of anyone who would make a worse job of running a grand conspiracy. With all due respect to Jimmy, I think he would be a pretty bad poker player. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy I am not espousing any conspiracy theory. The WMF is acting like a silicon-valley startup company, coming up with some Big Plans for a new way to make knowledge available to the public, via this Knowledge Engine. It has made plans and already started working on it. The KE looks like it will dramatically change the software we all depend on and how people access the content we create. They haven't discussed that with us. According to Doc James, that is why he was thrown off the board - because he thought they should. It is not a conspiracy - it is the WMF board thinking they are running a startup company. Jimbo has been very clumsily and transparently lying, obfuscating, insulting etc - anything other than actually telling us what the plans are with the KE. What is unclear to you? Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What is clear to me -- and I am a well-known critic of the WMF -- is that you are making accusations without any evidence to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am actually a critic of the WMF. See User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. The accusations are backed up with some evidence. See Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation). What the community was told about the search engine and what the grant application says are two different things according to WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon Exactly what accusations do you think I am making that are not supportable? I will be happy to provide difs. I will also ask you two questions - where has the WMF or Jimbo disclosed to the community in meaningful detail - seeking dialogue about it - what the vision for the KE is and what the result of a query looks like, and how that will relate to existing WP content? Where do you see any disclosure of an effort to put out a joint statement by the board and Doc James that allows the community to make sense of Doc James dismissal as opposed to the really pitiful "he said/she said" that we have now? Please provide diffs. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You have already been told to go to the FAQ page, it tells you where you can talk to the people doing the research. Your speculative claims, about some pre-ordained search plainly have no basis in either logic or evidence, considering the actual state of that project: which at this point is all about gathering information on searches of Wikipedia projects.[1] Also, Read the FAQ. As for your keeping dragging out James, who moved the board to approve the Knight Grant, that is just inane. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The more you following me around and insulting me the more stupid you look. Rock on if you like. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, the following claim: Jimbo has been very clumsily and transparently lying, obfuscating... is not supported by even a shred of evidence, and is nothing more than low-quality flamebait and obvious trolling. Please go away so that those of us with serious concerns can have a calm, reasoned discussion about them, free from personal insults. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy no I am very serious. Not trolling. And I would think you know me by now well enough that I do not do anything unseriously here in WP. Jimbo has indeed been very clumsily and transparently lying, obfuscating.. I will provide examples, even though you didn't give me the respect of actually asking. Please do actually read what follows. it is just two examples.

1) background first. Jimbo has been aware of what the Knight Foundation grant since the getgo, right? We can now look at it, and judge what he has said, based on what that says.

a) Biggest picture, Jimbo has been asked many many times to provide a concrete disclosure of the KE vision. I'll ask you again to show where he has done that.

He has for sure pointed to the very-half assed and vague disclosures that have been made. The half-assed/vague disclosures were already obfuscating and disrespectful (if you value transparency as we supposedly all do); pointing someone who asks for more disclosure to those crappy answers as though that is actually an answer, is doubly obfuscating and disrespectful. Jimbo did that to me, just below. If you don't value transparency I can understand you not agreeing with me here. But I ask you to see what this is like, for people who do value it. (And again, this is putatively a value of WMF).

About actually lying? Jimbo above wrote

It's unfortunate that there's been this silly distraction about whether this is some kind of Google competitor, when it clearly isn't

. Nobody has ever thought that WMF wants to compete with Google broadly - that company does a ton of things. Nobody has ever thought that the KE in particular would compete with everything that a Google search can produce (flight times, local movie times). Nobody thought that the the KE would be a "crawler" and the statements made to he media over the last couple of days are infuriating to me in their bullshitty corporate spinning. (see for example this) But the Knight Foundation grant makes it very clear that the WMF believes that the KE will beat the pants off of Google/Bing and other commercial search engines for certain kinds of queries where it really matters that there are no commercial interests, privacy of searchers is protected, and the way the search results were generated is (ahem) transparent. For those kinds of queries, there is direct competition. Also it is clear that the KE is meant to keep people in the WMF domain, and not leave to go search in google. So there is directly wanting people to come to wikpedia.org to search, and not losing people to google search. Those are competing with Google, and this is "some kind of Google competitor".

And yes both of those are transparently clumsy - ham-handed, actually, especially now that we can see the grant application. Zero effort to actually talk. If anybody is trolling here it is Jimbo. Now if he came out and said, "Fuck transparency I have no obligation to tell you or the community anything" and said nothing more, I could kind of respect that and it would put the discussion on at least an honest footing. But insulting people who ask, saying it is "silly" to note that the KE is indeed intended to be better than commercial search engines for some things (that is the whole way they sold the grant application to the Knight Foundation for pete's sake!) , etc... all this is just really clumsy tactics to avoid answering the questions and make him look like an oaf. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

By your own standard you accuse yourself of lying: You have written twice on this page before now that it is "exactly like google" and "like google". Now you admit it is not much like google, at all. I'm glad we finally cleared-up that it is not much like google. But, it seems your actual problem is not lying but assuming bad faith, which may lead other people to think you are trolling. This is how Knight and the Wikipedia Foundation understand the Grant:

. . . to explore ways to make the search and discovery of high-quality, trustworthy information on Wikipedia more accessible and open with $250,000 from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Funding will support an investigation of search and browsing on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects :::. . . Wikipedia includes more than 35 million articles in hundreds of languages. Its standards for neutral, fact-based and relevant information have made it a reliable resource for nearly half a billion people every month. With more than 7,000 articles created every day and 250 edits made per minute, Wikipedia is constantly growing and improving. Its open, nonprofit model, allows anyone to participate and contribute. The new Knight-funded project will help make it easier to discover information on this vast resource of community-created content.[2]..

And your odd complaint now is that that competes with Google (for some unknown reason you apparently don't believe them when they say they "love" other search engine traffic), whereas the obvious and expressly stated intent in the FAC and by Knight is to improve the Wikipedia search function to benefit users searching for information on Wikipedia projects, so they get the information they want when using the Wikipedia.org search function. No one is lying to you, you just are making bad faith assumptions. As for the aimed for search function being transparent that is plainly true. As stated in the FAC: "Is all your work open source? Yes. All of our code is contained in public repositories, and falls under the same licensing as MediaWiki."

Jimbo has already stated on this page, where your confusion may have come from: the search project is in the research phase, you are fully invited to go speak with the research team -- so go do it, if you want a hand in a conversation in shaping where they go. Don't stay here where you are accusing someone who is not doing the work, instead of going and having the conversation with the people working on the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have carefully read your response to my request for evidence, and have found no actual evidence in it. What I found were reasons why you hold a particular opinion. The reasons aren't bad, but when you present them as if they are established facts instead of personal opinion, the lack of actual evidence backing up your personal opinion becomes relevant. ::::Hint: "X said A and Y said B" is not evidence that A is a liar. Maybe B is a liar. Maybe one of them got some wrong information or misinterpreted the information they got. And maybe A is talking about the actual deliverables specified in the contract while B is talking about a poorly-defined wishlist of things that some non-technical person thinks they might want to do in the future, undefined-as-yet stages. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon, thanks for your kind reply. (really!) I started out saying that the WMF and its board (ofon which Jimbo is the Chairmanhas a permanent Founders seat as you know) has been very unforthcoming about the vision, despite repeated requests. And that is the number one cause of the upset-ness, including mine. I hope you might agree with that. Do you? On the rest.... Yes I hear you that different people from within WMF have been saying different things. And yes I gladly admit the possibility of human error. But here is the thing - the WMF is a nonprofit corporation, an entity. (and one that in my view is acting increasingly like a for-profit, but that is another matter) Corporations of any kind don't have the luxury of relying on he said/she said, and if that does happen, the corporation needs to clarify it - especially one that says it values transparency and the editing community (a big chunk of which wants transparency - that was the key plank upon which Doc James was elected). Right? But that clarification, in the form of a story that makes sense, has not been forthcoming (there are just in the past few days some hints that it is starting to come). But for Jimmy to grab some bit of what someone says and deny that, and to call what people say "silly" or "paranoid" is not dealing with the problem that the organization of which he is the Chairfounder has not actually said what is happening with any clarity. An organization creates a problem by not talking, and people react to that as one can expect, and the chairman founder insults them and distracts yet further in response? That is transparently clumsy. If you keep your eye on the ball (the lack of disclosure) the clumsiness is really obvious. I do hope that makes sense. Thank you again. I don't have a dif for the lack of disclosure by the organization that makes sense of all the bits flying around (impossible, of course). There are tons of diffs all over this page and its archives of Jimmy doing anything but disclosing - of him insulting people, reacting negatively to some small bit of what people say, etc etc etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (corrections made Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

Just FYI, no Jimbo is not the chairman - if I recall correctly, he has not been the chair for over decade. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out that mistake. you are correct The meaning of what I wrote is unchanged. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo: I have read this whole talk page and various other statements and off-wiki articles about the "Knowledge Engine," and I still have no idea what it is or what the vision is. You have been great at responding about what the KE is not, but it would be really helpful if you could give a quick non-vague description of what the Board intends the KE to do and to what end? Or even a statement about what the board hopes to accomplish with and through the KE? Thanks. Minor4th 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that answered already. Repeating:

". . . We are improving the existing [[<tvar|wt-search>wikitech:Search</>|CirrusSearch]] infrastructure with better relevance, [[<tvar|q2-goals>Wikimedia_Engineering/2015-16_Q2_Goals#Search</>|multi language]], [[<tvar|q3-goals>Wikimedia_Engineering/2015-16_Q3_Goals#Search</>|multi projects]] search and incorporating new [<tvar|maps>https://maps.wikimedia.org</> data sources] for our projects. We want a relevant and consistent experience for users across searches for both <tvar|wp-home>wikipedia.org</> and our project sites. Looking farther forward, we will explore including other sources of open knowledge. We remain fully committed to the movement's vision and values.

Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?

The Wikimedia movement's vision is to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available to everyone. Wikipedia is our largest and most well-known project, but there are many other projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata that move us towards realising our vision. These projects have millions of users every month! So, yes, if we can make a search system that's good enough and meets the needs of our users, people absolutely would use it.

If you're adding new data sources, isn't that a search engine?

Yes, the data could be used to potentially evolve and improve the quality of our existing search experience. Our first new data source is OpenStreetMap data for Maps which our [[<tvar|wv-maps>wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Announcing_the_launch_of_Maps</>|Wikivoyage community]] is already starting to experiment with. There are other data sets that we could potentially surface (census, national gallery, etc) but that will be up to our communities to decide. Some of these could certainly show up in search results and we have Phabricator tasks around improving GeoData content [[<tvar|phab-ticket>phab:T112026</>|T112026]]. The goal is to expand the amount of knowledge and expand the context beyond just textual search. We want to begin by showcasing content from other wiki projects including appropriate languages based on query input.

What licenses will those new data sources be under?

This will need more discussion as we want to be able to conform to the standards and policies of the Wikimedia projects they would need to serve. Our first exploration was with [[<tvar|phab-ticket>phab:T105090</>|OSM]] licensing and legal and we'll want to learn from that in any further work.

Does that mean we are looking to shift search traffic away from third parties?

No. We love all the [<tvar|ext-traffic>http://discovery.wmflabs.org/external/</> third party traffic] that we get and hope that it increases over time. What we are trying to focus on is providing a search experience that doesn't look like this:

1. Search on Google, Bing, etc
2. Follow Wikipedia Link
3. Read
4. Leave and search Google, Bing, etc again because you are specifically looking for a Wikipedia article but couldn't find it using CirrusSearch. . . . ."[3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So glad you brought this up. You apparently cannot see what "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an encyclopedia?" even means. What they are proposing is that people enter queries at wikipedia.org, and then the KE will query Wikidata and whatever linked datasources they have, and will construct a WP-article like answer, that it will present as the result, on the fly. Like this. Completely bypassing existing WP articles. That is what "an open channel beyond an encyclopedia" means, apparently. To me this means that WMF is walking away from the Wikipedia-that-exists and remaking it as something completely different. Without talking to us. And yes, they think people will find this a better alternative to doing a google or bing search where you get some list of answers that is driven by undisclosed commercial concerns, and further based on them tracking you and showing you only what they think you want/need to see. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, since you earlier said you did not understand what was being said at the FAQ, and now you are certain you know. It is too bad, you can't find your way to the people who you can discuss this with who are working on it although you have been repeatedly directed to the page to do so, instead of shadowboxing with the things in your head, and calling people liars. And shouting in bold does not actually show reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for quoting all that. it was useful. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, now, if you are truly interested in a conversation about it, follow the link to talk to the people who are doing the research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Overpromising the integrity of Wikidata

The grant application claims, on page 10, that the Wikidata off which the KE will be based, and the algorithms that do stuff with Wikidata, will have a "complete separation from commercial interests". We recently site-banned an editor from an SEO company who wrote RW articles and gave talks to people in the SEO field about Leveraging Wikidata To Gain A Google Knowledge Graph Result, and who also wrote a case study about how he actually did that for TravelStore Knowledge Graph Case Study: Helping Travelstore Become an Online Entity.

At some point, Jimbo, you and WMF are going to have open the "privacy" box and the "integrity" box at the same time and deal with the tension between them. As long as we continue to place an absolute value on privacy there is no way we can prevent people from abusing WP and Wikidata. Promises like "complete separation" are not keep-able as long as "anyone can edit" and anyone can be anonymous. I am not recommending we reduce the value we place on anonymity - not at all - but we all have to be realistic about what can be accomplished about preserving the integrity of WP and Wikidata in such a context. Right now we just keep a lookout for advocacy editing, including COI editing, and we react to after it happens, and only when we find it. That relies on the vigilance of the community, and careful review and work which takes a ton of time. Volunteer time. Acting in a way that devalues the community (see the Hijacking section below) creates really bad blood with the very community that WMF will have to rely on if there is going to be any hope that Wikidata will have integrity. If that is, Wikidata will remain something that "anyone can edit." Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As you may know, I think our current practices relating to "outing" reach too far. There have been cases where we know someone is behaving unethically at Wikipedia and people are afraid to do anything about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The WMF sued the NSA over privacy, and you wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about the absolute value of privacy in WP. OUTING is strictly enforced because of that absolute value. Please fully open both the "integrity" box and the "privacy" box at the same time. It is really unhelpful for you to not deal with the tension between them. It frustrates me (at least) to read what you wrote in that op-ed - which was blazingly clear on the absolute value of privacy and said nothing about any value that competes with it, and then to see you write hand-wavy things like what you write above. Many people have thought and thought about ways to somehow reduce the level of privacy protection in certain cases, but no one has come up with a way to decide whose privacy should be subject to some lower standard of protection, nor when, in any way that satisfies those in the community who are committed to privacy, nor that really deals with the reasons why privacy is so treasured. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Who are "we" in this context? The Board? WMF? The Community? Members of the Arbitration Mailing List?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

I am a WP:COIN regular like Jytdog, and am as concerned as he is about WP integrity. I'd like to hear more from Jimbo Wales about what our practices should be regarding outing especially in the context of editors with a conflict of interest. It seems there's a huge liability on those in the community who make an attempt to clean things up here, without "air cover" from influential people or enunciated policy. Jytdog has coined an apt metaphor of a privacy box/integrity box tension, and I completely agree that it is compelling to address this issue.

Also, regarding Jimbo's comment in the section above, whether or not KE actually is, or was intended to be, a Google/Bing competitor, it is being flatly reported as one. Example: Newsweek, February 16, 2016: "Wikipedia Takes on Google With New 'Transparent' Search Engine"

Obviously search results are hugely important to Wikipedia, whether individuals are actually driven to the site, or just view data from it which has been mined and reformatted by a wrapper (search engine). I've commented on the downsides of popularity in a user essay that was probably more controversial than I realized when I wrote it. Essentially IMO we've made ourselves a lucrative honeypot for injection of a lot of commercial content. Further discussion on what the whole search engine nexus means to us is really overdue. – Brianhe (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

[4] media is reporting, we should have clear info, [5] QuackGuru question wasn't completely answered? (IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The communications team is reaching out to media for corrections as quickly as they can. This is not the first time this kind of thing has happened, nor will it be the last. The media is fed a story that sounds juicy and exciting and they don't stop to pause. They make up headlines that are sexy but false. It's disappointing and exhausting, but it's the modern world of bad journalism. We are not building a search engine to complete with Google. The very idea is ludicrous and impossible on the face of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not ludicrous based on the disclosures that have been made - it's very reasonable, especially based on the first page of the project description in the grant where it is made clear how much better the KE would be than existing search engines (that sound just like Google). This is what happens when you ignore the value of transparency and then make only begrudgingly halfway movements towards it. Nobody else thinks that WMF is for-profit software company and acting like one harms WMF and the movement. Please stop making unsupported claims about what is "false" and distracting from the issue, and insulting people, and just disclose the program's vision already, and better yet, talk about it with us. Spin is not going to help here. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it is ludicrous - question: 'Are you building Google?' Answer: 'No, here is what we are working on see the FAC.' Which if anyone with any common sense, ability to think logically, or even modicum of good faith would realize, 'oh yeah-that would be ludicrous.' So, either the re-question is in bad faith, or it just will not take 'no' for an answer, no matter what. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The kinds of search tools that the WMF promised the Knight Foundation that the KE would be better than, are exactly like google. Why is the WMF comparing what it is doing to other search engines? Of course the WMF is not building "another google" - it is building something that the WMF beleives the public will use instead of google because it will be more transparent and putatively less commercial. The denial here is blowing smoke in the community's face, and you are helping that. Apparently you cant see through the smoke. Many many people can. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you still have not read the FAC nor understand what the difference is between ideas and acts. Whatever smoke you see, it must be good stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The WMF has a vision of where they want the Discovery/project to go and have already started working toward it. That vision is obviously related to search and they compare what they want to do with what Google and Bing do. Instead of fully disclosing that and discussing it with us in any meaningful way, they made their decisions on their own and are blowing all kinds of smoke about them. This is all incontrovertible. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Yes, the plans are laid out in the FAQ, go read it and read where the project is and talk to the people who are doing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hijacking Wikipedia - the real issue

In the grant application itself pages 10-13 are especially crucial. The KE sounds like it is some kind of "knowledge generating engine" based off Wikidata - maybe something that will construct articles based on Wikidata, with no need for editors to edit actual article content. (You search for X and the KE constructs an article for you off of Wikidata - like the Google Knowledge Graph on steroids) If so that is interesting, if that is something WMF wants to do, but for the WMF to say that it is by Wikipedia and especially that they intend to "Develop prototypes for evolving Wikipedia.org, which will become the home of the Knowledge Engine" (5th bullet on page 12 of the pdf) without even talking with the community about it, much less getting any sense of consent from us, is outrageous. I posted earlier here about the actual relationship between the WMF board and the community. You are seeing the nature of the relationship right there in that bullet point. The WMF is making plans and going to work on this far-reaching project without even talking to us about it. We, the community, are nothing to them. Users to be exploited, like Bomis or any other organization that relies on user-generated content and maintenance.

People have complained bitterly about Flow and other software projects foisted on us. Those are nothing compared with this. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What? This is www.wikipedia.org. It cannot be edited by users, so there is no user generated content on that page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

as i understand it. "wikipedia.org" is just an shorthand - an umbrella - for all the actual, specific language-based wp projects, including en.wikipedia. And their saying that, is just saying that it will apply to all the WP projects. If it means something different to you (and maybe to everybody else and i have my head up my butt) please tell me. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, www.wikipedia.org has always as long as I have known it been a search page, with a search box that sometimes functioned and with links to multiple projects. As the home of a search function, it makes sense. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I see what you mean. If WMF is going to launch a Search service, that would be the central place to do it. Thanks! I The question, I guess, is what a search result will look like with the Knowledge Engine. Based on this note left on my Talk page, apparently the prototype search results look like this or more refined, this. Not WP articles. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Sorry, I still don't understand what you are excited about. The FAQ is relatively clear on what is attempting to be accomplished: a more successful search function across projects and potentially other open source projects, housed at wikipedia.org. What is there to object to? We all licensed our work from the very first day for this and other purposes - the only thing against "the movement" would be to go back on that now. Yes, there are people who hate (or hate parts of) Wikipedia because it is organized this way - but, they will always do so -- they just don't like crowd sourced, freely licensed writing and information projects (and of course it has its many drawbacks, but it is what it has always been). There is no going back to controlling what you gave away - and if anything betrays the movement, it is this after the fact fight that some seem to be possessed of for control of what is already given. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I don't know what the last two sentences there are about - they have nothing to do with what I am raising here and I am sorry for not communicating more clearly. Here are the issues - the WMF board appears to be getting ready to spend tens of millions of dollars and several years to develop the KE. It looks like the KE's search results will be computer-generated "articles" built on the fly from Wikidata, in any language - not results pointing to WP articles; "WP's own" search engine will not direct people to WP articles that we have all worked on. It ~appears~ that they intend to make the editing community obsolete by replacing us with Wikidata + algorithms, and in their world we will become curators of Wikidata. There is some speculation there sure, but in the absence of real disclosure and discussion with the editing community, there are plenty of gaps to fill in. The key thing in that last sentence is the lack of authentic discussion with the editing community about this vision (I am not talking about the obscure fragments we have been given or gleaned or vague hand-wavy references. I am talking about - "Hey folks, here is the vision of the Knowledge Engine - here is where we want to take the movement. (detailed description here). What do you think?" ). Yet they seem to be intending to change the very nature of everything we do here. On top of all that, there are long-standing unmet needs in the WP software (like our horrible internal search engine and many other things) that remain archaic and hamper our work. We elected Doc James to the WMF board and one of the key planks in his platform was more transparency about WMF software development, and efforts to get more resources put into providing software we actually want. He was dismissed, and he says it was primarily over transparency about the KE. Jimbo and WMF board have responded to the community's concerns about all this with silence, half-answers in corporate-speak, misdirection, and insult. Overall, Jimbo and the WMF board seem to be mistaking themselves for people running a for-profit silicon valley software company. But unlike a real for-profit, they are accountable to no one. There are no shareholders, no members. Nobody. Definitely not to us. I'll note that maybe the KE is a good thing, maybe it could further the WMF's mission of getting information out to the world. All the bad stuff here, is about transparency and the relationship with the editing community. If you read the Values statement of the WMF, their pattern of behavior is a clear betrayal of the last two values there. This is not about ownership or control of content; it is about the relationship between the board and the movement and about where the software that makes our work possible is going. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no plan that I have ever heard from anyone that articles should be built on the fly from Wikidata. There is no plan that I have ever heard or even seen hinted at by any document that WP's own search engine will not direct people to WP articles. There has been lots of disclosure, and perhaps some confusion is being caused by a misunderstanding: the disclosures have been vague because the idea is still vague. There is no overarching master plan. There is a $250,000 grant to begin to explore ideas, with a very limited set of deliverables for phase one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Thanks for answering (really) But you haven't heard Denny talk about stuff like this? ""I want us to think about ways how to achieve a billion articles. We need tools and workflows that go well beyond Wikidata and Content Translation to really achieve that goal. Ways to allow to create and maintain a knowledge base which abstracts from natural language, and ways to generate articles in any of our supported languages on the fly. This generators have to be as community-editable and creatable as the content itself, as anything else won't scale for our means." (real question, not rhetorical) You cannot see how "an open channel beyond an encyclopedia" sounds just like this? (again, real question.) And your saying that there is no master vision at all for something that the board is spending 10% of the tech budget on doesn't help - it just makes the board ~sound~ incompetent. I don't believe it is.

I really wish you would stop with this spinning. We can handle nuance. We can even handle changes in focus. What is really hard to bear is the obfuscation - the not answering at all, the harshly saying "no" this and "no" that, instead of saying what is actually going on. And there has not been "lots" of disclosure - there has been drips and drabs that mostly blew smoke. Lila herself is now acknowledging that she hasn't been as nearly forthcoming as she should have been. (We'll see how much she actually pivots on that) But why are you sticking to your guns? What are you doing? (that is a real question) The WMF board created this mess by not being transparent. Don't point your finger at us. Or at me. I am really worried and you have said nothing to give comfort - only made it worse. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales - so above you wrote something that looks an awful lot like a lie. Why are you behaving this way? Why are you not trying to engage with the actual concerns we have? Please answer. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not said anything that is a lie. Can you point to which specific statement you are talking about? I am engaging with your actual concerns. I'm surprised that you are responding in this way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please look just above. You wrote "There is absolutely no plan that I have ever heard from anyone that articles should be built on the fly from Wikidata." I provided a quote from Denny just after that; he wrote about "ways to generate articles in any of our supported languages on the fly." and I understand that Denny has been talking about that for a long time. Now maybe you are putting some weird emphasis on "plans" or "articles" or some other "it depends on what 'is', is" sort of thing. As I said, that looks an awful lot like a lie. That is just one example. There are others where you have made flat, definitive, dismissive statements like this that look an awful lot like lies once we got more information. I do not understand why you are not talking and instead are behaving in this dismissive way. it is not helpful. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You appear to be describing the Article Placeholder project (see also the project Phabricator board), that the Wikidata team occasionally put some development effort into.

The idea is to be able to offer an auto-generated stub, as part of the search returns, if there appears to be a hit for the search term on Wikidata, but no obvious hit in the Wikipedia of the user's preferred language.

It's very early days yet -- you can see a mockup here of how far the team have got so far, and as you can see it's a lot less polished than, say, Reasonator for the same item.

An Article Placeholder wouldn't be presented if the Wikidata item has a sitelink for a genuine Wikipedia article for the topic in the desired language. But if there is no article, then the proposition is that (i) it is useful to show what Wikidata has about the topic, in a more friendly format than the native Wikidata page; and (ii) it is useful to make it easy for people to then be able to create an article in that language, based on some kind of stub. (Hence the "create" button at the top of the prototype page). An experience that certainly I have had, helping new editors to start writing their first articles at editathons, is that if you can give people the basic outline of a stub, with a partially filled infobox, the beginnings of a lead, some references, and the standard headings in the right order (ie "See also" before "References" before "External links"), that can really help people get off to a quicker start.

As I said, things have so far only got to a very early stage of initial development, not even pre-alpha yet; and I would imagine there would be a long road through alphas and then betas -- so lots of time and lots of scope for comment and discussion -- before any live deployment (or even any live deployment as an opt-in beta). But in my view, we would be crazy not to offer people information, and not to offer the chance to edit a stub, if there is information in Wikidata that we can give people. I think this would be particularly of advantage for smaller wikis, where currently in too many languages there are too many topics where we simply have nothing -- but even on en-wiki, there are many many topics that we don't have articles on, where there may be developed content in French, German, Russian, Japansese etc, and/or on Wikidata.

There seems to be a lot of paranoia on this page about Wikidata or Wikidata-generated content as a threat to Wikipedia articles. I think that paranoia is misplaced. At most what you can get from Wikidata is a glorified infobox and some external links. In no way does that compare to a hand-written encyclopedia article. Nobody is turning their back on Wikipedia. The amount of content on Wikipedia far far exceeds all that could ever be extracted to Wikidata. It's also where the vast majority of the community make the vast majority of their contributions. The articles are always going to be the bedrock of content, the crown jewels. Secondly, like a supertanker, Wikipedia is incredibly slow for anybody to try to change the direction of, in any direction. Fifteen years worth of content, culture, bizarre template code etc aren't going to be changed by anyone in a hurry. It takes a long time for anything to make an impact.

So I really don't think the Article Placeholder project is cause for concern. But what it will need will be advice and participation from the community as to how to get the best out of it for Wikipedias. For example, looking at the initial mock-up, it appears that the team have been aiming for the Placeholder look to be clearly and distinctively different from an actual article -- ie to signal to readers that this is not an article, but you could create one. Is that the right call? Or should the Placeholder try to create text, and present something closer to the stub you might create? etc.

Development is very much in the open, as you can see from the Phabricator page. Progress is included in the weekly Wikidata progress summaries posted to d:Wikidata:Project Chat (Wikidata's village pump), which you can subscribe to. There is an active Wikidata discussion community on the wikidata mailing list, a natural place if there are specific issues you want to raise. Or, as with anything else on Wikidata, you could ping Lydia directly at d:User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Wikidata's equivalent of User talk:Jimbo. There is also a project talk page on MediaWiki, if there are points that it is useful to discuss in an on-wiki environment.

I think Article Placeholder looks like it could be a good way to leverage some of the information we have on Wikidata, that is not necessarily available yet on particular Wikipedias in particular languages. But like everything on Wikidata, the more bigger a community that get participating, extending, developing, contributing, trying new things, the better things will go. So rather than getting paranoid, why not come and get involved? Jheald (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jheald thanks for providing a mostly kind and useful response, last sentence and some other tone notwithstanding, that shows how the "placeholder" search results could fit very well with existing content. Filling in gaps is great. Absolutely. I am sorry that you cannot see that the behavior of Jimmy and the WMF board around the vision for all this and how it relates to existing WP content is "paranoia"-inducing. Above, Jimmy lied

"There is absolutely no plan that I have ever heard from anyone that articles should be built on the fly from Wikidata."

instead of giving an actual response. Now he may be making some fine distinction about what an "article" is with which he believes he can defend what he said along the lines of, "it depends on what 'is', is" but the response is a far cry from actually dealing with the concerns that folks including me are raising - his responses have all been about distracting and discrediting, all along. This set of questions has been raised for months here. This all traces back to the WMF not disclosing their vision for the knowledge engine and how it fits with the encyclopedia. It is why Doc James says he was dismissed (and that is something else the Board handled terribly - and is still handling terribly by not getting a joint statement out.) Lack of transparency. Lack of accountability.

Also, when you write "Secondly, like a supertanker, Wikipedia is incredibly slow for anybody to try to change the direction of." I agree with that, totally, with regard to the editing community. What I am writing is directed to the WMF. They own the servers and control what software is implemented. They can change the software overnight, and with that, change the entire nature of this place. They have definitely changed their relationship with the community dramatically for the worse, in a relatively short time. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The other datapoint I would like to add is about federated search.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but one of the things the Discovery and Wikidata teams did last year was to get up and running a SPARQL query endpoint for running queries against Wikidata. Here's a page showing the kind of queries you can now run against Wikidata -- and by extension, against Wikipedia, since Wikidata items link to Wikipedia articles, so it's easy enough to output the Wikipedia URL rather than the Wikidata ID for any item returned. I think it was no small job identifying the right software to use (an open-source project called Blazegraph) and getting it up and running; but they have done a really good job -- the service is solidly robust, updates in real time, and gives an extraordinary flexibility to frame queries about really anything you can imagine. (Some more examples here, mostly of a data maintenance / data integrity type, with a bit of tutorial introduction).

The service really is being used all the time now by wiki-projects over at Wikidata, to see what they've got, and what they ought to have more of.

But perhaps one of the most interesting things about the SPARQL service is that it naturally lends itself to federated queries -- as part of the language, you can specify that the input for part of your query should be the returns from a SPARQL query running on another SPARQL endpoint. Currently the Wikidata Query System (WDQS) doesn't allow onward queries "because we don't want to be running an open proxy", according to the management. But what it does do is easily export the results of queries run there -- for example, here's a service on a server in Finland that can send off a SPARQL query to any SPARQL endpoint (in this case to Wikidata), and then plot the results. Furthermore, what you can do is run your own personal local SPARQL service, eg using Apache ARQ from a linux command line on your own laptop, and simply submit a single query to your own service to automatically bring together results from multiple endpoints. So in a very real sense, federated query is already with us.

I have to say, I think this in many ways is a very good thing, and I think fits in and extends very well WMF's mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. There is always going to be a place for more specialist databases than Wikidata -- we're never going to try to store all the world's knowledge; and of course there is a real (if flexible) d:Wikidata:Notability policy to stop us even trying. But one thing we are doing (and gaining a reputation for) is building up a Rosetta-like capability, on the items we are prepared to consider notable, for translating to and between the different identifiers used by different external databases. This opens up huge possibilities for making otherwise tricky things simple -- for example, suppose I want all the texts written by a particular group of authors. With SPARQL I can write a query to get the relevant authors satisfying the particular criteria from Wikidata, together with their VIAF IDs, then get all the works by people with those VIAF IDs from Worldcat; or the Library of Congress; or the BnF; or the British Library; or all of the above, all from a single query. (Or I could, if they were all running SPARQL services; which I think at least some of them already are).

Once you have got used to the power of being able to run SPARQL queries, it starts getting really frustrating when you get to a database which you can't query in a sane way. For example, PASE is a really fantastic academic project, which built an index of every person mentioned in any item of Anglo-Saxon literature over 5 centuries, from AD 600 to AD 1087. At the start of the month I spent a couple of weeks adding PASE IDs to every single article I could find for Anglo-Saxon people on en-wiki. It's a brilliant resource. (And one we would never ever duplicate). But it's really frustrating not to be able to query it -- for example, a classic list one might want to extract might be the "league table" of who witnessed the largest number of charters during the reign of (say) King Æthelred, with their PASE IDs that one could then cross-reference to what we had on Wikidata. But it's not possible, because there's no queryability.

I can see a potential real missionary role here for the Foundation, to use what we have learned about setting up our own SPARQL service, and approach major data sources to try to encourage them to also set up SPARQL query endpoints to their data, (a) to make stand-alone queries far more possible and capable; plus also, at the same time (b) making joint "federated" queries far more possible, that bring together information from multiple sources, to produce something much more than any of them.

I would see that as a project well worth asking the Knight Foundation to support. And support is needed, because we're still on a learning curve ourselves, learning how to run a solid SPARQL service, learning how to run federated queries that draw on it efficiently and effectively. And there's a hell of a lot more work to do building up our own Wikidata, to reflect more of the knowledge it could contain, more of the infobox and category-type knowledge that's in the Wikipedias (of which I don't know if even 5% is yet in Wikidata), more of the data that is in Commons (which really is almost untouched so far).

At the moment, we don't even have very good federated search across our own different projects, certainly not qualitative search -- though Discovery are working on it; and things like Structured Data for Commons, and more detailed Wikidata entries, will certainly help. So there's no shortage of work to be done. But in terms of unlocking the world's information, IMO there is a hell of a lot to be said for making ourselves front-line evangelists for federated search -- also, IMO, the Rosetta-like capabilities of Wikidata, together with our own standing as an independent honest broker and a top-5 website give us a real standing to change the world in this space, if we step up to the opportunity. I do believe it is a challenge we should step up to, if we are serious about a goal of trying to improve the knowledge richness of the world.

I think it is unfortunate that the focus seems to have been stolen by how Wikimedia might present a portal to such federated search. I don't think that's the real prize here -- I think the real prize is to evangelise for a world in which federated search is widely possible at all. It's also clear that Foundation communications recently have been diabolical; the whole Doc James saga is a nightmare; and as for Lila's memo, it sounded as if it had been written from pink unicorn land, so vague and fluffy and ungrounded was it. I was horrified. I have no idea what WMF actually presented to the Knight Foundation, and frankly the way things are going at the moment I'd be scared to look. But I do want to say that I think the Discovery team are doing some first-rate valuable and needed work at the moment; and secondly, that evangelising to institution for open query access to their data is something that we as Wiki are extraordinarily well-placed to do, and something that I think would have extraordinary value to the world -- I think the opportunity and the significance are on a par with where we were with GLAMs five or ten years ago, lobbying for them to open up their content as free content. Now there is a similar opportunity in lobbying for institutions to open up their databases as free databases, freely queryable using standard query languages like SPARQL. Jheald (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jheald thanks for writing all that, it was really helpful. I do understand at a high level the vision for all that, and I too see it as really valuable. (it is not work i am interested in doing and i will be the first to admit there are universes there about which I am ignorant; I learned a lot from your posting, so thanks again) In nothing I have written, have I denigrated the work that the Discovery team is doing. (and if I have, i apologize) My concern has been about where the WMF board is heading with that - their lack of disclosure about that and how it fits with the encyclopedia, and the bad communications with us. thanks for acknowledging that in the last bit of what you wrote ("diabolical"!) And yes all of this completely avoidable blow-up really harms everybody's efforts to improve things. Maybe worst of all, hurts the WMF's credibility vis a vis other organizations that have great data stores that it would be great to open up for collaboration. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you do not understand what I referred to about a free licence, than I seriously do not think this is the place for you. Sorry, you are still not making any sense, if anyone finds a "machine generated" article better than the article I wrote - so be it - more power to them - I'm in this for giving information after all - but your speculations are weird and warped, and it's as if you have not read the FAC, and then make-up stories in your head and complain about your own made-up stories and on top of that complain you are not being communicated with - listening and reading is actually your responsibility - so don't complain about not having a conversation when you do not listen and read. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker I completely understand the deal we all make when we edit here - the nature of the license each of grants under the copyright that is created when each of us generates content. (I work with IP and licensing in the real world) I am saying that those issues are not relevant to what I am saying here. You are not hearing me. I am sorry I am not communicating more clearly. If you have any questions about what I have written I would be happy to answer them. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you understand as you say, you must understand that you already agreed to let anyone, anyone, run it through any algorithm they want, including a new search algorithm at wikipedia.org. That's Great! Someone has taken the gift you gave - don't complain about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand. Content is not the issue. The issues are the tools and platform we use to do our work, and the stance the WMF board is taking to the community with regard to the tools and platform. (and I should mention the dismissal of Doc James from the board, which according to him was due to the stance he took on those two issues) Not content per se. I won't take up more time dealing with your misunderstanding and misjudgment based on that misunderstanding. Again if you have questions about what I am saying, please ask me. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to take up time just don't, but you're the one who started out this talk of yours by complaining about using "user generated content". I'm sorry you don't like people using user generated content but that is what you agreed to. As for the "tools", I just completed an article -- so thanks WMF for the tools -- as for another thread on Doc James - you could have just said that in the beginning, instead of demonstrating you do not know what wikipedia.org is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Obstinately missing the point now. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I know your point. You take umbrage at changing technology, I get it. It does not matter to you if someone then uses the words like wikipedia.org, like they are meant - you take it as insult. Changing technology, means things change, and change is hard, I get that too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledged your input/correction about wikipedia.org. It was helpful. Everything else you have written has been offtopic. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Much of what you have said is mistaken, and unnecessarily paranoid. No offense intended, so let me go through this step by step, line by line. First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with "no need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously. The Foundation is talking to the community all the time, and listening, and so this idea that something horrible is about to be shoved down our throats isn't very plausible. Yes, there have been some disastrous rollouts of bad ideas. But that's in the nature of moving forward - missteps and errors will happen. The point is to make good things happen as well, and fix the bad things. You mention Flow - guess what, it isn't active. So how has it been "foisted" on us?

One of the things that I strongly support is that we invest serious resources in engineering and product, and in particular on product planning that deeply involves the community. There is no question that in the past, a lot of developer resources were spent on things that no one actually wanted or needed. This should not lead us to the conclusion that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't do software development - it should lead us to the conclusion that it needs to invest more resources in doing it correctly.

A generalized paranoia that the Foundation is out to get you isn't factual, and it isn't helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Flow would have been foisted on us, if we hadn't kicked and screamed and dragged it through the dirt. Moreover the fact that the community has to teach WMF engineers about the minimum viable feature set of MediaWiki extensions is a travesty. BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We'll just have to disagree about Flow, as it isn't relevant at the moment and so not worth a big discussion. I'm not sure what you think is a travesty about the community building resources to help engineers understand our needs. What's a travesty is that there hasn't been traditionally a lot more of it, and a lot more investment by the Foundation in supporting more things like it. I'm glad that Lila is building a real product and engineering organization so that we can bridge this gulf.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you disagree that it would have been foisted on us? I already knew you liked the idea of it. But anyway, I'm not saying the WMF shouldn't listen to the community, but the WMF should not hire engineers who do not even know that the community needs a baseline set of tools to moderate the site, and then expect the community to give them job training for them. I don't think Lila understands these issues either, but that's what you get when you hire an ED with no experience whatsoever of Wikimedia. And sending in so-called "community advocates", like Melamrawy in the case of Gather, to patronise us, stonewall our concerns and tell us like children that everything is fine and that the WMF does care and it's all fine. What business does the WMF have spending donor money on that? BethNaught (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jimbo. I will ignore the distraction about paranoia. Let's focus on the issue of talking to the community. WMF clearly has some idea about what it intends by "Develop prototypes for evolving Wikipedia.org, which will become the home of the Knowledge Engine". Where and when has the WMF discussed that with the community? If I missed it and there it is a record I will gladly go absorb it. If there hasn't been discussion about what that means, please acknowledge that, and please tell us what it means. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good starting point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also wanted to add - while using my iPhone 6+, I asked Siri a question and the FIRST result that came up was a WP article. Gotta love it!!! Atsme^📞📧 23:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, the only info about KE there, points in turn to the FAQ which is very vague. Your response expresses exactly the disdain and lack of accountability that I discussed above - it is not "paranoia" to call you and the WMF out for blowing us off with impunity, when you actually do. Why not just come out and say: "We have not made any detailed public disclosure of the Knowledge Engine nor what its search results will look like, nor how its search results will relate to existing WP content, and we have no intention of doing so anytime soon."? All you are doing is making things more poisonous by obfuscating.

I will ask you again, as others have. 1) What does it mean to Develop prototypes for evolving Wikipedia.org, which will become the home of the Knowledge Engine? 2) In what form will the Knowledge Engine actually provide information to the public - what will a search result actually look like? 3) How will KE search results relate to en-wiki articles? Surely there are at least sketches of all this. Please answer all three. WMF is not a silicon valley for-profit company with trade secrets; there is no commercial value that needs to be protected by not disclosing this. Please lay out the vision to us, concretely. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog, you poor fool, "the vision"? no great mystery there, you and all the other playbour suckers build content, WMF develops ways to extract value from that activity, simples. 2.121.1.94 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I am really impressed with this and this. Great work! When I took AI classes at University of Cincinnati back in the 1980's, we only imagined something like that. The idea of using Lambda calculus and predicate logic for programming in languages like LISP (very popular at M.I.T. in the day and required knowledge for those who wanted to make macros for the then almost universally portable editor Emacs) (See also [6]) and Prolog were quite unique and useful for programmers to consider programming from a very different angle using recursion rather than iteration, thinking in sets and relationships of data in trees, rather than the most common data types found in most programming languages of just characters, integers, floating point and arrays of these. And there were Lisp machines proposed or made in prototype but such abstraction just slowed things down, just like with neural net based machines, and the use of standard microprocessors that look more like a Turing machine still have won out. Now there is a practical application of a database of information for lay people. Nice work! I support it. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

See below: "#Practical use of AI in Wikipedia". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, you really think it is fine that the WMF board is acting like the board of a for-profit and ignoring the community, even lying to it. You really think it is just fine for a corporate board to hijack the efforts and work of the editing community without its consent - for the board chair to call raising concerns "Fucking bullshit". You think it is just fine for our community-elected representative to be thrown off the board over this. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: You might want to review what I wrote and you might learn something. I don't see the Board acting for corporate interests in this case. In fact, it appears just the opposite. The purpose of the search engine is to undermine corporate interests and commercial interests in search engines. And the greatest concern is that the big search engines would undermine this effort; hence, the need for secrecy. I have seen no evidence that the Knight Foundation fights for corporate interests either. I have been following the Doc James removal and I do not see what the hullabaloo is about. It seems like his cadre of supporters thinks he can do no wrong and that they represent all Wikipedia users, which is not the case. The Board, including one of the other democratically-elected members, voted 8-2 for his removal for a reason, and the more I learn about this, the more I think they made the right decision. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address at all the issues this thread is raising. And you are misunderstanding - I said nothing about for-profit interests and if you review what I wrote I didn't say that. The WMF is a corporation - a nonprofit corporation. The point here is that Jimbo and the WMF Board are acting like the board of a for-profit software company, not like the board of a nonprofit that is accountable to or even cares about its users. (I do believe that they think the KE will serve its ultimate "customers" - people in the world who want information - very well.) They just don't give a rat's ass about the editing community that actually generates and maintains the existing content and that they will need to rely on to curate Wikidata. They are treating us like dirt here. They dismissed our elected board member who was advocating for the editing community. And you seem to be just fine with that. Which is surprising to me in light of your advocacy work in WP and in the outside world. Please think about what I am saying, not how you feel about me. Let me ask you this - if/when the Knowledge Engine is up and running, and search results through it lead to KE-generated "articles", how do people access WP content? What will the WMF be doing then, to foster access to that content? Do you believe that an algorithm can make good judgements about difficult issues in articles, that the community works on very hard, trying to come up with content that is reasonable acceptable to everyone and complies with policies that call for judgement, like NPOV? We have no answers to these questions. They are important to all of us. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if a KE-generated summary piece with a link to or being attached to WP content; i.e. our more detailed, curated, policy compliant article, would be the best of both worlds? The KE articles being more like a glorified dictionary and the attached WP remaining encyclopedic? Thus serving 2 information markets? Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

False rumors are circulating (see below) that the search engine is for making money. b.s. I see why Jimbo is pissed. It undermines this exciting experiment. The board is *not* acting like the board of a for-profit corporation like Google, because they are trying to invest in a project that will be an alternative to the for-profit search engines, and that is great. And no, the Foundation is not there to serve the interests of the editors. A soup kitchen does not make its primary priority to make the volunteers who serve the food happy, but instead those who need the food. The Mission of WMF as I understand it is to provide a democratized source of content that is not corrupted by $$$$ or ideology and this search engine is consistent with that Mission. Yes, they should *listen* to editors like us, when we have problems and ask for help in the Mission, but if they find a way to promote the Mission and know how to get $ to do that and it needs some level of secrecy, so that moneyed interests don't try to kill it, I am fine with that. One of our other elected members seems to have understood that. If you think the for-profit entities should make everything public, and be accountable to their workers and/or the general pubic, go for it. Until then, some things the Foundation does must be kept under wraps. And it is clear to me that is why the Foundation did not want to broadly advertise this knowledge engine project. Now because of Doc James's difficulty in working with the Board, they have been forced to and instead of having a positive roll-out, they are doing it as a defensive measure. Very unhealthy for Wikipedia and for the knowledge engine. I can see why there was a trust issue.

As for concerns about the search engine not acting WP:NPOV, I find your concern laughable. It would be far better than Google at filtering out commercial interests and bias. I think you and others are upset because you feel you won't have control over it and can't prevent it from producing scholarly articles and other NPOV resources that you and other editors have been successful in suppressing in our articles. And if readers can now have access to high quality RS through the search engine they are seeking, rather than being forced to start with Google, I am all for it. So, no, I do not think the WMF board should serve the interests of editors who want to direct users to corporate PR spin and block NPOV RS, but just the opposite. So I support the search engine concept, and find these false rumors about it troubling. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Some continued discussion of this matter is here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fear not, as perhaps the hijack will be a truckload of snails. So far, we see a "rising tide lifts all boats" as WP is still getting some improvements (see thread: "#Wikitext editor awesome Preview of references"), and we need to thank and help the wp:developers who directly improve Wikipedia software. Meanwhile, for decades, some computer people have become enamored over new "revolutionary" tech-toys only to learn years later how they were on a "fool's errand" of minimal long-term value, as "much askew about nothing" but such diversions are part of what Mankind needs to learn about techno-babble and beware deadend efforts. Wikipedia has become a vast, valuable resource and distributed free, so it is not going anywhere; even if WMF lost funding, the 'pedia would survive in other places, and hence the work isn't all for nought. Keep editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• And I'll add here a note about this post left on my talk page, that has examples of articles generated from Wikidata using WMF tools. Yet Jimbo treated my guess about KE generating articles from Wikidata with disdain and insult. This gets uglier the more it goes. I at first had some faith that there was ~some~ legitimate beef on the part of the WMF board with Doc James, but the more I see this kind of baldface distraction and obfuscation, the more I think that Jimbo and the WMF board have become lost and that Doc James was tossed for disagreeing - and strongly - with this trade secret/for-profit approach to developing new products at the WMF. Any for-profit board would have dismissed him, in a heartbeat. For-profits do seek to keep their competitive advantage by keeping things secret until products are good to go, and rightly so. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• If anybody hasn't seen this excellent Signpost piece, please do: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?. I think it is getting to be time to get major media talking about this. Our movement really is being hijacked. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

completely agree w/ Jytdog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog, perhaps I look at these current events differently. It doesn't mean that I am seeing things more correctly or better than anyone else, however I am, just like all of us, allowed to express my view.

I look at this non-profit/movement/community/whatever you want to call it, as an extremely dynamic and eclectic event in progress. If we were all parts of the world of art, I would describe Wikimedia and Wikipedia as an impressionist painting in progress...i.e., impossible to manage, and hard to pin down, predict and quantify or even describe....Complete with all of the similar inner turmoil up to including Van Gogh's slicing off his own ear.

And as I step back and have a look at how the "work" is starting to look, I see something that is already starting to look beautiful and rare, especially for 2016. I look at the ,current situation as part of the development process, with your input and mine and even Jimbo's as simply being 1 or 2 or more strokes of the brush. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow From the point of the editors editing and dealing with each other, sure. What I am talking about is, say you are a painter and there is a monopoly on canvas. The people who make the canvas are preparing to make dramatic changes to the nature of canvas and you find out about it some weird way. That is what is going on here. It's a bad analogy in that the canvas company is a for-profit and does whatever it wants to make money - that is why it exists - and has no groovy discourse about being good to painters or fostering their work. The WMF is a nonprofit and one its stated missions is fostering the editing community. Firing our elected representative, planning huge changes to our canvas without talking to us, lying to us and ignoring us, not giving us the kind of canvas we are actually asking for, etc, is not "fostering" us in any imaginable sense of that term. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The mistake is in thinking this encyclopedia belongs to the volunteer editing community. It doesn't and never has. While we may be asked for input into decisions there is no agreement that allows us any kind of control or that says what we say or advise will be implemented. I hope we can carry on discussions with our calling anyone liars on any side of this. Further when did this become a movement. This is a collaborative project which is building an encyclopedia. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

You are missing the point. I do not think WP "belongs" to the community - the issue is not about content. The issues are the platform and tools we use to do our work, and the relationship between the WMF and the editing community, specifically regarding the platform and tools. According to Doc James, the reason he was dismissed, was also about those two things. The issues about "ownership" here, are that WMF owns the platform and controls software implementation, and is not accountable to the editing community in any way, and is working on making radical changes to the platform/tools without discussing it with us. Apparently in a few years, the website you log into will not exist anymore in any form that you would recognize - instead there will be this "Knowledge Engine" thing and your "job" will be to move little pieces of data around inside Wikidata, that the KE can build articles from. Apparently. (even if that is wrong, the WMF is clearly going to invest tons of time and money into the KE and has not told us at all, how its search results will relate to the kind of articles we work on now, nor if searches through any WMF site will lead to actual WP articles anymore... none of this is clear. And WMF is giving no clarity) I care about that and I struggle to see why you don't. Jimbo and the WMF Board say they value transparency and their relationship with the editing community. Yet they are acting in a way that expresses the opposite of both of those values. They are not being transparent about the KE, and they are treating the editing community with disdain (dismissing Doc James, and ignoring, obfuscating, or insulting with regard to requests for transparency). Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (corrections Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

The issue is that we, in actuality, whatever we may think, do not have the kind of power that we think we do. Don't assume I care or don't care; I am suggesting that while we may make recommendations we cannot control so there is point where all of the arguments we make concerning our own desires are just that, points about our desires. After that its not up to us and I think this is where this derails. The is a baseline false premise that allows us to build arguments about our own importance, and I am suggesting that if we dismantle that premise the ensuing discussion takes on a different flavor, not one where we demand something but one where we have arguments and a forum which demands close scrutiny. Even then I have no idea if this community can influence change or if as a community as a whole, we even have the expertise that should influence decisions. There is very little I've seen on Wikipedia that indicates to me that reasonable, logical, civil discussion is a possibility. Leaking documents does not impress me. When we operate in that kind of environment for this kind of situation, integrity and honesty die. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Why Doc James was dismissed is not clear so I'm not in favor of attacking anyone on that issue.

@Littleolive oil: Literally, Wikipedia belongs to the contributors. Each edit is copyrighted by its owner and distributed to the world under a CC license. The portability of the content is the final safeguard when all others fall. Of course, the WMF, and its millions, are another story. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and even in that view it, does not belong to any community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Content may belong to the contributor; Wikipedia doesn't. By this I mean the carrier for the content can be changed without our permission, is not copyrighted, is not owned by the editors. If the power editors has lies in the content, that is where the argument should be. My cmts are in response to highjacking WP; we can't claim highjacking something that isn't ours. Anyway. I will leave this to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Littleolive oil WMF is hijacking the mission and the way we the community participate in the mission. They are hijacking the platform out from under all of us, how the public will access the information (search results will produce machine-written articles on the fly, not WP articles), the way that content will be generated, the form of that content, and yes ultimately the content itself which the KE will generate from Wikidata. A Knowledge Engine search result is a very different thing from an article written by the community of editors. To the extent that any of us are here and have put all this time in, because we value the mission, this is a huge deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, as I read your points and the responses of others, I am drawn toward realizing especially, imo, especially the reality of the need, perhaps urgent need, to address what you've identified as the relationship between the WMF and the editing community. How to do that, I have no idea but I'm confident others, maybe you, do. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would be very surprised if the "Knowledge Engine" is able to create an intelligible, readable article from wikidata alone. Many others have tried and failed to do exactly that, as the number of spambots loaded with absolute gibberish on the internet can attest to. Besides, there is so much more in every article which cannot simply be filled from data, even if Wikidata is substantially expanded. Pinguinn (🐧) 02:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree w/ you, though there seems to be evidence to the contrary[7]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

KE apparently will bypass Wikipedia articles

Please do see this presentation that appears lay out how the KE will work some more, and this video, the latter of which is called "Are we failing our users when they search Wikipedia?". The KE - this "open channel beyond an encyclopedia" - seems to be very much about directing the public past the Wikipedia-that-exists and toward the article-like query results that the KE is apparently intended to produce. What are the WMF's intentions with regard to the Wikipedia-that-exists, in the world where the KE is up and running? I don't see any discussion of that and because of that lack, it appears that the WMF intends to leave the Wikipedia-that-exists in the dust. To simply bypass it. This is also what I mean about hijacking the movement. And all of this with no discussion with the community. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is not, and has never been, any intention to replace or substantially alter in any way what we do here. Improving our internal search (and more broadly, improving "discovery") doesn't mean anything like that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

and again, instead of even trying to talk about the issues, you issue flat statements, denying, distracting, blah blah blah. The more you do this the less credibility you have and the more you push the community and the board farther apart. Not even trying to fix things. Not asking a single question. At least Lila has begun making an effort with her FAQ/AMA at meta, although she seems to have walked away from it. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the issues. You seem to think that there is an idea or effort to replace the editing community with a knowledge engine. That's totally and completely wrong. I don't know what else I can say about that. You've got an idea in your head that is false, you've been told that it is false, you have produced no reason for anyone to think that it is true, and that's where we are. If you have a more specific question, I'm here and happy to answer it. But repeating the same questions over and over, when you've been given the answer, isn't really moving this forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

General search improvements didn't even make the top 107 community wishlist 2015 survey results

Jimbo, in my view, you have been as stubborn about your old desire to build a search engine as you have in admitting Rand's misogyny and pretending a single inconclusive literature review in economics weighs with any substance against the near-unanimity of the conclusive reviews against trickle down supply side economics. You have brought the Foundation into disrepute because readers and potential and long time editors and donors now see that the Board is willing to say one thing while doing the opposite, i.e., compete with Google. So I stand by my recommendation that the entire Board of Trustees should be elected by the community, not merely nominated. EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not been at all stubborn about any desire to build a search engine. I do not want to build a search engine. I do not Wikimedia to build a search engine, at least not in the sense of a broad general search engine to compete with Google. I was not and am not a driving force at all in the "knowledge engine" stuff. I do support that we need to improve search and discovery on Wikipedia. We are not building a search engine to compete with Google. We are not building a search engine at all (in the sense of a broad general search)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I think Jimbo should be on the board for a variety of reasons. If the rest were elected by the community it would add a lot of positive energy and excitement going forward. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Foundation was originally envisaged as a member's organization. It's a shame that this vision wasn't seen through. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

Ditto. By all means have a few co-opted experts on the board if necessary, but they should be a minority; the WMF should be run by those who understand its mission, not by Silicon Valley insiders playing out their fantasy of building the next Apple. I wouldn't be opposed to having a publicly elected CEO/ED, either, or at least considerable community input into the selection, given that the last three choices of the board haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. ‑ Iridescent 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Questions about the composition of the board seem irrelevant to the question of the Discovery team at Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Did the Board know that the Knowledge Engine grant explicitly required competing with Google when you said that the WMF would ever was "a total lie"? EllenCT (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The KE grant does not require competing with Google.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The WMF described the project, in communications to the Knight Foundation, as "the Internet’s first transparent search engine." Are you saying that is no longer part of the agreement, it would not compete with Google, or that the money will be returned if the Knight Foundation doesn't allow that to mean not competing with Google? EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Knight Foundation explicitly understands that it is for "investigation of search and browsing on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects". No one is excepting a new Google for 250. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Responses that focus on some little piece, and twist even that, and ignore the thrust of the question are in your choice words "fucking bullshit". This is a really lame tactic Jimbo and everyone can see what you are doing, which is ducking, spinning, writhing - anything to avoid straightforward discussion. The WMF board has made "discovery" a big priority and is intending to dramatically change how the public will access the work of the community. Without talking to the community. That is a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for this assumption, and it wouldn't seem to make much sense. The tools I'm looking at appear to be testbeds of using Wikidata and other sources to build stub-like things in the absence of an article. The obvious end-result of this would be to add data to actual articles when we have one. Even the Ada Lovelace and J. S. Bach "Reasonator" results are clearly next to useless on their own, containing only trivia and a one-liner summary, and are intended to be used with actual content when complete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a certain desire for some evil to be there that is not there. Some of the same editors who like to accuse others of believing in conspiracy and WP:Fringe theories for things that are found in WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL applies here, too

This is what I know about the interactions here. We do not for any reason have permission from this community to repeatedly call people liars. We do not have permission to bully people, Jimbo Wales or anyone else. This is sickening and against all this collaborative community stands for. If we allow this dialogue here, we allow it everywhere else on Wikipedia, and I would add perhaps it has been allowed elsewhere on Wikipedia and this is just a further manifestation of behaviors that are not acceptable. I wonder where our admins are? Is this OK because someone doesn't like how Jimbo responds? Is this OK because this is Jimbo Wales and he doesn't deserve our civility? I don't always agree with Jimbo Wales but this is not acceptable behavior from any of us. I will not respond to any arguments from anyone that this is OK because of what is potentially at stake. Its not OK for any reason.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC))

Thank you. I'm used to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You put up with it more than perhaps you should. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We need to enforce civility, actually. We need to make the editing environment more friendly. While Jimbo may have a thick skin, others may not. If we let people bully and call names, then people less willing to expose themselves to abuse for volunteer service will leave by attrition and we'll be left with a more concentrated level of bullying, and then more will leave, and so on, until Wikipedia is a concentrated venue for bullying, as appears to be the case from my view. SageRad (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. We need to refocus, reinterpret, reapply. What we have now is an interpretation that amounts to "you have to obsequiously nice even when you should be, because you will be punished if you use a sharp tone, even with people who are obviously nuts or clearly here to do the project harm", as if the assumption of good faith must continue forever even after the assumption has been disproven. At the same time we have this cognitively dissonant interpretation going on, that perversely takes WP:CIVIL / WP:AGF / WP:NPA to also somehow mean "it's perfectly fine, as long as it's between long-term editors, to use empty threats of noticeboard actions to intimidate people, to tell people to fuck off, to stake out a stand on an article or other page and say you'd rather resign or just see the page deleted than allow that person to get their way, to use WP:SANCTIONGAMING language to imply that other obviously reasonable editors are having psychological problems, and otherwise be a big flaming WP:DICK, as long as you have a track record of reasonably good contributions such that WP:ANI will be reluctant to lift a finger." These are both real problems. The first is a WP:GAMING situation constantly exploited by WP:CIVILPOV pushers, and the latter just leads to a hostile editing environment where anyone who's made some friends and has an WP:FA under their belt is effectively immune from any repercussions for ridiculously shitty behavior. We have to stop being squeamish about WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE, and stop being squeamish about issuing non-permanent but non-trivial blocks and topic bans for people who cannot stop battlegrounding, either about a particular topic or against a particular other editor or alleged faction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the Knowledge Engine

What is the true goal of the search engine? The search engine will be designed to access a mix of Wikimedia content and content from other sources. Unlike other search engines, a major part of the search results for the Knowledge Engine will direct people to Wikipedia-related projects. I think that may be the main purpose of the search engine. They want to create a search engine to encourage people to Wikimedia owned content. The Wikipedia community does not want banners ads on Wikipedia articles. But with the new search engine there can be ads with each search result to make money for the WMF. The world does not need another search engine. But this search engine can be used to indirectly make money off of Wikipedia content without the ads being on Wikipedia. If the search engine will not have any ads then it would be extremely expensive to run. How will the search engine be funded once it is running? This question should be answered now rather than later. If the search engine was only for editors it would not have a mix of Wikimedia content as part of the search results. It will be for anyone person that wants to find public information on any topic. Correct me if I am wrong. It is important to ask who benefits from the search engine. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is all very confused, as are most press reports. We are not building a separate new project. We are not building a search engine to compete with Google. There has been no discussion of putting ads on anything, and I would very firmly and publicly oppose it, and I don't see any possible way that it is going to happen. We do not have the resources, nor the interest, nor the engineering resources, to build a search engine to compete with Google or anyone else. All suggestions that we are planning to do so, that we have ever planned to do so, are completely and totally false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably its purpose is to keep WMF projects' content relevant in a world where screens and attention spans are too small for parsing an encyclopedia. There is already [8] that bills itself as a "knowledge engine", it mines public databases for facts in response to natural language queries, and it monetizes those searches. Wonder what sources it uses? Not surprising if the WMF wanted to make one of these themselves. Geogene (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We are not planning to do anything like this, and especially not planning to monetize searches.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Geogene, something is not quite right about this. According to a news article "Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation have said externally that the Knowledge Engine will primarily improve search within Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but leaked documents and the grant application itself paint a different picture."[9] Is this true? Has Wales and the WMF have not been totally honest with the Wikipedia community? The search engine will have its own website. It appears the search engine is not directly intended for editors to improve Wikipedia content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That news report, like many, is false. The search engine will not have its own website, unless you count www.wikipedia.org as a new separate website. (It has always been a front end to our internal search and I know of no plans to change that.) It is not directly intended for editors to improve Wikipedia content, although that is one design possibility that I personally think is quite important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Note that Jimbo made a commitment to let me know in the unlikely event that the answer ever changes so that I can lodge an objection. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right.Guy Macon has been given that commitment. That is important, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please show evidence that "The Wikipedia community does want banners ads on Wikipedia articles." I seriously doubt that is the case. I certainly do not want Wikipedia degraded by advertising; that has always been one of its major appeals. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Im pretty sure there's a missing "not" in the OP. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC). Y

Now that that has been fixed, to the point I wanted to make... --David Tornheim (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it quite troubling that rumors such as these are circulating: "But with the new search engine there can be ads with each search result to make money for the WMF. The world does not need another search engine." There has been no evidence I have seen that WMF plans to make a search engine TO MAKE MONEY. These false and destructive rumors needs to stop. One only need to look at the documents recently uncovered and discuss the knowledge engine here to see that its purpose is being misrepresented. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that what may be happening is that a kind of conspiracy theory is developing, based upon a bad-faith interpretation of what is happening with this knowledge engine. I've always felt the search function is clunky and can be improved. I don't see anything sinister, though I suppose a case can be made that there are higher priorities for devotion of resources. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That's how I read it too. As for priorities of resources, that *is* a legitimate complaint. But that is not what I am hearing in these complaints. As a "user" of Wikipedia and Google, I would like a better search engine when what I am looking for is not a commercial in nature. So I am delighted by this project, and I think others should be too--unless as you say, they think it is part of some "sinister" conspiracy that they have provided no evidence for. And FYI, more of my thoughts on this matter and other discussion are taking place here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is a lot of bullshit swirling around. But Doc James is not a crazy person and according to him there were big plans at one point per the Knight grant itself which talks very clearly about a search engine to compete with commercial search engines, and per insiders like this. Doc James has said there was a huge amount of secrecy around that, and that has been verified by insider people per comments like this. It seems that the WMF has moderated those plans but what is bugging me is the lack of acknowledgement of what actually happened in the summer/fall/winter. A clear statement from the board/Jimbo and Lila of what they were doing then would be amazing helpful and I cannot see why they will not out with it. Lila has at least acknowledged that they made a mistake by not talking to the community. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You say "the Knight grant itself which talks very clearly about a search engine to compete with commercial search engines". (See Grant]). I never saw such language in the grant, and I read all of it. As I argued on SlimVirgin's talk page here, there was an obvious need for secrecy (undermined by Doc James) stated in the grant here:

Risks: Two challenges could disrupt the project:

1. Third-party influence or interference. Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project. This is the biggest challenge, and an external one.

2. ...attrition...

And the need for secrecy as I explained there was because it does things that the other search engines, including things like Google Scholar do not do, and hence the other search engines might want to devote resources to a similar novel project and get credit for it and get new users because of it. Not because WMF was trying to create a full Internet search engine to compete directly with theirs. Google has a market capitalization close to $500 Billion [10], while Wikipedia has an annual budget of $65 Million. Behemoths like Google can crush, co-opt or duplicate little projects like the Knowledge engine. Those who work on projects in Silicon Valley know this.

Please share with us the part where it says it is trying to "compete" with the commercial search engines. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"I do not want to build a search engine"

Hi Jimbo, above you stated that you don't want to build a search engine. [11] However in the past you have said "It’s something I care about deeply. I will return again and again in my career to search, either as an investor, a contributor, a donor, or a cheerleader." [12] Could you tell us more about when and why your views changed? the wub "?!" 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

+1 Seddon ^talk 22:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: still curious about this... the wub "?!" 11:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the question. Why do you think something has changed? I would gladly be an investor in an open source search project if I thought it looked promising. I would gladly contribute as an advisor or whatever the organizers might find useful. I would gladly donate money to an effort. I would gladly be a cheerleader. So, nothing about that has changed. I do not think the WMF should create a general purpose search engine - indeed, I find that idea completely far-fetched, and I don't have any interest in doing it myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you feel about usability experiments where ordinary people recruited through, e.g. neighborhood postbill flyers or Craigslist gigs ads, come in to some office without any Wikimedia or Wikipedia branding (but with usability studies branding), are offered payment for their agreement to be observed answering questions requiring general reference information with a web browser on low-end phones, laptops, and tablets, with their behavior analyzed to identify deficiencies in Wikimedia search and default search engines' interface with Wikimedia projects? EllenCT (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support usability experiments with various classes or categories of users on a variety of devices. We have a poor understanding, mostly anecdotal and not sufficiently systematic, about how people find us, what they are looking for when they do, and also importantly how they fail to find us when they are looking for what we provide. I just went to Wikivoyage and looked at recent changes. Someone just edited the entry on Lapu-Lapu, the section about arriving by plane. Then I went to Google and searched for "Lapu-Lapu by plane" - we are the 8th link, and the ones above us are all selling plane tickets. I think that's interesting, but what I don't know is whether people who do searches like that are looking for knowledge resources or if they are shopping. This is a totally random example. I think we - in the communities - would like to know more, and I hope that the Foundation, which is uniquely positioned to have the resources to do this kind of research, does a lot of it and shares it widely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

How do we move forward placing the needs of the community ahead of boardmember aspirations?

The community should poll each member of the Board of Trustees, asking when they became aware that the Foundation was accepting large grants with strings attached that were not being characterized correctly in public statements. But to move forward, how does the community get engineering resources assigned to the projects which the community actually wants, without regard to the aspirations of members of the Board? EllenCT (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For me that was early Oct of 2015. The community tech team is a great step forwards. An idea first put forwards by Sue I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If the Board passed a resolution saying that engineering resources should be directed to the projects requested by the community tech team within some quantified measurable margin, would that solve the problem going forward? EllenCT (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about the current situation could be described as "aspirations of members of the Board".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I didn't think so, but I hope it's clear that having us elect a board member, then immediately ejecting him and appointing a replacement (from among previous board members) instead of having us elect another, is going to convey the impression that the board has a low "you lot don't matter" regard for the community, whether they really do or not. It was a poor move both strategically and tactically. It's clear that much of the negativity and suspicion above about KE is a direct result (causally, not just correlated). This has come at a bad time.

I have a lot of experience at such organizations (9 or 10 years at EFF, several more at CRF). At EFF I "survived" five different management changes and top-to-bottom major organizational shifts that affected the internal culture, the relationship between the board and the rest of the organization, and the nature of the mission and the work to accomplish it. I've seen it all, including what works and what is like organizationally punching yourself in the face. Whatever the underlying rationales for it at the time, much of what's been going on comes across as closer to the latter, and looks a bit like insisting that continuing to self-pugilize is very important for reasons that an outsider isn't privy to.

Which kind of brings us full circle: Why is the editing community being treated like outsiders? I've been in a enough boardmeetings to know how they work for a group like this. Of course they don't want cameras in the boardroom so that every idle thing they say can be picked apart by people looking for something to vent about. But that is not the only way to increase transparency, responsiveness, accountability, and connectedness between the community and the board. The current situation is not tenable. Especially not when WP and presumably WMF are on the cusp of an (overdue) transition into a new phase of the organizational lifecycle. There are so much bigger fish to fry, and the community having more awareness of and input into how these issues are dealt with is going to be necessary and beneficial.

Top on that list for me is organized PoV editing (which is often not commercial, but ideological). Our present "assume good faith and keep assuming it in face of all but the most damning mass of evidence to the contrary" collective mindset is being ruthlessly exploited by WP:CIVILPOV gamers. The current administrative approach amounts to a belief that being obsequiously nice to one another is the most important thing on WP. It's not. Rather, it is being an encyclopedia with reliable, readable information instead of a firehose of nonsense and trivia-wankery. It's time that WP grew up a little more and took WP:ENC, WP:COMPETENCE, WP:5THWHEEL, and WP:NOTHERE more seriously. [End mini op-ed.]
PS: I posted essentially the same comment last night, but do not see it in the edit history or in the page's text. I've been having this edits-not-actually-going-through problem fairly often lately at en.WP, and I have a 170 Mbit connection.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Voters often select candidates based on the extent to which they believe the boardmember will aspire to propose and dispose of resolutions according to the voters' preferences. If there is a different way representation is supposed to work, please let us know. EllenCT (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, for this soap opera drama to have dragged on for so long, in my opinion, there's only one former board member still feeding his aspirations (& this isn't his talk page). AnonNep (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Libel suits against editors

Jimbo is this still the final word on the subject of either the Yank Barry suit or the general issue of editors being sued for libel? An issue concerning the article just arose at COIN, and personally I wouldn't touch an article like that without being unequivocally held harmless by the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's just a comment by me, but I think it's still accurate. Policy still remains at: this page. I wish there were a way to say more, but I'm sure you can understand that "unequivocal" assurances wouldn't be wise, as a contributor given such an assurance could then act with unjust impunity. Certainly it isn't something that we could promise to all contributors at all times, because then we'd end up in the bizarre position of defending a troll using Wikipedia to libel or harass or whatever. Basically, the Foundation does generally "have our backs" as long as we are behaving appropriately, and the track record of defending volunteers is very good. I am personally proud of that track record, and will push the Foundation to do more in any case where people feel that they haven't done enough or haven't done the right thing.

Having said all of that, I totally respect that the threat of malicious litigation can be real in some cases and even with support from the Foundation, it would be time consuming and scary and annoying to say the least. And so in those cases, it's completely valid for some contributors to simply steer clear. Sad but an artifact of a litigious world in which malicious plaintiffs are insufficiently discouraged from their bad faith actions..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be illuminating, helpful to volunteers, and also perhaps reassuring to have some hard data disclosed periodically on litigation against/subpoenas of IP data of Wikipedia editors - aggregate numbers per year, but the more specific (which articles and editors were involved) the better. If, for instance, there was only only libel suit and one subpoena in a particular year, that's good information to have and support the position I've seen expressed here that the problem is overblown. If, on the other hand, there were a dozen or fifty or whatever, that would be more a matter of concern. Clearly suits on the public record can be disclosed at a minimum. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have homeowners or renters insurance? If you do, your insurance in many states will cover you against lawsuits related to volunteer activities. (Call your insurance agent to find out.) Those who have no insurance most likely have no assets. There aren't too many people running around suing people with no means to pay. Lawsuits are expensive. This worry is over-rated. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not in this instance. And yes, I have a homeowners insurance and no it does not cover for libel/slander and yes I have assets. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends what state you are in. Each state has its own insurance regulations. I would not count on Wikimedia or anybody else to defend you. Best bet is to have your own insurance. That way you know exactly what protection you have. You might ask your insurance agent if there's a rider available or an umbrella policy. Presumably you make comments on other websites too. A defamation claim can arise anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. If you leave a negative review on Yelp, is Yelp defending you? Probably not. In 2014 Yank Barry pulled his lawsuit against the Wikipedia editors after 30 days. His lawyers said they would re-file, but they never did. I just checked PACER. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you knowingly make a false or defamatory statement, most insurance policies will not defend you, period. Ask your agent - but you may need an "umbrella policy" as a minimum. Even if you are "only a volunteer", alas. Collect (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I actually did explore that with my insurance agent some time ago, and covering of libel and slander would require purchase of a costly "umbrella" policy. I did a little online research just now and the answer is not clear. Obviously one shouldn't hesitate to make ordinary edits to Wikipedia articles just because of libel issues. However, in this instance, when there is an article subject who has sued editors for libel in the past, I'm not touching it without an assurance of being held harmless by Wikipedia, the Foundation, or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Umbrella policies aren't that expensive, at least in my area. The cost is a couple hundred dollars per year and it offers extra protection against any sort of liability, such as auto accidents, slip and fall, etc. Of course no insurance will cover you for intentional misdeeds, but presumably you aren't intending to do something wrong on purpose. A good insurance company will defend you, but if it is later proven that your action was intentionally malicious, there is potential that they could ask for reimbursement. As a practical matter, most cases settle before trial, and that's that. The best thing is to contact a licensed insurance agent, explain your situation, and make sure you have coverage for any and all exposures, including stuff you post online. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well what's a frivolous expense to some of us isn't so frivolous to others. There are also deductibles, impact on one's credit rating, premium increases, not to mention of course the enormous waste of time, annoyance, inconvenience, loss of anonymity, and a host of other reasons being sued for libel isn't a walk in the park. But putting that whole "insurance" thing aside - I think it is a total red herring - more importantly, I object to the "Yelp" analogy I've seen employed. The dynamic is different on Wikipedia. Here people monitor certain articles, engage in discussions on article improvement, etc etc., and there is much more involvement, a totally different order of magnitude than some casual bulletin board or place where you drop in to rate a restaurant. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The "libel trolls" (not to be confused with Internet trolls) who threaten Wikipedia editors know very well just how complicated the matter of personal insurance protection is, and they know that a prudent editor won't rely only on his umbrella policy. Also, the trolls don't plan to cooperate with the insurance company by suing for $900,000. They are almost certainly planning, if they sue, to sue for more than $1 million, knowing that $1 milloion is the usual limit on umbrella policies in the United States, and they know that they are trying to threaten to bankrupt the editor. They know that, in the absence of WMF backing, they will be able to suppress criticism. Only the WMF can address the threats of "libel trolls". Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Another thing I'd like to know from Jimbo is the policy on disclosing user IP information to libel plaintiffs. Like my initial query, this one really warrants a response from Jimbo or someone with direct knowledge, pleasant as this discussion is otherwise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The policy is here. I am not a lawyer and so it would be foolish for me to try to be more specific. If you have more specific questions, I recommend asking the legal team.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did notice that. That seems to be the standard policy. The question is how it is put into practice. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty well, as far as I know. The contributors who have had to go through it tend to say things like Carrite did, above: "I found WMF Legal to be helpful". Fortunately, as a matter of empirical fact, the number of cases is generally quite small. Ah, I just remembered the best source in terms of reporting on past cases: the transparency report. As one example, 23 requests for user data, 0% cases of information produced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Good! I trust there is data for earlier periods? Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on the "Wiki version" link at bottom and got this for 2014. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Over a year ago I was made the subject of a subpoena by a cold fusion company over a comment I made about a WP article on Wikipediocracy. Fortunately for me, I never once touched the article that I was commenting about and that they were suing over, I only expressed support for the editor attempting to maintain NPOV on the piece dealing with the very litigious company. They were trying to locate the main editor and were using me as part of their fishing operation for him, as nearly as I can determine. So, yes, it can happen easily that an "offended party" can go after a Wikipedian of good intentions and whether they have deep pockets or pockets at all is irrelevant to them, and yes, this issue is important to me because I've stared into the abyss, and yes, it is very important for WMF Legal to affirm in no uncertain terms that they have the backs of any volunteer acting to maintain NPOV in good faith when faced with a frivolous lawsuit. (In my case, I found WMF Legal to be helpful — not willing to touch anything I did or said off site, understandably, but seemingly very much in the corner of the person that was actually being chased by the litigant. Still: we need formal assurances, in my view.) Carrite (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for how the formal policy should be changed, in my experience WMF Legal very much wants to do the right thing and very much wants to be reassuring - but within the bounds of not promising things that would bind the Foundation to defend bad actors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty cynical about formal statements of policy and more concerned with actual practice. A million dollar dedicated reserve in the WMF budget, an explanation of the foundation's position by the head of WMF Legal to the Signpost or some such making it absolutely clear that they have the backs of good faith NPOV editors and then actually stepping up strong and hard the first time that something comes up is really what I would like to see. They don't need to spend a million bucks a year on legal defense, mind you, they just need a ready reserve of that amount or more and to be ready to roll out funds on short notice from that reserve. I doubt that a formal policy would bind the Foundation to either on the one hand support a bad actor or on the other hand do the right thing in defense of a good actor. It is more a mentality and keeping A LOT of powder dry. Just being ready would scare away many of the legal bullies of the world. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right about defending bad actors. I'll think about it and post a suggestion. But I think that a formal policy would deter lawsuits. The subpoena stats indicate that there is already a good, tough practice on those. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Carrite: Did you receive help from "WMF Legal" or was it Mr. Gunn at Cooley? - 2001:558:1400:10:640B:E470:4459:1DEB (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My recollection is that my dealing was a woman on the WMF payroll that was part of the legal department. I don't recall her name. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Carrite. - 2001:558:1400:10:C835:56BA:DEA1:A485 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this would be relevant. If WMF Legal directly assists with staff lawyers, or retains outside counsel with a special competence, what difference does it make?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It was relevant to me, because I was contacted by Mr. Gunn regarding the very same fusion company, and I decided not to fully cooperate with Mr. Gunn. I made this decision in part because I felt that Rule 3-200 of the California bar may have been strained by Mr. Gunn's interaction (earlier) with the Wiki-PR company. - 2001:558:1400:10:C835:56BA:DEA1:A485 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing to hear people say "oh, if you don't do anything intentional you'll be fine." Libel suits routinely accuse people of intentional misconduct, as opposed to mere negligence, no matter what has actually happened. As for "having one's back," the more specific and necessary thing in such situations is to hold one harmless. I imagine that the Foundation may not have that as a policy, in which case my policy is to avoid articles in which the subject has sued Wikipedia editors. To me that's just commons sense. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I go further than that. I not only will not edit a page with a subject who has sued a Wikipedian, I won't click APPROVED on a Pending Changes page. This is a really huge legal problem with the Pending Changes system, as nearly as I can tell — if a person clicks APPROVED, they may well become responsible for the malicious or bad editing of others. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I would only exercise that kind of caution in an article that had already been the subject of litigation. Even if I had an umbrella policy or whatever, it should be noted that such policies often carry steep deductibles, and a claim would boost premiums. Just not worth it to edit a high-risk article when the subpoena policy is inadequate to protect Wikipedians, and when there is no clear declaration holding Wikipedians harmless. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy, how would you feel about tagging the articles of subjects (people, businesses or groups) that sue Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors with a link to the lawsuit? I think the public should know if there's a situation where Wikipedia or its editors may have been pressured. Such transparency may help discourage such lawsuits. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Sort of the way takedown notices appear in Google search results. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps a notice from the Foundation on article talk pages? Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on article talk pages, like the old "this article was mentioned in the media" template. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales asks what the WMF Board or WMF Legal can do. The answer, in my opinion, is to state, as a policy, that they will pro-actively review threats to sue Wikipedia editors, and, in cases where it is clear that the threat is being made in order to have a chilling effect, defend the editors. I agree that there are cases where a particular editor is a bad actor and should be thrown under the bus by the WMF. However, the apparent current position of the WMF, which is to do nothing about legal threats other than blocking editors, amounts to a policy that editors will be thrown under the bus. Whether they are defended and held harmless or thrown under the bus should be decided in advance, so that editors who edit an article where there have been malicious threats to sue for libel can edit without fear. As it stands, the subject of any article can lock it down by a malicious legal threat against editors. That isn't right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. See my suggestion below. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

While help in defence is certainly good, the foundation should also make suitable use of Anti-SLAPP lawsuits to provide some deterrence against frivolous and nuisance lawsuits. This may be less of a problem in "loser pays" legal systems, but it may be critical in e.g. the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

WMF policy suggestion

How about something like this:

Wikipedia relies upon voluntary contributions for the continued existence of the project, and good-faith contributors need to feel confidence that they can enforce Wikipedia policies without harassment by subjects of articles and other outside forces. Therefore, in the event of libel suits and other legal process involving editors, the Foundation will defend and hold harmless editors who, in the Foundation's judgment, are acting in good faith in enforcement of Wikipedia standards and policies.

--Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad policy suggestion. I suppose there might be some tweaking about "good faith" editors, maybe "when it is clear to the WMF that the editor is acting in good faith."

I definitely agree with some sort of notice on the talk page of the article, but we can go further with an enwiki policy. Something like "If editors of an article have been subject to legal harassment and cannot continue to edit the article in good faith for fear of prosecution, then the article should be deleted." With exceptions of course. The idea is that many people want a Wikipedia article and some want to dictate what it should say. The proposed policy would just say "We don't play that game." The exceptions would be about major articles that we "have to have" or people game-playing to try to get an article deleted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that any connection to deletion would be problematic. I know of at least one instance in which an article subject (a really litigious individual, though he hasn't sued Wikipedia) would love to see his article deleted as it reflects the news about him, which is almost entirely unfavorable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• That looks pretty good to me, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• True, but I think that having a formal policy would discourage lawsuits. The practice of responding to subpoenas is encouraging, as is your experience. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that something like that is in order. I would add that occasionally, when it is obvious to the Foundation that the subject/owner of an article is resorting to malicious threats of lawsuits, the Foundation should provide that judgment in advance of any actual lawsuits. (Otherwise editors will still be intimidated.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Existing libel defense policy

The existing policy is located here. I don't think it goes far enough. It says

As a general rule, editors, photographers, and other contributors are responsible for their own edits and contributions, and, for that reason, as a general matter, they are responsible for their own defense where a legal action related to their edits or contributions may arise. Contributors should be aware that litigation is a possibility, and they should avoid placing themselves in situations beyond their individual tolerance for risk.

Note what I've put in boldface, as I think it is important. Basically the official policy is "you're on your own, sucker." Then it says

The Wikimedia Foundation does not routinely offer financial support to editors, photographers, or other contributors who find themselves in litigation. In certain unusual cases, the Foundation, in its discretion, may consider helping to find financing to pay for a legal defense or to assist in locating pro bono counsel when a contributor has been named as a defendant in a legal action. Such an undertaking may be possible in cases that raise significant issues relating to free speech and that advance the mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

It then says "WMF would give consideration, for example, to requests involving issues" that "raise significant freedom of expression questions that affect the Project's ability to be a neutral source of information, such as true and verifiable statements that are censored under local law (e.g., foreign laws that prohibit truthful information unfavorable to the government)," "would expand significantly the breadth of content that would fall under the public domain (e.g., art in public domain); or Would reinforce the enforceability of the Creative Commons and similar free-content licenses (e.g., that Creative Commons license is valid)."

So we have an odd situation here. In practice, it seems that the WMF has a pretty good track record at least in dealing with subpoeanas. Actual libel suits, not clear. I don't see any stats for that. But the policy itself is weak, does nothing to discourage libel suits. It tells libel plaintiffs: if you sue our contributors, we probably won't step in to defend them. Yes we may, but once the libel plaintiff looks at that list of exceptions he'll feel reassured. Yet actually finding out who to sue, via subpoenas, seems to be difficult; most subpoenas over the years (none lately) have resulted in IP info turned over. Lesson number one: never use your real name in editing articles on corporations/people! Let them subpoena you if they plan to sue. Lesson two: the WMF needs to beef up its policy on defense of contributors. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The flip side is that if they strengthen the statement, it may encourage more suits because there will be an appearance that Wikimedia might pay settlements to get contributors off the hook. About 90% of lawsuits settle before trial. Do we really want to encourage more suing? I think the best thing we can do is increase transparency. If somebody sues Wikimedia or a contributor, place a big warning label on their article stating that legal pressure has been applied which could impact the content of the article. Readers should know about that situation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• My take is that the written policy above is entirely inadequate. There needs to be a firm statement of some sort that WMF intends to stand behind any good faith editor attempting to maintain NPOV by assisting with their legal defense. "Go Ahead And Sue Them But Leave WMF Out Of It" is the message I get from the current policy. I believe the reality is better than that, which is more important than the words. Still, I would like to see a strong statement, backed by a strong and well-financed structure, most importantly backed by strong action when necessary. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes the impression I get is that the purpose of this statement is not to defend Wikipedia against libel plaintiffs, but against contributors seeking redress against the Foundation in case they are sued. I couldn't disagree more with Jehochman that somehow taking a strong stance to back your contributors somehow will encourage people to think they'll get monetary settlements. I don't think it will have any impact on that equation. If the WMF is worried, it can state that as policy it does not pay money in settlements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Coretheapple and User:Carrite. The policy essentially says that the WMF won't do anything, which in turns is a policy that means that the WMF is encouraging malicious persons to hold articles hostage by threatening libel suits. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I started the original thread linked above, which was actually "hatted" by Jimbo with the comment that "commenting publicly on ongoing litigation is strongly advised against." I realize this is a conventional wisdom, but I don't feel like random Wikipedians should feel inhibited about commenting on lawsuits that they are not a party to. I will probably never know if my little critique did anything at all to persuade the lawyers or their client to withdraw the lawsuit, just as I'd never know if it had somehow encouraged them if they had gone through with it. But my feeling is that when we throw up our hands and say something is a matter of law, which is to say, a matter of money, we give up our main advantages. Whenever we want to stick up for a good faith Wikipedian, we should do so with the confidence that we are many and the opposition few, we are powerful and the opposition weak, we are right and the opposition wrong. We are a community of independent thinking people. Some will stand up for the person sued by writing freelance articles, in social media. Some will want to donate for legal expenses after all. Some will empathize with the plaintiff and grind off any less defensible points in the article, limiting future damage and perhaps earning some goodwill. Others will go off and dig into the plaintiff's background, looking for potential advantage. We may stick up for the person sued by getting them a job with WMF itself (I'm thinking this was a factor in User:Doc James' election). We shouldn't underestimate the diversity and creativity of our response, with each person playing a small role of his/her own choosing. We should never be content to be herded out of the way so that the professionals can fight it out on their own, for two reasons: because the professionals could lose, whereas we will never accept defeat; and because professionals make their career by winning, while we are perfectly content to see a matter quietly drop. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have several opinions:

1. Articles where the subject has sued Wikipedia or its volunteers need to be tagged for transparency. The world should know that the subject is suing and have a link to the lawsuit so they can read it.
2. Editors should get their own insurance, sufficient to protect their assets. Don't rely on Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia may provide assistance.
3. Wikipedia should defend good faith editors, and should avoid the encouragement of lawsuits that may occur if settlements are paid too frequently. If Wikipedia sees a stream of such lawsuits, they will become experts at defending them. This is better, and cheaper, than leaving editors to figure it out themselves.
4. Wikipedia should make every possible use of anti-SLAPP legislation to deter lawsuits. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't feasible for editors to get their own insurance, sufficient to protect their assets. Umbrella policies in the US normally go up to one million dollars. Libel trolls are not stupid, and know this, and will sue for two million dollars (not an absurd amount in principle), and let it be known in advance that they will sue for more than one million dollars in order to destroy the editor. Without the knowledge that Wikipedia will generally defend the editor, and will file anti-SLAPP countersuits, libel trolls will know that they can hold articles hostage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How many lawsuits have you worked on? Things don't work that way. Insurance is very good and anybody with assets should have it. Getting sued for Wikipedia participation is a minor risk compared to the larger, more common risks of driving a car or owning property. You shouldn't be so worried. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that insurance arguments get it backwards. The Foundation should have libel insurance and that should cover good-faith contributors. I understand that the Foundation does not have libel insurance. That's its decision, but shifting the litigation risk to contributors is not the answer. Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't if there is insurance available that does what you are asking. The Foundation can insure themselves and their employees, but I don't see how they can insure thousands of unidentified contributors to the site, located around the world. Insurance is a regulated product where the agent has to be licensed in the jurisdiction where its sold and used. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually insurance to cover "volunteers" is common, widely available, and used by many non-profit organizations. Check your local AIG, CIMA, and a huge number of other insurance companies. Wikipedia/WMF might differ in that one is looking at individuals who are not identified except to WMF/Wikipedia and where the coverage would be one more about deliberate libel rather than accidental injury, but the insurance is still there. Nonprofitrisk.org states:

The most common liability policy purchased by nonprofits is the commercial general liability policy. CGL covers against claims for:

1. bodily injury (someone suffered an injury),
2. property damage (someone’s property was damaged),
3. personal injury (offences for libel, slander, defamation, or malicious prosecution), and
4. advertising injury (libel, slander, or copyright infringement due to advertising activities).

Does this elucidate matters a bit? Collect (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. What I had in mind was perhaps the WMF being insured and listing volunteers as "additional insureds" if allowed by the policy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging for transparency?

I just wanted to focus on a point @Jehochman: raised about "tagging" articles that are the subject of litigation. I assume this means a notice, in the main space or on the talk page, alerting editors that the subject is suing or has sued editors. I think this idea makes a lot of sense. We can wait from now till doomsday for the Foundation to improve its position, add insurance, or whatever, but this is something the community can do. Of course, to do it comprehensively, the Foundation would have to disclose the existence of such suits. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is only one active federal lawsuit where Wikimedia is a named party. It isn't about defamation at all. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that many if not most are filed in state courts or overseas. I'd like to see WMF provide full disclosure of past and pending suits. That would help not just in terms of tagging but also allow update of Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, which is way out of date. I see that there is a suit by Louis Bacon in London,[13] which resulted in court permission to obtain identities (IP addresses I imagine) of Wiki editors. But the denouement is not known. The Bacon article has nothing past 2011, and neither does the Foundation article. Editors have a right to know about all this. Google Wikipedia and libel and you'll see quite a bit on how Wikipedia and its editors are vulnerable to libel suits.

I do hope that Jimbo acts on this and doesn't just ignore this conversation in the hope that it will be archived and the whole thing just goes away. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That Louis Bacon article can use some eyes, by the way. I see from the talk page that the subject has had some concerns over it in the past, but that editors may have bent over backwards a bit too far in removing material. If that lawsuit is still pending I can see placing a tag on the talk page there. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Yank Barry case was of course not Federal. The Subpoena for SmackBot's real identity (Helpful Pixie Bot I suppose) was not federal.

The situation is of course complex in the US where there are so many jurisdictions, but there are generally reasonable laws in place, which provide for slightly less onerous situation for editors where subjects are in the public eye.

One thing that might very well be worth some legal time is getting an opinion on the difference between talk-page discussions and article text.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Wikipedia article: "Murder of Anni Dewani"

I'm writing to bring your attention to a Wikipedia article which is needlessly inflicting emotional pain and suffering on the family of the murder victim who is the subject of the article. And the pain and suffering is being exacerbated by Wikipedia's refusal- despite repeated requests from multiple people- to abide, in the article, by its own ostensible standards for balance, NPOV, and consensus-based edits.

Jimmy Wales has been quoted as assuring the public that Wikipedia will not be permitted to be used as a platform for spreading public relations propaganda (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/technology/article4575800.ece). And certainly the published standards for Wikipedia articles purport to disallow such.

Therefore I was shocked to find that the article on the Murder of Anni Dewani has been written by someone who appears to be acting as a PR agent for the man...wait for it...accused of orchestrating her murder. Not as shockingly- since this is what PR agents do, isn't it?- the article is written from a decidedly NON-neutral point of view and suppresses salient facts about the murder that are inconvenient to the agenda being pursued in the article.

I'm herein requesting that Wikipedia a) remove the bias and agenda driven language from the article, and b) permit the inclusion of the proven, documented, and salient facts of the murder which are currently being censored from it. Precisely how this can be accomplished has been discussed and requested, ad naseum, by multiple people, on the article's talk page. But to no avail.Al Trainer (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an obvious sock/meatpuppet of User:Lane99, and I have blocked it as such. See Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

Backstory? The husband was accused of plotting to murder his wife but was acquitted and exonerated. Some folks are upset that Wikipedia won't allow them to post "evidence" of his guilt. According to WP:CRIME, a party is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law which didn't happen. So, it would be biased and against Wikipedia's own rules on neutrality to post "facts" against a person that were not included in a trial or supported by reliable sources (WP:NOTADVOCATE). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article briefly, being only familiar with the case as most people in the UK are, having read a lot of news reports, etc. And it looks quite fair to me as it stands. If our complainant had a specific concern, i.e. a specific example of a neutral statement backed up by reliable sources that people are not being allowed to include in the article, that would be interesting. And if there is proof or even real evidence of someone engaging in paid advocacy, then that would be valuable to see as well, although it should probably be emailed rather than posted on-wiki.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in a failed attempt at dispute resolution and have continued to pay some attention to this article. It is true that a single purpose account has been heavily involved in the article, but the SPA has, interestingly, been following the relevant Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and the biographies of living persons policy. On the other hand, as noted by User:Bishonen, the real problem has been User:Lane99, who has been pushing an agenda, and has been topic-banned from the article for BLP violations, and has been using sockpuppets. The murder victim was murdered in South Africa in what on its face was a botched carjacking. The carjackers then confessed that they were involved in a murder for hire. Because they confessed and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, they got reduced sentences. They said that the victim's husband had hired them to kill her. He was tried in South Africa and was formally acquitted, including because the testimony by the carjackers was contradictory. That should end the question of his involvement. However, User:Lane99 maintains that there was a formal court finding that this was a murder for hire, and that the article should reflect this. I have requested, but not gotten, a legal view at WP:WikiProject Law as to whether there is such a thing as a formal court finding as a result of a confession in a common law court. (Since common law, unlike civil law, is adversarial, there are only really judicial findings, at least in my non-legal view, when there has been a trial. Civil law works differently.) The real problem at this point is continuing sockpuppetry by User:Lane99. I thank Bishonen for taking care of it, and I agree with User:Jimbo Wales that the article at present is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've not reviewed this case or this article, but at first thought - there might be an argument that the hired guns were convicted of being hired guns, but that no one has been convicted for doing the hiring. It's two separate issues. But I agree, that is entirely separate from the conduct issue, and on that point I think it's handled. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the defendants were convicted of being hired guns. They were convicted based on their own confessions, not on trial. In S. v. Dewani, the only trial, the trial court found that they lied. There is no real evidence that they were hired gunmen, only that they were gunmen. Also, if the South African prosecutors still thought that this was a murder for hire, they would be looking for the mystery mastermind. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My feeling with this sort of situation is whenever there's controversy, steer close to the source. Use the actual quote from the court about the payment for the murder, and do include it, because the quote was - indisputably - actually given and relevant. You can then provide other sources/arguments you find that the court was misled because the confessions were inaccurate, if that applies. Well-documented allegations belong in our articles even if they are untrue - that is what we do in mentioning Patrick Lumumba in the Amanda Knox trial, for example. The notion that only convictions can be mentioned would make Wikipedia vastly inferior to all other sources reviewing criminal proceedings, because of course, without the allegations and counter-allegations, none of the events would make much sense. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wnt User:Jimbo Wales If you read the article you will see that the Mngeni court's finding regarding "murder for hire" is clearly included in the section on the trial of Mngeni, as is the qualification that the finding was later found to have been based on perjured evidence. The complainant (Lane99) through his litany of sock puppets, has tried for 7 months to insist that this court finding should be stated as fact in the article's lede, despite its basis in perjury. Said complainant has point blank ignored every request to participate constructively in the talk page discussion, despite being invited to explain and substantiate his position. He has instead opted to unilaterally insert and re-insert his own interpretation into the article and the talk page despite it being against consensus, until there was no option but to protect the article and to topic ban him (and his many socks) for disruptive editing and repeated gross WP:BLP violations. Getting back to the article itself, it should also be noted that the article makes no attempt to disguise or obscure the allegations made against the husband - in fact the allegations are clearly spelled out, and an entire section is dedicated to the trial of the husband, complete with the court's reasoning for the exoneration. This entire complaint to Jimmy Wales is wholly lacking in substance and again makes scurrilous unsubstantiated claims about a PR agent being involved. Furthermore the complainant's emotional blackmail by referencing the murder victim's family is yet another fanciful attempt to manipulate. It is particularly distasteful in light of the fact that this same complainant has recently been impersonating one of the murder victim's family members, with yet another of his banned Wikipedia sock puppets - "ahindocha" . Dewanifacts (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is time to close this thread as posted by a sockpuppet, and to consider banning the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sock-puppeteer (Lane99) deserves to be blocked and banned but at this stage it seems even that is a circular and non successful recourse. He isn't even using the Lane99 account anymore - instead reinventing himself with anonymous IP's, and new socks - not to mention his canvassing for meat puppets on the "Memory of Anni Hindocha" Facebook page, advertising the fact that he has engaged Jimmy Wales and begging meat puppets to back him up.

In the interests of showing good faith, what might be really useful is if Lane99 could be given one more chance to substantiate his claims, and if he cannot or will not do so, to accept that his rhetoric will not be published on Wikipedia. Specifically Lane99 should be invited to:

A. Specify precisely what wording in the article is non neutral and biased, and provide suggestions for improvement

B. Specify to whom or what the article is biased toward

C. Explain why the Mngeni court's finding regarding "murder for hire" should be given prominence in the Wikipedia article's lede paragraph given that it was later found to be based on perjured testimony and flawed forensics.

D. Provide evidence to support his allegation that a "PR Agent" is operating. I am the account he has accused of being a PR Agent. I have on numerous occasions assured him that I am nothing of the sort and have asked that he desist from making such unfounded allegations, yet he continues to make them. I am not quite sure why he thinks that the husband would even require a PR agent at this stage of proceedings. He was exonerated 15 months ago, that court decision rendering PR superfluous.

My money says that this complainant will not come forward with the above details, thereby showing this complaint up for what it really is; baseless, unsubstantiated rhetoric. If that's the case, then it should put the matter to rest once and for all. We will see...Dewanifacts (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sponsorship and product placement

Today's featured article is 2012 Budweiser Shootout and so it gets top billing on the main page. This topic is about a race and the mention of Budweiser is a bit of commercial sponsorship which is intended to promote that brand by associating it with such events. This bothers me as our policy WP:SOAP indicates that we should not be assisting such promotional activity. This trend is spreading from the US to the UK and it bothers me even more to find the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race billing itself as the The Cancer Research UK Boat Race and the BNY Mellon Boat Race. To what extent should we resist this infiltration of commercial sponsors into our topic titles? The BBC has a general policy of down-playing such promotions in their public-service broadcasting. Should we follow their example? Andrew D. (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't work by user consensus, and doesn't have a policy derived in that way called WP:COMMONNAME. That should decide how we title things. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, most "topics" retain their non-sponsored name (e.g. The Boat Race(s), contrary to the implication above) and highlight the sponsorship names in the lead (e.g. "... (also known as The Cancer Research UK Boat Races) ...")). The Football League Cup and the FA Cup are other good examples of this. But these events have very clear, easy to identify names. What is the suggested alternative name for 2012 Budweiser Shootout for instance? Are you aware of WP:COMMONNAME? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It's Boat Races by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Andrew that we should be cautious in this area, but I don't think we should have a firm and out-of-context rule against it. Without inviting an edit war about it, please, I just looked at an example that came to my mind that I'm familiar with. I sometimes use what nearly everyone in London calls "Boris bikes". Certainly in everyday speech that's the common name. I don't know about sources, but I suppose most news reports refer to them in the same way. This is likely annoying for the sponsors, who used to be Barclays bank and now is Santander bank. Anyway, our article is currently titled by their official name Santander cycles with Boris Bikes as a mere redirect. I'm unsure that's correct, although the sponsors must be happy about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we are being cautious about it, and we do have a guideline that helps, it's the common name. All of the examples above where sponsorship isn't in the common name, the sponsorship doesn't appear in the article. It's up to the community to decide on the most appropriate names for these articles. And if we start to strip out the common names for some of these NASCAR races, what are we left with? Something like 2012 Aaron's 499 becomes 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series Race 10? Nifty. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I checked a few NASCAR ones and I think our answer is reasonable there. But what you do think of the Santander cycles example? I am pretty sure it isn't the common name (though of course real research into what reliable sources say is warranted).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Boris Bikes is certainly how I know them, and I was completely unaware that they had changed from Barclays to Santander, I guess they're all red now, and not blue? Either way, it'd be a reasonable shout for a WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not often with Andrew D., but in this case I certainly agree with the sentiment. Sure, it's probably not something we can do something about, and rules and regulations blah blah. But it's pretty sad that we have to go along with it. BTW, I had to click on the article link to find out that this was a car race. So it's a pretty unhelpful title as well. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Commercial products should not be featured on the front page

I think the problem is deeper than this - I don't think we should feature commercial products on the front page period. I complain bitterly about once every 180 days when Square Enix gets another one of its products advertised here. (People tell me that some of them are old games, but so what? What company doesn't like seeing its name up in lights?) I think Main Page feature articles should be weighted toward more general articles - things that almost never make it through the process because they can never be "complete", unlike an ad for a single company's product. Now a sponsored event isn't necessarily a commercial product, but I think we would consider excusing some of the exceptions. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

By "excusing some of the exceptions", do you mean putting articles into the Today's Featured Article space on the Main Page, that are not Featured Articles? MPS1992 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I mean that if an article is not about a commercial product, but bears the name of a sponsor, I think we'd be OK with excusing it from a potential ban on commercialism and let it have a shot (a fair consideration like any other article) for TFA featured status. Ronald MacDonald House, that kind of thing. So I'd prefer not having a ban on sponsor names with the articles, and having only/instead a ban on commercial products as TFA. To be clear what I mean though, I think a NASCAR race is very clearly a commercial product - unless they have free admission and let people distribute footage of their race for free! Wnt (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, such a ban would certainly make choosing Today's Featured Article a lot easier. Once we have rendered ineligible all cars, airplanes and other forms of transport whether still produced or long obsolete, all buildings constructed by or for commercial companies, all tourist attractions and also historical locations that still have any tourist element, individuals mainly notable for involvement with a product or company, and any events that have or had commercial involvement apart from your few exceptions, the TFA slot on the main page will mainly be a rich diet of politicians, soldiers, and tropical weather systems. MPS1992 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if Rihanna didn't have a TFA today it wouldn't mean that she isn't a very good singer, but I might have taken it to mean she didn't have very good PR people, since after all, you'd think someone good at PR would have the skill and be willing to spend the resources to make something like that happen, to the point where it would seem out of place if they did not. Still, are there not enough animals, plants, countries, tourist attractions not behind a toll gate, astronomical bodies, wars, widgets sold by more than one company, minerals, ligaments, genes, kinds of fermented beverage, meteorological phenomena, firefighting techniques, gods, varieties of edged weapon, musical instruments, chemical weapons, retired locomotives? I know we see such things so infrequently they start to seem out of place, like how did this mook get on the stage?, but we could present a more more encyclopedic encyclopedia if we would feature more things that aren't actively being marketed. Wnt (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That's true. So let us both head over to Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates and get started. Just in Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates#Older nominations I have counted more than a dozen candidates that meet your criteria. Sadly Passenger pigeon would not due to its mention of the commercial Cincinnati Zoo in its lead, which might be carried over into a TFA appearance, and Margaret Murray likewise for the numerous mentions of tourist destinations. But there is plenty to do there; please report back on how you get on.

I think your apparent implication that Rehab (Rihanna song) was brought to FA status by Rihanna's PR people, is a little unwise if not backed by evidence. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a ban on brand names from being featured articles is a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be possible to propose such a thing. But the discussion of Wnt's extreme approach perhaps will give ideas as to possible pitfalls. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and while we are at it, lets ban everything else someone doesn't like because they don't like how the world works. Because if you are going to allow your bias to harm this project, you might as well go whole hog. Resolute 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I did not actually propose a ban on articles that mention commercial entities in their lead paragraph ... though perhaps that can be gamed ... I was only speaking of articles about commercial products above. Also, I did not say that Rihanna's PR people got that article featured; nor will I say that DC Comics got their character featured today. It's entirely possible that, as Einstein would say, chance favors the prepared PR guy, and that all these companies hire people to sit around and do nothing and their products just appear in movies, news fluff etc. because they are really fundamental to society. Can't rule it out. Now as for the argument (@Resolute:) about censorship and bias, well, I am not a fan of censorship. I do note, however, that not every article gets to be on the front page; we choose them somehow, according to a bunch of criteria, and right now those criteria seem to be delivering a heavy mix of commercial products. I don't think it's really so censorious to feature articles about genres of music, or yearly reviews of music that mention multiple awards, rather than individual singers. I think the criteria are making it too easy to be 'comprehensive' about one little bit of nothing and pushing away higher-level content. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wnt! Welcome back. So, how have you been getting on? I have been working on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hartebeest/archive2#Comments by MPS1992 and of course on the noble Hartebeest. I hope that the Hartebeest is not disqualified due to its meat being "highly regarded" as a commercial product in the lede, nor its "Relationship with humans" section advertising how healthy Hartebeest meat is due to its polyunsaturates to saturates ratio. Does this remind you of your favourite commercially advertised margarine? Are you OK with it? Do remember that the noble Hartebeest is actually an antelope-related critter, not a brand name.

Anyway Wnt, which "things that aren't actively being marketed" Featured Article Candidate did you pick to work on? (They're all at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates if you lost the link.) How is it going? MPS1992 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I never denied that the people editing about commercial products do good work; they can be very professional. But... is that what we want? (I didn't get what you mean about the hartebeest) Wnt (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - Yes, articles are picked for TFA on the basis of article quality. If you want to see more articles on genres of music, get to writing FAs about them. But yearly reviews are out, because we would be relying on commercial publications to compile those. Resolute 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the people who work at FAC as reviewers and whatnot are fair, helpful, and competent. If anyone has a different view, please tell anyone involved or post a note on a relevant talk page. If no one has a different view, then I'm not seeing how you can substantiate the argument that more suitable articles are being deliberately excluded from the Today's Featured Article section of the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I should note that I originally made a comment, not a full proposal; the heading above this section was added by someone else. So I hadn't really decided every detail of how a TFA product ban would work. But since I keep getting asked about it, I'll run through the current contents of FAC briefly. Among the "current nominations", obvious noncommercial entries (10) are: Huguenot-Walloon half dollar, Gudovac massacre, Typhoon Nabi, Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851, Canadian National Vimy Memorial, Operation Ironside, Heterodontosaurus, William Sterndale Bennett, Ben Crosby, and Briarcliff Farms. (The last appears to be defunct and therefore is no longer a commercial entity) PR to hype individuals might be an issue we also need to deal with, but I did not propose restricting biographies; doing so would require some kind of distinction between a person who is recognizable as a "product" vs. not, unless we banned them all. These happen to be from the 19th century anyway. Obvious commercial entries (3) are 2007 Coca-Cola 600, Ride the Lightning, and The Good Terrorist. I can picture having some kind of exception that allows the last item, perhaps even the last two, based on some kind of documented and impartial standard of "importance", but I have not proposed it and could live without it. Among the older entries I sometimes grudgingly would have to permit (5) people Courtney Love, Misty Copeland, Margaret Murray, Sonam Kapoor, Monroe Edwards (as people, not products, per above). Clear commercial entries (8) are CMLL World Heavyweight Championship, Ancient Trader, I'm Not Your Hero, Persona (series), History of York City F.C. (1980–present), Rejoined, Hex Enduction Hour, Jumping Flash!. I think it is relatively clear that the following (16) are noncommercial: Hartebeest, Persoonia terminalis, Philippine Constabulary Band, 7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), Boise National Forest, Isopogon anemonifolius, Tibesti Mountains, Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, Imperial Gift, Passenger pigeon, Serpin, Sexuality after spinal cord injury, Calutron, Westminster Assembly, The Oceanides, House of Plantagenet. I should note that the commercial/noncommercial status of some of these depends on public domain laws - The Oceanides might be thrown back to some owner by some ill-conceived copyright extension plan, whereas there is a chance that something like Jumping Flash might have been released under a public license by now, and this would change how I think their status should be counted. Additionally, I would categorize notable real estate (3) as noncommercial provided there was no clear indication there was a push on to hype it for sale: Literary Hall, Etchmiadzin Cathedral, U.S. Route 25 in Michigan. From this, it appears that 3/13 and 8/32 of the entries are what I would class as commercial, i.e. roughly 25%. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for going through these in such detail. But there are so many inconsistencies and illogicalities in this that I do not think it could ever work as a proposal. You used the example previously of a Square Enix game that was published decades ago, is not for sale and has no commercial value. Here in this thread you explained that such items should not be permitted on TFA because, "What company doesn't like seeing its name up in lights?" But now, you say that if a game has been released under a public license, it would then be acceptable on TFA, even though that obviously will mean the publisher's name will be "up in lights" just as much as the previous example. And then you have an exception for people, so if Richard Branson or Elon Musk or Steve Jobs were brought to FA, they could appear in TFA bringing onto the Main Page a cascade of the brands, products, and services associated with them, but if someone brought the 1977 vintage technological landmark Apple II to FA, that would not be acceptable for TFA.

A proposal that bans from TFA as "too commercial" a historical article about a small loss-making football club founded in 1908, owned by its own supporters for a period of the history in question, is doomed to failure. That article went straight in your "clear commercial entries" list presumably because, of course, football clubs sell admission tickets to their games. But "notable real estate" is acceptable on TFA from your point of view apparently, even if the location in question is a museum that charges a fee for admittance or makes a profit from its attached souvenir shop or tea shop. And a featured article about a culturally significant but commercially irrelevant punk album from 1982 drops straight into your list of unacceptable items, and presumably still would even if the band itself were defunct. It's just not sensible.

It is all very well railing against popular culture and the crassly commercial nature of it, but we do also need to consider the readers. They currently get a useful and educational sprinkling of wars and warships and long-dead bishops and politicians, and to me it does not seem sensible to deny them topics in which they might have more interest alongside that.

Above, when you said we should "feature more things that aren't actively being marketed", I suggested that we should contribute to exactly that, by working on featured article candidates that are not commercial. You don't seem to have contributed - do you plan to? MPS1992 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't claim to have this to the stage of a formal proposal - and it is true that some of the nuances would need careful investigation. If enacted, the policy would be a major part of TFA, and what aspect of TFA policy has not felled virtual forests with debate? It is possible I misclassified the football club - what I went by was that I read in the article the club had been sold back in the early 2000s; what you can sell is a commercial product. Also, as I said, people aren't really an exception - the problem is, they simply are not products. How would you categorize Donald Trump? Banning vanity coverage of particular people, based on some criteria or another, is simply a whole different proposal that I don't want to figure out at this time. Lastly, I think defunct products could be excepted from such a proposal, but we'd have to be careful. Defunct products that are still owned can still form part of someone's "brand" and have stringent copyright restrictions to match. Only when the products are genuinely defunct - in the sense that you can claim "abandoned work" status - or have been free-licensed for the world to play with, would I really like to see them showcased on the Main Page. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You didn't mis-classify the football team. It is still operating, and it still tries to sell a product. So does every other sports team. Every singer, even every politician. Every book. Every song. Every author. Even every politician. Donald Trump is easy. The man exists to sell himself, ergo he is out. When you talk about "nuance", you are really only talking about making exceptions designed to apply your bias in a ham-fisted ban on what specific "commercial products" you don't like while allowing the "commercial products" you do. And undermining all of this is the fact that this proposal is hostile to the dissemination of information, which runs counter to the mandate of a project that aims to spread information. Resolute 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Resolute. This seems to be more about excluding topics that someone doesn't think are high brow enough to be on the main page (NASCAR, Video Games, Pop Music) than anything else. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand what Wnt is suggesting, what he means is that Wikipedia should not be utilized to promote commercial products. I think that's a good general principle. Execution is another matter. If we have an article on Coretheapple Self-Whitening Toothpaste and it is worked up to GA and then FA status, perhaps with the always-helpful assistance of paid editors, does that go on the main page? That's the kind of situation I would envision, which can be handled on a case-by-case basis. There is no reason for editors to get all defensive and for their underwear to get into a twist over this. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The genesis of this debate was an auto race. That the race has a corporate sponsor is incidental to the race. But you know what? If someone takes the time to make Budweiser a FA, it deserves its day on the main page, just like any other FA. Resolute 17:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the auto race, but the issue is interesting: where does one draw the line in terms of commercial exploitation of the main page? Does one draw a line at all? In the case of my hypothetical toothpaste, I've utilized the services of the finest paid editors around, drafting entire sections of the article as is permitted, to guide the formation of an article of FA quality on my toothpaste. Does that deserve its day on the main page? Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If someone writes an article about your toothpaste company that reaches FA status, it deserves to eventually be featured as TFA. I don't think your efforts to slant the question by integrating the possibility of paid editing or PR shills aids debate on whether or not something with commercial interest or sponsorship deserves to be TFA. Those are separate questions. Resolute 19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I see a big difference between an article being about being about a commercial product and an article be written or promoted to featured article status by people directly working for the company that produced said product. With the exception of the fictional toothpaste the only commercial products mentioned in this discussion so far have been the NASCAR race and Square Enix video games. Up to this point no evidence has been presented that employees of either company or people paid by them have been involved in either getting the articles promoted to feature article status or on the main page so I don't think the toothpaste example works here. If there was evidence that would be a different story though.--67.68.20.86 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

To put it another way I don't think we should be basing this hypothetical articles but actual evidence that something like paid editing is actually happening on specific articles.--67.68.20.86 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for WMF resources to improve MediaWiki software

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T121469

I see now in Meta:2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Results, the WMF Community-Tech task for "Improve diff compare screen" is planning for Spring 2016 to investigate the diff-line display (which is also an underlying problem to edit-merge some types of wp:edit-conflicts). Both issues are within the Top 20 requested issues (diff is #2, and edit-conflict detection is #20 when recounted internally, from position #21). Although the November 2015 survey was a quick scan of user ideas, it has revealed some major issues to improve, for both WMF developers & enwiki users. There is already talk about extending wp:CS1 cite template {{cite_web}} to link page numbers by separate url parameters (as issue #24, "Make it easier to cite different pages from a book as one reference"). Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2016, revised 01:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be to redirect the $2.5m Discovery budget (about 10% of the engineering budget I believe) into hitting these Community Tech ideas. II | (t - c) 07:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Now we need to clarify diff features: Even with the current WMF Community-Tech budget, we as community members need to help specify the requirements, to handle diff changes in long lines and resync at partial lines with matching text. Otherwise, the wp:developers could struggle for months to determine what is really wanted as better features for our editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Could start with a default to ignore irrelevant white-space changes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC).
  

I have wondered if talk-pages could auto-append a bottom blank line before checking for wp:edit-conflicts, then a bottom reply/section would not conflict with another reply appended opposite below/above that same blank line. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Other knowledge engines

Wolfram Alpha is a surprise to me. Are there others? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting interview. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wolfram Alpha has been around for years now. Google had Knol but it didn't last very long. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Parsing text seems ok but multi-word search better: I did get direct results for "When <whomever> born" but other questions got limited results. For example when asking, "Where do the White Nile and Blue Nile converge?" then Wolfram Alpha only detected the 2 rivers, but our typical wp:wikisearch noted Battle of the Nile and 2nd result was page "Confluence" with excerpt "Khartoum, located at the confluence of the White Nile and the Blue Nile, and so wikisearch found the answer as "Khartoum" very quickly in this case. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have always preferred Google over our internal search when accessing Wikipedia. Indeed, searching for "Where do the White Nile and Blue Nile converge" in Google and limiting it to en.wikipedia.org yields Khartoum as the first result. The excerpt in Google search even says: " ... The location where the two Niles meet is known as 'al-Mogran' ... " (Google is smart enough to search for synonyms such as "meet" for "converge" here; our search isn't. Google also fixes typos in search terms). One of the premises behind Knowledge engine, then, is correct: we have the content, but our own search algorithm sucks. Whatever you think about the Knowledge engine, we should fix the good old search box. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I think Google Search has pre-stored the search-results for like 50 million questions, as when I started entering another "unique" question as, "How long does sunlight take to reach Mars" (~12 minutes), then Google auto-completion had already suggested Pluto, Earth, or Mars among the predicted questions. I wonder if the wp:wikisearch system could pre-store so many search-questions in that manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My concerns

I am not greatly concerned about the "knowledge engine" kerfuffle -- it seems like the sort of confusion and infighting that happens in every organization. And I certainly disagree with people who think that improvements in (internal) search are not needed, or that improvements to the efficiency of the servers are not important. But there are two issues that badly need to be addressed by the BoT:

1. No adequate explanation has yet been given for the dismissal of James Heilman from the board. I can think of reasons why giving a full explanation might be problematic, but the fact remains that an elected community representative was removed without a clear rationale. That's a situation where a backlash is inevitable, and probably will continue until a better explanation is given.

2. Even more important, there are strong indications that the leadership of the WMF has lost the confidence of a substantial part of the staff. There are always going to be malcontents, but this seems to go well beyond the level that might be expected. I hope that the BoT is paying attention, and I hope that it will intervene if the situation continues to deteriorate.

Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, this issue has the board's full attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

should not have had to come to this, that is why transparency is important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The big questions, for me at least

(Jytdog made some refinements to this after he posted, but I was in the middle of in-line reponses. I hit save and of course there was an edit conflict. :-( I decided to just overwrite those refinements, and I'm sorry about that, but the cutting and pasting to fix it all up seemed like it would take enough time that I would probably hit another edit conflict. Our software for facilitating discussions depresses me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for noting that. no big deal... that is what i get for hitting 'save" too soon. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. In response to your invitation, here are questions. I would be grateful if you would please try to understand the heart of each question, and if you would try to respond to that. If there is anything unclear or invalid about what I am asking, please ask me to clarify it or tell me why the question is invalid to you.

What I am looking for is how to move past all this and start looking forward. To do that, however, like any reconciliation process, there needs to be an explanation and acknowledgement of what happened, apologies given where needed, repairing whatever damage can be repaired, and an understanding about how things will be different in the future. I am trying to encompass all the things that folks have been saying, that appear to me (to me) to be the key issues.

Thanks again.

• Looking backward

1. About Doc James being dismissed from the board, I am looking for an explanation that goes beyond the he said/she said we have been provided to date. In my view, a joint statement is what is needed, and would probably contain difficult things for both parties to acknowledge. I would like to understand what the Board has been doing about trying to arrive at a joint statement with James about what happened. What efforts have been made? Have you tried a mediator? Is there anything ongoing, and if not, would you please consider starting to try? There is a lot at stake in such a statement being issued for me, and I reckon for others. If you are not aware of it, this issue, and specifically Doc James claims about what happened and why he was dismissed, are for me and others a key sticking point that makes us unable to let go of the Search issue and makes us believe there is much more there than what has been disclosed to date. Doc James is not a crazy person. He is not. He is in fact respected. Please try to understand what position that leaves many of us in. Maybe he misunderstood something, and misunderstandings got compounded into a really poisonous situation. That is the most sympathetic perspective on what you have been saying that I can muster. But a set of misunderstandings by him that profound, seems very unlikely. I hope you can understand that. I would really love it if efforts to arrive at a joint statement led to a reconciliation and James' re-appointment, but I recognize that is a very long shot. (this is damage that i am hoping can be repaired) But the questions are - what is the board doing about getting a joint statement together, and if the answer is "nothing", would you please commit to working on that? Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I don't think a joint statement is really possible, nor at this point something that I think is worth working towards. James has publicly stated beliefs about why he was removed from the board which have been completely refuted by everyone who was there at the time. He has put forward a view to the community that this was some grand struggle for greater transparency which he lost with disastrous consequences for his board seat and presumably the rest of us. That wasn't true. Indeed, given how often I press for greater transparency and openness far more radical, I'd be the first on the chopping block if that were the case. The fact that he would lead the community down this path after leaving the board was, I'm afraid, entirely predictable and illustrates in my view why people lost trust in him in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   First, thanks for answering this and the other questions and for generally making more ...moderate statements than you have in the past.

   On this one, I hear what you are saying, and this echoes what you have said all along. I understand that things got very bad. But I don't feel like you are hearing me, that James remains very respected in the community, and what you are saying makes no sense in light of my (and I think many other people's) experience with him. And the distance between what each of you are saying is almost impossible to bear, to anybody who really cares and thinks about what each of you are saying with respect for both sides. I am asking you to commit to trying, perhaps with a mediator. Maybe this is something I need to do an RfC on, to see if a joint statement is something the community really wants. Would you find this request more compelling if it had an RfC behind it? Do I need to go there for you to understand that this is something that is tearing up the community and that has done a lot of harm to the relationship between the board and the community? I don't even hear from you, that you understand that. Do you? Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I understand that. I'm open to trying, but I don't see how it is possible. Perceptions seem radically different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

   Why is a joint statement desirable? I would rather have new elections. EllenCT (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

   Jimbo Wales that is a step in the right direction. What I am asking is that you actually commit to trying, perhaps with a mediator. Dispute resolution processes are available in the real world, as you well know. And that you let us know when that process actually commences. Will you please do that? Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

IOW the board has failed to communicate to James, as well as to the wider world, why he was dismissed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

an aside, trying to get to the heart of the matter

Jimmy, I want to add something here, and I am saying this with regard to where I stand on all this stuff - the picture I have put together, based on what everyone (especially you, Lila, and James) has said, and importantly - what has not been said. I do see that the board got to a point where it felt it couldn't function with Doc James there; I do see that Doc James expected much more transparency than some of the people he dealt with were willing to consider. I cannot ignore either side of that.

Jimmy I want you to know, that every... single... response... that you have given to the community to date with regard to technology strategy and commitments, has only re-inforced the perception I have, that the board considers the WMF's technology strategy and budgetary commitments to be confidential. Your answers have either been more or less friendly but high level, or fairly curt negatives with regard to specifics (along the lines of "We are not doing x"; that is silly") There is a big hole where I am looking - namely, disclosure of what the technology strategy and budgetary commitments have been, as they evolved. The presence of the absence, as it were, is not ambiguous - it is clear. (of course, the questions I and others have posed about that, remain standing, and can be answered at any time)

So again, what I am seeing, is that to arrive at a joint statement with Doc James would mean acknowledging in public that at least part of where he has come from is valid - that the technology strategy and related commitments of the WMF board and ED are confidential, and will not be disclosed to anybody, including the community. (and maybe that is just perhaps Lila's perspective and some board members, and not anything as unified as the actual stance the board and Lila have decided to take) I understand that if this is the case, for you to acknowledge that might be expensive with regard to the good faith of the community, and that if you are unwilling to acknowledge that in public, a joint statement with Doc James does seem to be impossible right now. (One thing I am hoping is that good faith discussion, and even perhaps mediated discussion, can help things... evolve.)

I also think there would probably be some hard things for James to acknowledge in making a joint statement with the board. I can imagine that maybe he got frustrated and said or did things that he maybe shouldn't have. I don't see anybody as an angel here.

But this is the only picture that I can put together that makes sense of everything, trying to treat both sides with respect. I imagine that others have arrived at this picture as well.

Keeping things confidential is consistent with my experience of working with high tech and biotech companies that are developing new products - of course you keep all that stuff confidential as much as you can. It is a bit surprising to find the WMF taking that approach. (And as far as I can see, that is the approach that has been taken - there has been no disclosure of the strategy and budget, despite repeated requests by many people, not just me. Please don't treat that as an accusation; it is just a fact. If it is incorrect, please don't just say it is wrong, please provide a link to the clear disclosure of the strategy and budget commitments as they have evolved)

I could see Lila trying to drive a culture change in that regard, as an experienced tech executive stepping into the ED role (which is what the board wanted), and I could see the board being open to it and supporting it. There are arguments that could be made to support that, even for the WMF.

Anyway, that was bold of me, and I do not want to derail this discussion. But I do want to try to get to the heart of the matter with you. If you like, would you please let me know - does the WMF board and the ED consider its technology strategy and related budgetary commitments to be confidential? Or has there been some "culture clash" around confidentiality as Lila has come in? Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you on this - which seems to be the underlying set of issues here. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

resuming the thread

1. Would you please recount what transpired among the executive leadership and the board with regard to this whole "search/Knowledge Engine" thing over the course of the last year or so? If you are not aware, please be aware that very focused questions have been asked about this, like here and it would be great if your response makes the major decisions clear - especially executive, board and budget decisions. The budget decisions are really important, as they go to how much money the WMF was intending (and is intending) to commit to this. I understand it is probably messy and that there seem to have been competing visions. But the actual decisions that were made, is what I am after. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Sure, but keep in mind that "among the executive leadership" in great detail is not something that I, or any board member, would have direct knowledge of. And as to what the vision was or is, yes, it's "messy" as you put it. What that means is that it's preliminary, that the kind of big picture strategic decision that people seem to be afraid of, and that you've talked about explicitly several times, just isn't there. Nor, in my view, with respect to "Discovery", should it be there. Obviously different people will have different ideas about it, and brainstorms, and proposals, and that's all good. But it's too early to make a really big decision. One of the things that's great about the Knight grant is that it's some small steps in the direction of learning more so that we can get to the point where a bigger vision can be intelligently articulated - not blue sky thinking, but an actual plan.

   Lila gave us a run down at the board meeting in Mexico and we encouraged her to move forward. One of the things discussed in that meeting was explicitly that this is not a "Google competitor". And it wasn't. I've only just learned (yesterday) that Damon was circulating to some people under extreme cloak-and-dagger secrecy with GPG keys and all that, an idea of his to build a Google competitor, but that idea never got real traction. What did get traction is that one of the things (not the only thing and, in my view not even the most important thing) we should be investing resources in is "Discovery" - improving internal search, thinking more about what www.wikipedia.org should be, etc.

   That's pretty much all there is. If some were fearing (or hoping) that the board had approved some massive project and budget which would radically change the nature of how Wikipedia works, or how people interact with Wikipedia content, well, no. It's a lot more mundane than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for replying, and for acknowledging that there are some valid bases for concern in the community based on what Damon was circulating. Based on this you are either unwilling or unable to be more detailed, about what the board actually committed to, with regard to various decisions made along the way and budget allocations that were made. I guess we will have to wait until someone is willing/able to reply to this. This is unanswered. Hopefully Lila will disclose more at her AMA/FAQ. But do let me ask - would you please be more detailed? I asked a concrete, answerable question.... Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling, my point is that you seem to me to be asking for something that doesn't exist. That isn't how it works. The board is not consulted along the way regarding various specific decisions, budget allocations, at that level of detail. The formal decision taken by the board was to approve the Knight grant, as you know led by James moving to approve after his confusions were corrected and his objections answered. What I can tell you is that it was, and is, too early to approve a specific budget for tens of millions of dollars or whatever - there's the Knight grant and support for the "Discovery" team, and I've already talked about what that means.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy, hm. The current tech budget is larger than 250K and the board must be aware of the programs that the larger budget is for. Can you please talk about that? And again, even though Lila and the board have apparently not settled on long term strategies, it is really clear that planning has been done. As you noted the board approved the Knight grant, and the grant itself has projections in it, that the WMF was comfortable enough with to submit. Will you please talk about that stuff? I and others are looking to understand the story of what has unfolded - will you please tell it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is helpful, here is the budget from the Knight grant, from page 9 of the pdf:

• Search Engine by Wikipedia Budget 2015-2016 (Board approved)
• Position...........................................................................Cost
• 8 Engineers (Software,Relevance,Services).....................$1,021,000
• 2 Data Analysts ...............................................................$180,000
• 4 Team Leads (Dir, VP, UX, PM)..................................... $586,000
• Associated costs (20%) (Medical, equipment, travel) ....$357,400
• Hardware ......................................................................$301,473
• Total............................................................................. $2,445,873

There you go. I can only take "board approved" for its face value. You all obviously accepted only 250K and you all have walked away, fiercely, from the "search engine by Wikipedia" thing, but we have no story from the WMF board, you, nor Lila, to make sense of all this, what other commitments you made to use the WMF funds, really important, how those commitments changed (from what to what), nor where you all thought it was going. Really. We would like to understand the story. Would you please tell it, concretely? Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1. A lot of the upset-ness has stemmed from the sense among some of us, that pretty big plans seem to have been made about expending significant resources to develop some kind of new technology, without engaging the community. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but Lila seems pretty clearly to acknowledge that not engaging the community was a mistake, on her meta user page here, in the section "Why didn’t you discuss these ideas with the community sooner?" Among other things she says : "However, I was too afraid of engaging the community early on. Why do you think that was?" That is a gorgeously human statement, in some ways, and calls us to try to stand in her shoes. But to me, it raises the question of where the board was on this, with respect to providing her guidance, direction, etc. So my question (I am trying to ask this in a non-accusing way)... Where was the board on engaging the community on this whole search thing as it unfolded? If (and that is real "if") the board supported Lila in not engaging, or even directed her not to engage, do you Jimmy, or the board also see that it made any mistakes here? Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, Lila does view not communicating more with the community about this as a mistake. But, speaking only for myself not for Lila or the board or anyone else, it was mainly a mistake because it led to the false impression that this was some big huge thing. There was no reason to be secretive about it. I don't know of anyone on the board who would ever encourage Lila not to engage with the community, but at the same time I'm very well aware of how frightened the staff can be of the community - and not for no reason, let's all be painfully aware of that. Engaging with the community, which I've been doing for a long time, isn't always rewarding. Some people are hostile and engage in name calling and insults. The staff are human and mainly very committed to the mission, and they are treated like evil parasites with a grand conspiracy to destroy the community on a regular basis. So they are fearful of engaging.

   Now, let me be clear about one thing: there are some historical reasons why the community can be so hostile. We've underinvested in software development for a long time, and we've had some disastrously bad rollouts of sub-par software. This has led to a dynamic where the community has been less willing to forgive bad software, which means that things have to be perfect at rollout or face a storm of criticism. This had led to a feeling among some staff that the community hate all change, regardless. It's not a healthy place to be.

   So it's in that context that we have to understand this. Investing more in "Discovery" is a good idea. It's not a radical departure, so speaking only for myself, it never occurred to me that the staff wouldn't be sufficiently engaging with the community about ideas for it, plans for it, etc. And it didn't occur to me that it would come to be viewed with such suspicion and hostility. It obviously could have been avoided with transparency from the start.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for all this, and I do hear your thoughts that it would have been wiser to engage, just to avoid the suspicion, and I hear you on the bad history. however, my main question here was: "Where was the board on engaging the community on this whole search thing as it unfolded?" Would you please respond to that? Please bear in mind what was written here, and other places, about disclosure in general. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The board has always been 100% (every single member) in favor of engaging the community in detail about every major initiative. I am personally unaware of any deviations from this. There are of course times when the community can't be consulted (legal matters are a common example, but there could also be matters of commercial negotiations on price for hosting services or similar, and other kinds of examples) but not around things having to do with the fundamental direction of the Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this general answer, and that is good to hear. Lila already acknowledged the mistake of not earlier engaging the community sooner on this whole discovery/search/KE thing. The Board signed off on the Knight grant so was well aware of it and discussed it in Mexico. So the question is still hanging there - where was the board on engaging with the community on this whole discovery/search/KE thing? Surely the board (and you) knew that Lila wasn't engaging the community. So what was going on? Please answer this specifically - please answer the heart of the question. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• That is looking backward, now a set of questions about where things are now, and where they are going in the future:

1. What is the current cluster of visions about technology at the board of the WMF? Where are you currently intending to take us? (I understand that several avenues may be under exploration, but I would hope there is some vision, currently). If this is a vision created without consulting us, that is what it is. I would just like to know what it is. I do see a valuable role for bot-generated content and I think that will only get more likely say 10 years from now as computing power grows, and I would hope the visions encompass this. Assuming they do, I would like to understand how that relates to the WMF's commitment to our traditional user-generated content. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I think it's very hard to characterize the vision of "the board" because we are a diverse set of individuals, and realistically speaking, the role of defining and leading and getting buy in to a longterm vision is really the province of the executive director. But I'll take a stab at it. I think there's a general view by the board that we've underinvested in software development in the past. This view was first articulated by Sue Gardner, who made finding a tech/product person to be CEO a cornerstone of the search for her successor. Things have improved on that front under Lila's leadership, but obviously not without some serious bumps along the road. Speaking more personally about my own views, I think we need to invest still more resources in technology and hire very good people who can help us become an organization that can actually turn out software features and products that the community needs and wants, on a regular basis. I think that "Discovery" is an important pillar of that effort, but not necessarily the most important. I think it needs to be easier for intelligent and smart and kind people to become Wikipedians, without having to learn so much arcane tech stuff. I think we need to stop wasting the time of volunteers who end up having to do stuff in convoluted manual ways rather than using tools that work. But I don't work at the Foundation, and my views on specific product ideas aren't any better than any other long time Wikipedian's views, so I don't think we should privilege what software I think should be built - we should all work together consultatively... but also decisively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I love everything you said. But this is very high level, and doesn't really answer what I was asking. You hired Lila almost 2 years ago, and that is plenty enough time for her to propose a set of long term strategies to the board, with reasonably clear timelines and budgets to achieve them, and for her and the board to negotiate to get those proposals to a place where the board signs off on them. Would you please describe the current strategies? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It has taken too long to formulate a formal strategy. This is something that Lila acknowledges completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a somewhat useful response and I appreciate that. Will you please discuss what has caused the delay? Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1. What are the WMF's plans (board and/or executives) plans to engage the community on really big picture stuff, like this whole "search" initiative and the technology-vision more broadly? Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I think there are some excellent models that we should expand and follow more regularly. Geoff and the legal team have done some great consultations that led to generally well-received changes to the terms of use, etc.

   I also think, and have said many times, that we should not get into a bizarro world again where we think that the community should be literally voting on software features, only implementing things after they achieve wiki-consensus. As I mentioned above, we need to work together consultatively but also decisively. We've seen enough fiascos of committee-designed software that ends up being super complicated to the point of not working, only to be rejected by the community in the end. We need highly talented product people to understand the needs of the community, and execute on fulfilling those needs. If we can be agile, then initial problems can be iteratively fixed and improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Having seen (not nearly as much as you and others) the messiness of decisions-by-consensus here, I understand what you mean. I did ask concretely about what plans there are to actual consult with the community on this big picture stuff. Are there any concrete plans? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it best to leave that to staff to answer. There is a deep understanding that a big mistake was made in not consulting more with the community. As to concrete plans, that will of course depend on the specific context of the department and what they are working on and how much it involves the community and which parts of the community are involved. To give some examples: Something that impacts primarily GLAM work will involve mainly consultation with people working on GLAM stuff and with chapters who are affected. Something that primarily impacts heavy editors will involve mainly consultation with people doing that. It's not really for the board to direct that work, it's for management.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

OK I guess this is a question for Lila. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1. What might the WMF board be willing to consider, about making itself actually (not just ethically) accountable to the editing community? (example, some of us have been talking about how to set up "members" of the WMF... this is just an example, please don't get caught up on it) If the answer is "nothing", that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   I think we're willing to consider anything. I think that Erik Moeller has spoken eloquently (somewhere - I saw it yesterday but I don't remember where) about the history. In my view, there are some interesting ideas floating around that could help us move forward on our classic dilemma: we want to remain a strongly community focussed organization, but also need to have expertise on the board. The one thing I would like to add: based on my very long experience doing this, a lot of people imagine that the community-elected board members will somehow be more on the side of the community than the appointed board members. That has never really been true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks for this answer. We'll do some thinking and come back, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

2. It seems that there is widespread unhappiness among the staff of the WMF, as reported in the staff survey results and as one can infer from the spate of recent high-profile departures. I realize that there are HR issues here, but whatever you can say about what the WMF board is considering about getting things on a better track, would be good to hear. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

   It's hard to say much in detail, so I'll just speak broadly. It is my belief that we need to be a lot better about hiring at the top levels. We've had too many C-level positions vacant for too long, and also situations in the past with C-level positions where the person in the role wasn't a great fit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

For those wondering what "C level" means, it is explained at List of corporate titles. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Guy. :) I won't ask further about this, given the HR issues. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That is enough for now. I reviewed all the discussions that have been going on and tried to capture the "mainstream" issues. I apologize to anybody if I missed something. It's all yours, Jimmy. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WMF staff matters

I set this off in a subsection, to keep the above discussion clear. I hope that is OK... Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
To me this sounds alarming! Trying to fill command or chief level positions to match those found in a typical corporation implies a degree of centralized command similar to that found in a corporation, which is to say, zero role for the community. These are expensive positions for ambitious people who are supposed to develop their careers by making a mark, and unfortunately, that mark is made on us the community. I think Wikipedia would do well to keep the C-level positions vacant, keep their salaries far, far below corporate standards, and task those holding any such positions with a much less commanding role than is typically expected. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with almost every aspect of what you are saying. I want ambitious people of very high levels of talent who are in great demand elsewhere, and i want them to make a mark - not "on us" (that's a terrible notion) but "for us". Imagine an incredible top executive who, 2 years into the job, is universally recognized in the community as having dramatically changed the functioning of the Foundation for the better. Consider the CTO position as an example: I want a CTO who can do a fantastic job of creatively engaging and inspiring the community and the developers to work together to jointly deliver improvements to the software that are meaningful and matter to us. I want to see software that meets the needs of experienced users and new users and takes away some of the many barriers to accomplishing our dream of a free high quality encyclopedia for everyone. Yes, we could attempt a radical (and very likely to be a complete failure) effort to not have executives, or to fill the positions with more junior people who are less qualified, but why? What would the advantage be of not having great leadership at the Foundation?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully support this strategy. It is too easy to slip into the following thinking:

(Wikipedia volunteer:)

1. I am unhappy with something the WMF did.
2. Therefore the WMF should stop doing things and let the community of volunteers do them.
3. I am unhappy with the way the WMF has communicated what they are planning to do.
4. Therefore the WMF should get permission from the community of volunteers before doing anything.

The problem with this is that the community of volunteers lacks several attributes that are necessary to run the WMF. Attributes such as "the ability to make a tough decision without deadlocking" and "the ability to enter into legally binding contracts that the rest of the world recognizes as such".

I prefer this sort of thinking:

(Wikipedia volunteer:)

1. I am unhappy with something the WMF did.
2. Therefore the WMF should figure out whether they actually did something wrong and if so figure out how to do it better.
3. I am unhappy with the way the WMF has communicated what they are planning to do.
4. Therefore the WMF should communicate with (not get permission from) the community of volunteers whenever possible.

Doing this will be hard. It would be easy for the WMF to think "Well, the Knowledge Engine project ran into a shitstorm while in the 'blue sky, think about what we might want to do eventually, but only budget some preliminary studies' phase, so clearly we need to do a better job of keeping such things secret until the plans are pretty much agreed-upon and set in stone." Once you are in that mode of thinking, the community of volunteers are the enemy.

Watching the one unfirable WMF member (Jimbo) be viciously attacked and called a liar (still no shred of evidence that the accusation is true) really doesn't help. If I was part of the WMF I would avoid any communication with the community of volunteers for fear of ending up on the unemployment line. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a somewhat different approach. In my view this should be a volunteer led organisation where the staff do things that volunteers want to have happen, but aren't volunteering to do. In the 2009 Strategy discussion the first priority was "keeping the servers running" and I hope we'd agree that this should still be the WMF's first concern. In the last few months the WMF consulted the community as to what software changes we wanted and what priority we gave them. This only involved a small part of the WMF's programming budget, but I think it could be the start of a much healthier relationship between the WMF and the community. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I really do appreciate your response to me ... still, I don't really understand why you feel this way. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that a bunch of unpaid amateurs can write a better encyclopedia than a smaller number of well-paid professionals. So why shouldn't this apply to software, or corporate governance? We live in a world where practically everything that regular people do, on the job or off, is presented as the accomplishment of a certain executive class, who are the ones paid for it. For a long time Wikipedia was, at least in part, a shining exception to this, and I don't see why that should change. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, for what it is worth, i think even nonprofits and government agencies need to be well run, including WP. Full time staff is needed to make WP function - the servers and underlying software that make all this go - and if the WMF has employees it should have competent management (just to be a decent employer). Don't you think? Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Well, what's being described is a change from the past. If WMF did without many C-level employees before... why have them now? The notion that adding them will make something better seems at best a hypothesis; WMF is not just another employer, but something new in the world. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I don't want to get into a big thing here, but there is a bunch of software and hardware that needs to be maintained and always improved. (not to mention accounting people to pay them, etc, and all the other functions you need to build an organization that actually runs a technology enterprise. I don't want to demean what the WMF staff do in any way and they do a lot more than this, but at minimum they have to do keep the site running while we part-time volunteer creators do our thing. You can start drafting today and come back tomorrow and it is all still there. Right? Randy from boise couldn't keep this place going - it takes an organizatoin. And even among for-profits WMF is renowned for keeping the site up, and relatively quick to respond, even under the crazy-heavy traffic that readers create. And this is how it is at pretty much any company that relies on "user-generated content". Twitter has about 3500 employees, just so we can write 148 character tweets. What you are saying is just not realistic, in my view.... That is just my view. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Community participation in CTO candidate evaluation

Jimbo, will you please support allowing the community three weeks to provide feedback on the top 5 CTO candidates before a final decision is made, with Signpost, Chapter, WP:CENT, watchlist, and/or banner announcements when they are ready? EllenCT (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, no. I don't think that would make for a sensible or useful hiring process at all. The CTO position is a highly technical position and not something that voters would be well positioned to give feedback on. It is a professional job, not a political position. The right thing to do is not to have community feedback on the candidates themselves, but on the technical direction of the software and on the job requirements.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

How about as a question-and-answer period without any voting allowed? The job description indicates that the CTO is delegated decisions about which technical options to pursue, so this would give us the opportunity to see whether the candidates can explain their choices in ways that support the enhancements that the community needs as opposed to harboring divergent plans. Are you suggesting that the very limited number of hiring managers available for C-level positions have shown that they have the competence to evaluate that specific aspect of CTO candidates by themselves? EllenCT (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that is a fine idea! Not only would the answers be illuminating, but it would select for candidates who are able and willing to give straight answers to questions asked -- something that is not particularly valued in other organizations. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't happen all that often, but on this point I agree entirely with Jimmy. It is possible that a community member with specialized knowledge that would be particularly useful to reviewing CTO candidates would be appropriate as part of an interview panel. But not even Burger King applicants have to run the gauntlet of angry customers before they're hired. Risker (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If a restaurant chain was hiring someone to whom they intend to delegate decisions about franchise standards, is it reasonable to require that they have experience working the counter, supply chain positions, and as a customer? Can you think of another way to make sure that we get a CTO with the community goals at heart, instead of someone who devotes massive effort to, or supports contractual obligations requiring, something the community doesn't need? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The community isn't hiring her, the WMF is. We don't set the job description, we don't pay the salary, we don't set the goals and objectives, and we don't carry out the performance appraisals. The CTO will not be reporting to the community, but to the Executive Director. Lila's page is on Meta, if you'd like to make the case. Whatever else, Jimmy has no role in the hiring or firing of anyone on Wikimedia staff, with the exception of course of the ED. Risker (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"The community" are the creators of the product, unlike Burger King customers. Jimmy can have as much role in hiring or firing as he likes, which is why the WMF exists in the form it does. Try not to be so uncritical. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way SB Johnny, that I'm being critical. I'm being realistic. The CTO job is not a community-facing one, it's about the system architecture and maintaining the operating system and keeping the server kitties fed and happy. The closest it comes to "community" is in running and maintaining the labs (which just lost a staff position, I understand), and that's more directed at the volunteer developer subset of the community. A lot of the responsibilities that I believe EllenCT is looking for, based on her posts, are under the umbrella of the Product department, which has its C-level leader in Wes Moran. She's absolutely correct that these are important functions. They're just not the functions of the CTO. And at the end of the day, it's going to be the ED making the hiring decision. So any appeals for an opportunity to participate (which I don't think is a good idea, and which I do not believe many excellent candidates will be willing to go through) needs to go to Lila, or possibly Boryana Dineva, who will probably be organizing the interviews. Risker (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Was the previous CTO responsible for the contradiction between messaging to the Knight Foundation and the public regarding the creation of a search engine for non-Wikimedia content? Whether they are public-facing or not, they clearly have a substantial community impact. Why do you believe that a good CTO candidate might not want to engage with the community concerning their philosophy and goals? I will certainly take your advice to at least ask the ED to try to make sure the CTO approves of the community tech team goals. I am not sure who Wes Moran is. I was unaware that the WMF provided products instead of services. What is meant by product in this context? EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the CTO role is a new role, or more correctly the return of a role that has not been filled since 2011. The person you are thinking of was the Vice President of Engineering, which did not encompass the same responsibilities. Wes Moran is Vice President, Product. It's been called "product" for over a year. Risker (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that many of the incidents that have damaged relations between WMF and the community had their origins in technical fiascoes, it might help generate good will if the WMF allowed the community a role in the CTO decision. That doesn't (necessarily) mean a deciding role or a veto. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree a deciding role or veto would not be appropriate; I am only asking for questions and answers for three weeks. EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if it looked like I was trying to put words in your mouth -- that was not my intent at all. BTW if anyone wants to know where the CTO sits in the grand scheme of things, there's an organizational outline of sorts here. I'm not sure whether I'm less confused after reading it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we as a community comment on the job application description. That seems appropriate and useful for the hiring process. I don't think it's good however to have the community vet a candidate. I agree that some mistakes have been made over the past years with some hires, but it is simply not our place to participate in this. I'd rather see a hire fail, or the whole foundation fail, than having the community grill some potential hires. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Community Participation in evaluation of the ECTO candidates. It seems that User:EllenCT is candidate to become an ECTO, i.e. an Evaluator of the CTO candidates. Perhaps the ECTO candidate could be more prolix about her ability to evaluate a CTO candidate, i.e. a Chief Technology Officer. According to the | job description, the required CTO will be the senior technology executive at WMF, in charge of a 58 sized staff, among them 15 seniors/directors and 40 engineers (with overlap). What EllenCT does know about leading such a technical team ? Home work for the ECTOs: describe how you think a CTO would manage the solving of the archival problem (talk pages, as well as discussion boards). Pldx1 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

An issue with Wikia

@Jimbo Wales: (pinging wales) I thought this was the right place to say it. Whenever I try to make an account on Wikia, it says "Sorry, we're not able to register your account at this time." Is this intentional or just a software issue? Happened to me on 3 wikias over more than 1 year. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@96.237.27.238: It sorta sounds like a bug to me. If you haven't already, you might consider making a report here, where I expect you'd get a fast response. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Lila does view not communicating more with the community about this as a mistake"[14]

I (and I am sure others) made it clear when she joined how important (and valuable) engaging the community was.

I do not understand, how, after super protect, V E, Flow, Liquid threads, the graphic redesign, and probably other matters she could still be missing this point.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough the header is confusing. Did you maybe get lost in double negatives? Lila seems pretty clearly to acknowledge that not engaging the community was a mistake, on her meta user page here, in the section "Why didn’t you discuss these ideas with the community sooner?" Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from Jimbo's answer to you - and grammatically correct. To clarify what I wrote, I fail to see how, after all the history during her tenure (never mind previous mistakes like flagged revisions), and with advice from the board, staffers and community members she could make this mistake.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

Staff afraid of the community -- and the problem with Incivility in general

Hi Jimbo. Above you said:

I don't know of anyone on the board who would ever encourage Lila not to engage with the community, but at the same time I'm very well aware of how frightened the staff can be of the community - and not for no reason, let's all be painfully aware of that. Engaging with the community, which I've been doing for a long time, isn't always rewarding. Some people are hostile and engage in name calling and insults. The staff are human and mainly very committed to the mission, and they are treated like evil parasites with a grand conspiracy to destroy the community on a regular basis. So they are fearful of engaging. (21:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)) [emphasis added.]

This does not surprise me at all. What I have seen since I first started editing on Wikipedia many years ago is that a high level of incivility is tolerated, in particular by admins. who often have free reign to act with impunity. Name calling (ad hominem attack) is used on a regular basis. Bringing the uncivil editor to a DR noticeboard is rarely helpful for those who happen to be on the "wrong" side of a POV dispute that has a large gang of editors backing them up. The gang will show up at any noticeboard and defend the uncivil behavior, write walls-of-text, confusion and distraction, point more fingers and threaten boomerangs. Neutral third parties are drowned out by the yelling, and are often too scared to enter into the fracas or appear to be "taking sides".

As an example of how futile it is to complain about incivility: Consider the dismissal of this complaint, which was used as a supplemental argument for the successful topic banning of the editor who complained about incivility. Softlavender made an excellent suggestion that got quite a lot of support to ask for more civility from both sides of the dispute, but those who wanted to continue the ad hominem argumentation won the day when the complaint was dismissed. Was anyone really surprised?

We need a system of justice and DR where neutral third parties make the final and binding decisions rather than those directly involved in a disagreement. The current set up makes no distinction. I would actually like to see something like jury duty or admins. assigned at random to make rulings on disputes, just like we have in the American court system. As it works now, it's more like mob rule with hanging judges, guilty until proven innocent and anything goes if a gang with admin. back up supports you. I have no doubt this is why there is a problem with editor retention and why the staff is afraid to interact with bullies who are never held accountable for their incivility. It is a very hostile place and works far too much like the Wild West. (That said, it's still better than allowing $ to drive the material everyone sees in the media, so I am still happy for your work in creating a more democratic system than we had prior to Wikipedia and I intend to continue to work here because of that.)

Do you have any thoughts on this problem and how it might be addressed? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Jimmy has made it really clear in the past that he agrees with this. But also that he'd like to see the community solve it and not the foundation/board. I'm not sure we can wait for that however. Like Twitter we have a big social problem, and I'm not sure it's fixable without making changes to the software or at least intervention by foundation/board. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The real problem here is that Wikipedia is the venue for a rearguard action by climate change deniers and their supporters, who wish to continue to represent climate science as being in a state of flux and disagreement, when in fact it has by now arrived at a point where the last survey found only one author rejecting the scientific consensus, out of nearly ten thousand publishing. Yes, we do need a mechanism to close down debate. Incidents like the one David Tornheim highlights are the inevitable result of endless querulousness on the part of often small numbers of editors who flatly refuse to accept the world as it actually is, and would rather we reflected the world as their highly selective view of the sources sees it. Just look at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Back in the day, the Institute for Creation research maintained a list just like this, of scientists who reject evolution. The list contains a number of people who happen to work in science but have absolutely no expertise in climate science (e.g. David Bellamy, a botanist). The number of living climate scientists in this list is tiny, and represents dramatically undue weight because the majority of them are only notable due to media coverage of their denialism. Fox News does not produce profiles of mainstream climate scientists, and actually neither does The Guardian. As Brian Cox said on the radio last week, the universe has a liberal bias. Some people think that requires us to "balance" it with conservative talking points. They are this: wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

David, while human beings are naturally afraid of difficult conversations (and talking to the community is undeniably difficult), professionals are paid to do a job. Part of the Executive Director's job and the job of some key roles in the WMF staff -- part of what they are paid to do - is engaging with the community. A key function of any Board, is to see to it that the CEO or ED does their job. Yes the community could behave better (try herding that bunch of cats) and we can understand a human failing, but that does not make the professional failure - nor the failure of board oversight - any less a failure. It is what it is. The key thing for WMF leadership is doing their jobs, and playing their roles, going forward. Jytdog (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a serious problem here, and David Tornheim nailed it. Jytdog and Guy are part of the problem -- some of the editors who will stop at nothing to push a point of view, being as nasty as they want to be, with near complete impunity. Guy is one admin who pushes POV and bullies constantly. So... consider the sources. I would love the community to be able to solve it, but i think it's gone below the critical mass required, and it's in a tailspin. It's deeply affecting the quality of the knowledge in Wikipedia, which is getting biased toward the "Skeptic" point of view daily. It's a hostile takeover. SageRad (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding going on. Some people seem to believe that civil POV-pushing is civil, while a robust response is not. In fact, civil POV-pushing is an oxymoron. POV-pushing is inherently uncivil: it represents a refusal to accept consensus. In most places where this is an issue, the numbers involved are small. We have managed to maintain a neutral article on homeopathy for some time despite the endless procession of people determined to "fix" our "bias" towards empirically verifiable fact. In a small number of cases - those where politics is significantly involved especially - the numbers are larger. But we need to be really clear: advancing a POV that is contradicted by science, even if done with painstaking politeness, is still a problem. Science is the real-world Wikipedia: it works by consensus to incorporate all significant views and findings in proportion to their evidential support. It can be wrong, sometimes badly so, but it is inherently self-correcting and the quality assurance is vastly better than ours. That's why in articles on medicine and climate, to name just two examples, we defer to the scientific evidence. We can describe dissent from that, and note (as is usually the case) the motives for those who so dissent, but we do not pretend that dissent has any parity with scientific inquiry.

To be clear: there is a difference, which we recognise, between questions of fact and questions of policy. The climate is changing, it is due to human influence, and there's no real dispute about that. What to do about it? Ask ten people and you'll get eleven answers - some of them even valid ones.

It would be great if there were an editorial board who could draw a line under these long-running content disputes. It's not going to happen. So the inevitable result is groups of people getting increasingly pissed off with each other. Take a look at the archives at [[15]] - how many times do we have to go round the same loop before we decide that those who do not accept consensus are disruptive? Guy (Help!) 10:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All i want is for actual policies to be enforced -- for everyone equally. Not with some being more equal than others which is how it is now. If someone can be mean, uncivil, and a bully with impunity then they get worse, and worse, and the environment becomes toxic, and this is what's happened. If i went diff-digging, i would be able to pull up about 100 examples of Guy bullying people and acting against policy, and yet he's ubiquitously still ruling this place with gusto as an admin who says "to hell with rules!" on a regular basis. SageRad (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I support a "Knowledge Engine" or any new search tool, but the knowledge generated by Wikipedia through volunteer editing will be as good as the editing environment allows it to be. Currently the knowledge is under hostile takeover by people gaming the system. The knowledge is the wealth. If the knowledge is distorted, it's less valuable, to WMF and to the people of the world. It can in fact be harmful to the world. Part of it is simply sadistic people finding a place to enjoy schadenfreude, but much of it is a systemic Skeptic™ takeover. SageRad (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy states: "last survey found only one author rejecting the scientific consensus, out of nearly ten thousand publishing". Guy simply picks surveys which support his POV. I can do that too: "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" [16] Why is it OK for Guy to do it, but not me? Biscuittin (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not taking about climate change denial. I'm talking about real science being blocked POV pushing with an ideology under the rubric of a "Skeptic" movement. I'm talking about serious gang-like POV pushing in many topics with an establishment agenda, hiring the integrity of the knowledge in Wikipedia. Equitable enforcement of policy would help this. However the system is gamed. SageRad (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On the WMF hiring process

Lots of the ideas that are circulating on this page strike me as misguided, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions, based largely on my experiences several years ago as a volunteer developer for GIMP, the open source image editing program.

1) It is extremely useful for developers and other staff members to be users themselves. All of the developers and maintainers at GIMP were heavy users of the software, and our personal experiences informed and motivated everything we did. In fact our greatest difficulty was in supporting the Microsoft Windows port of the program -- all our principal developers worked in Linux, and we often had trouble appreciating and understanding the issues that Windows users faced. Consequently I suggest that it should be a big plus, when looking at candidates for any WMF position, for the candidate to be an experienced Wikipedia editor. I don't think it should be an absolute requirement, but it should be a big plus. (This really applies to the BoT as well.)

2) Even if WMF staff were all editors themselves, there would still be substantial antagonism between the staff and the editing community. This is inevitable because inevitably many of the ideas generated by the broad community are misguided. The broad community is often good at identifying problems but poor at judging solutions, due to unfamiliarity with the technical issues at play, and unfamiliarity with issues that are known to have affected other similar systems. Also the users with the most experience tend to be the least sensitive to issues that mainly affect newcomers, and in general tend to be overly conservative about any sort of change.

3) Philosophical differences are also important and probably inevitable. At GIMP a large contingent of our users would have preferred us to be as much of a PhotoShop clone as possible, but as unpaid volunteers we found that idea excruciatingly boring and simply refused to do it. If we were a commercial entity we might well have followed a different path. The issues affecting the WikiMedia movement are obviously very different, but philosophical issues still come into play.

Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

These are all 3 very wise statements.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)