User talk:Jimbo Wales

So what exactly is this page for?

Is this where I can post essays like the following:

Morlock Eat Eloi

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who put people into two categories and those who don't. I fall into the first category. That having been said, I will continue by stating that there are two kinds of Wikipedians; there are the Morlock and there are the Eloi.

As you probably know from the H. G. Wells story “The Time Machine”, the Morlock were the brutal, rough people who labored in the harsh underground conditions of a distant future for the purpose of supplying the Eloi. The recipients of the Morlock labor, the Eloi, on the other hand, were gentle, insipid folk who lived an easy, carefree life above ground in the sweet light of day, supported by the labor of the Morlock. Unfortunately for the Eloi, Morlock eat Eloi.

That having been said, I will explain that there are two kinds of Wikipedians: there are the Morlock and there are the Eloi. The Morlock of Wikipedia I characterize as rude, vain, arrogant, conceited, territorial, thick-skinned, tough, and very, very tenacious. The Eloi are, for the most part, the polar opposite with a touch of naiveté. Once again, unfortunately for the Eloi, Morlock eat Eloi. Slowly but surely, over the years, the Morlock have “eaten”, chased off, or discouraged the Eloi of Wikipedia and as a result the Morlock are over represented.

I've heard the lament that there are not enough women editors of Wikipedia. I'm sure that that's true and it would be unfortunate if such an important venue of knowledge and a possible shaper of the public's perspective on the truth should be dominated by a narrow group, to the exclusion of many others. But the focus on the lack of women editors is narrow. The problem is that women are a large part of the kinder, the gentler folk I've humorously described as Eloi, and women are a part of the group driven off of Wikipedia. Among the kinder, gentler people, driven away are are a wide variety of people with valuable skills and perspectives, many of whom happen to be women. I will reiterate, Morlock eat Eloi.

Years ago I read, on someone's personal page, a lament to the effect that the rougher people of Wikipedia were driving off a great many good people. I now appreciate what that person was saying and believe it to be true. On the other hand, it might be possible that my perspective is warped by early, nasty experiences. One of the Morlock, a person well known as irascible, aggressive, and tenacious, and with whom I had personally sparred, recently “retired.” He is gone and I remain; the fact of which gives me worry that I am among those I condemn. On the other hand, it just might be confirmation the happy truth that progress is made, one death at a time.

Just thought I'd ask Zedshort (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice little essay, but it completely misconstrues the central idea that the Fabian socialist Wells was trying to convey, about the unpleasant ultimate reality to be expected under a social system in which a vapid elite extracts wealth from a repressed and oppressed working class. I suppose I should embrace the idea that there exists some sort of prettified but ultimately soulless friendly spacer elite extracting a pampered existence from the hard work of a rough-and-tumble producing class -- but I'm certainly not going to glorify such a state of affairs. Wells wasn't trying to endorse and salute the continuation of a pompous and idle ruling class, he was trying to warn of the dangers of failing to treat workers fairly. Advice to live by... Carrite (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow!! Much to munch on, but I think you missed the point. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought your essay was cute and did make a point about problems with bullying here, and I agree that women are probably less likely to tolerate it than men. I agree that is why we lose good editors and the editing environment has a disproportionate # of bullies. I do also agree with Carrite that the metaphor has some problems compared to what Wells had intended. The Eloi would be even bigger bullies than the Morlocks and eat the Morlocks if necessary as in Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.

I have not noticed a tendency in me or others who are not bullies to become bullies, but quite the opposite: we become increasingly upset by the bullying and the inability to do anything about it. The bullies are able to use double-standards and are somehow immune from prosecution and have admins that back them up. Perhaps you have attained such a level, but if so, I hope you recognize that being able to wield power unfairly and not be held accountable is not good for anyone, including yourself. We should all be held to the same standards. And that is not what happens here: Some are able to get away with things routinely that those they disagree with would be severely punished by them for doing only once. That is why I am a strong advocate for juries; The bullies will be exposed for what they are: The Emperor has No Clothes. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I assure you that I am not a bully. I actually have never, even on the playground, been in a fight. Nor do I resort to sarcasm (a sign of an unbalanced mind) nor beat people with swarms of words nor quote a twisted and selected set of rules. Actually, I believe that the bullies will immediately resort to rule quoting (in a very selective manner) as a cudgel to get their narrow way. I have, however, become a more bold editor and will go to people's talk page and talk to them in a very direct manner. I find, when I do that, they back down. I am direct and to the point but keep it professional. I really hope I don't come across as rude, but in their minds it might appear that way. Actually, I don't quote the rules as I see that as a sign of a weak mind, and I have never resorted to an admin. as I believe them to be tainted. Some are able to get their way as they are politicians who know how to work a very convoluted system. Zedshort (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will explain that there are two kinds of Wikipedians... Wikipedians are real people, and they are more complex than that. If you feel there are only two kinds, you need to get to know people better. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that I don't know that people (individuals) are more complex than that? The problem is, when people join groups their behavior changes. One dog is lonely, but if it has you it is happy, if it has you and another dog it is really happy, if a third dog joins, you have the beginning of a wolf-pack and the personality of the group changes dramatically and for the worse. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that behavior changes in group settings (especially anonymous settings), and it's completely true that folks engage in behaviors that exclude and hurt other editors. But I don't see a lot of value in categorizing or describing editors in this manner, and it doesn't help me understand why things like editors leaving or that far fewer women participate here are happening. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What I have written is an obvious exaggeration for the purpose of providing contrast and an attempt to explain the decrease of the number of editors and what I believe a concentration of the most aggressive, technical and male types. How could you not understand that aggressive, and territorial people chase off the more gentle and less territorial? That puzzles me. Call me a male chauvinist, but I do believe that women react to aggressive behavior in a very different manner than do men. I recall hearing an interview with a basketball coach, who after coaching men's teams went on to coach a women's team. He said that in the case of men, you could get into their faces and shout at them (actually needed to do so) to get them to listen to him and improve their performance. When he took the same tactic to a women's team, he found that the women did not respond so well to being shouted at, in fact they came unglued. He came to understand he could use more gentle tactics and just talk to them. Such a revelation! I worked for a woman in an engineering company, who found she got a better response from her team by lowering her voice an octave when she talked directly with them. It was rather humourous. Believe me, women editors are chased off along with a lot of good male editors by those rougher people, and as the process of correcting those Morlock is very shakey, the Morlock have essentially taken over. Inviting in more women editors will do no good unless the culture is changed. If you want a suggestion as to how to do that go to my talk page and read my proposal. Zedshort (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, so I think what we generally disagree on is the framing of these sets of observations, not whether these things happen or not. That women don't want to participate on Wikipedia is also distressing to me, and I agree that aggression pushes them away (and editors in general), and it's unacceptable. I agree that some men promote or spuriously justify this kind of behavior, and that's not OK either. If this metaphor helps you understand these behaviors, that's fine, but I don't find it helpful to start calling editors these names; they seem arbitrary, not compelling, and awkward. And that's not a criticism of you at all, or using metaphors generally, just me trying to be honest that this particular metaphor doesn't resonate with me at all. Furthermore, I am hesitant to presume that I know exactly what behavioral expectations women have in this project or in general. I don't know that they want to be treated "more gently." It seems more reasonable to say that editors, especially women and folks with other gender identities, shouldn't be harassed. The degree to which it happens is embarrassing. The culture does indeed need to change, and to do that, we need to agree about what kind of behavior is not acceptable (like the kinds you have described) and both encourage and enforce those expectations as a community in whatever areas we work in, and I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others. We also need to promote and encourage productive editing and interactions as we observe them. In the end for me, it really comes down to the behavior and how we deal with it collectively. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much to it. To make things go smoothly, just act in a polite and professional manner. I too find the lack of female editors to be disturbing and a sign of lack of health of the system. There is nothing I want more than to see a more diverse group of people represented in all walks of life and so too with WP. But acting in a polite manner is a matter of how you were raised and hence what you bring here. Acting in a professional manner requires a mixture of life experience and maturity of mind that typically comes with age. The body of editors may be too young and brassy to display that characteristic. Also, what you said here, "I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others.", smacks of wishful thinking, perhaps there is a typo in that. As far as encouragement, giving a thumbs up on a good edit is nice, but I seldom use it. Perhaps we need a thumbs down button. I work solely by myself and really, really don't like groups; I love people, it's just humanity I can't stand. Zedshort (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others.", smacks of wishful thinking, perhaps there is a typo in that. No typos. I speak from my experience working in many areas here, and especially with new editors. The problematic behavior is too frequent, but I reject that it is dominant. There is so much good happening in this project: The Teahouse, Editor of the Week, reforms to the RfA process, peer-review processes, edit-a-thons, thanks, and editors cordially working together in ordinary and yet important ways on talk pages, even on contentious topics. There are editors with the courage to face harassment and turn it into something productive. There is an editor from Cuba whose government makes it difficult to obtain Internet access and she has worked so hard and with other editors to contribute to this project because it is important to her. I helped out at an edit-a-thon here in Chicago this past weekend where 23 people, mostly women, edited Wikipedia for the first time and they had a positive experience. You're welcome to believe I am engaging in wishful thinking when I reject the notion that bad conduct rules the day here, but I don't think that is particularly fair to the great deal of good happening all the time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you are doing some very good work. Thank you! I agree with everything you said. In non-controversial topics, there is going to be less bullying for sure, so I agree that it is unfair to portray everything about the project as being like those areas where there is conflict. Part of what I find so valuable about Wikipedia is that it is not driven by a corporate agenda of distributing information with the sole purpose of making money or as part of propaganda. People for a while trusted it as an NPOV source as it is supposed to be. But I think the public has caught on that it is not always so NPOV--when professors told them it is too unreliable to be cited for university papers. (For example our drug articles often leave out negative information about medications [1].) Also, now the corporate interests have found ways to manipulate the information, and that is something that concerns me, which I fear will take away a lot of what has made Wikipedia so special and unique compared to traditional encyclopedias like Britannica or World Book. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think our WP:PAG standards elaborately explain (and have explained almost from the beginning) what proper behavior is and the standards are fairly well set out and that harassment in unacceptable. But they are not enforced evenly, because the justice system works more like a set of good ole boys networks. If you are part of one of the good ole boys' networks, you can do no wrong or maybe get slapped on the wrist. If you aren't, well, good luck, maybe you will get a nice admin. who is even handed, or maybe you'll be sent to the gallows, even if your accuser was the bigger problem and was harassing you. This is why I would like a jury system. The good ole boys would not be able to self-administer their own proceedings and stack the deck and use obfuscation and walls-of-text to hide the injustice. Instead, they would be just as accountable as anyone else. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

While admins. might be useful, since they are voted for they too might be drawn from the body of Morloc. I have failed in the past to vote on admins. as I really don't want to get sucked into politics but I'm sure that my mindset times 1000 will produce no good. The idea of a jury of ordinary editors to pass judgement on conflicts might work. But better still would be to add thousands of more eyes on WP. To that end I propose a change to the direction of WP that would draw in many people (probably older and female) that by shear force of numbers of their eyes would dampen the behavior of all but the most criminal of Morloc. A study of was done years ago wherein a subject was place in front of a mirror. They found that the subject's behavior became more moral. I think it was concluded that simply having the subject's eyes on himself imposed a sort of moral rule on that person. Having many more eyes looking at each and every one of us will improve our behavior. There is however a thing called a criminal, or perhaps should be called a psychopath, that cannot be corrected and must be shown the door. In the mean time, while we all find ourselves abused, the system must churn and churn to finally expel that individual. I am certain that such people stalk us here, and some may work in packs. Zedshort (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the data on number of editors? It was at its peak back in 2007and has declined almost every year since then. I haven't seen the data for page views. I think that has been going down too. But the # of articles always goes up, and the # of good ones go up with it. I don't think of voting for admins. as political, but perhaps it is. As for the jury, under my concept the bullies don't get very far--if all the other jurors vote unanimously they can kick a trouble-maker off. And the jury would need to have around 2/3 or 3/4 majority to make their decision--closer to the "consensus" idea we are supposed to be striving for. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I imagine you will find that editor's behavior changes a lot as they gain experience. Editor A is not the same editor with the same outlook after they have been editing for five years vs. five months. Not only are there many different types of WikiFauna, with different interests and talents but also editors change over time. An editor who began focusing on content could move over to work on mediation and AFD discussions a year or two later. Some editors just work on the thankless task of reducing categories with backlogs that sometimes contain tens of thousands of articles/pages. While I think you make a good point that new editors shouldn't be chased away, I think that even with having a low percentage of women editors, there is a lot more diversity on Wikipedia than your model acknowledges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Again what I have written is an obvious exaggeration for effect, but I am sure that it explains much. Zedshort (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm hungry. Where is the pompous and idle ruling class when I need them? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors in sun are Eloi stalked by Morlock

At the core of the metaphor, many of the happy editors in the sunlight do not even realize, at first, how they are being bitterly watched, from the shadows (or the cesspool), by those trying to find reasons to attack. The new Eloi might become too vocal, imagining they are surrounded by eager, fun-loving college students hanging around with open minds or creative inspiration, only to learn how the Morlock dwell in darkness for many obsequious reasons, and "fun-loving" is not a typical trait amongst them. When the time is right, the happy Eloi will suffer and suffer, for imagining life could be so wonderful, exciting, and joyful; the wrath of the Morlock will soon enough extinguish the Eloi and their excessive, pleasant outlook. It is so easy to demoralize them, in a slow death spiral, revert and revert and revert, but not so fast that they would leave; no, instead just sideways insult and insult, then blocks, but later delete and delete and delete, block some more and topic ban, before yes, site ban to completely demoralize those happy Eloi who do not realize life is meant for continual insults, mindless pain, and endless suffering. Yes, that just about sums it up. ROFLMAO!! -Wikid77 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the impression that your experience here on WP has been tainted and you have become a little bitter. I can very much relate to that. I hope to avoid carrying the analogy too far but from a higher level perhaps the we should look at this as predator vs prey behavior. The Eloy (prey) have been decimated and a monoculture of Morloc remain very much to the detriment of the project. There are fewer and fewer eyes with the result that the Morloc become emboldened and will push harder and harder. I suspect that the idea of a self governing system that does not become a monoculture over time is foolishly naive. Any system must have a body of rules to keep it functioning smoothly, but also be flexible to adapt to new situations and grow. If the direction of growth is imposed by a set of internal meta-rules, dictated from the the highest level of Wikimedia Board, they should be vague otherwise they would be stultifying, if the rules are imposed from the lowest level, they will be imposed by the most active/aggressive and become a cancer growing within, if the rules are imposed from without, they will come in the form of starvation of funds and perhaps by being ignored and treated as irrelevant. Alternatively, WP might be replaced by a wealthy person, starting another encyclopedia that does not have the flaws associated with self-governance built into it. Personally I hope for he latter. Afterall, all of the material of WP is free to be copied and used by anyone, and I will vote with my feet. Zedshort (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I freaking love this thread. Please keep it going...forever. 166.176.59.112 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Zedshort's analogy has some validity. It's useful to keep coming up with descriptions of the bullying that goes on, or has gone on, and to discuss what can be done. (Is there any way Jimbo Wales and/or a group of dedicated editors could actually itemize many of the bullying cases, and apologize to the victims? I imagine a lot of departed victims would come back eventually to look up the messages to them, if a big project to make amends that way was done, and maybe it could actually really make a difference. That's my naive idea of the day.) Wikid77's extrapolation, apparently meant sarcastically(?) spells it out reasonably well in terms of customizing it better to the processes of Wikipedia. That describes the experience of a lot of new editors...what they experience in effect, whether or not the Morlocks are unified and alike, they have that effect, and, there really are, or have been, "wicked" editors acting in the way Wikid77 describes. Wikid77, is your username by any chance a reference to such behavior? --doncram 02:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram:, my username is from "wiki"+"id" plus 77 as a short form of "777" versus Biblical "666" (the "mark of the beast"), and so the comparisons to word 'wicked' have been interesting. If people said some admins were "full of the devil" then I wouldn't argue otherwise. I still think enwiki needs term limits for admins, perhaps 3-year terms with re-RfA similar to the 1-year terms for Swedish Wikipedia admins after 2006, but something needs to be done to divide the admin workload among dozens of admins in each area, rather than a handful of admins making most decisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that at least two prominent Wikipedians spent the vast majority of their Wiki-career to date seeking, acquiring and using (some might say abusing) positions of power in the community - and very little effort on content - and would fit well with your definition of Morlocks. These type of fasces collectors are, however, not the only problem users with power. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Part 3) Flagrantly biased Wikipedia article on the "Murder of Anni Dewani"

In parts 1 and 2 (archive 205), it was brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales (talk) that the article is not only biased, but flagrantly so; misleading to unsuspecting Wikipedia viewers; and directly harmful to Anni Hindocha's surviving family. And the evidence and proof of the bias was presented succinctly and concisely. In attempting to refute this proof, the PR agent acting for Shrien Dewani used the pretense of claiming it was untrue that there were MULTIPLE COURT RULINGS WHICH FOUND IT TO BE A PROVEN FACT THAT ANNI'S KILLING WAS A MURDER FOR HIRE. By way of attempting to defend this bogus claim, the PR agent explains at length the reasons why she rejects the process that led to the very court rulings she was claiming don't even exist. In other words, what's really going on here is that the fact that multiple courts have found that Anni's murder was a contract killing doesn't suit her agenda, and therefore, she wants Wikipedia to censor and bury these rulings. Which Wikipedia is in fact currently doing. And which amounts to yet another violation of Wikipedia standards (namely, prohibiting articles from being based on personal agenda, opinion, or "analysis") to add to those violations already enumerated in parts 1 and 2.

No valid argument has been presented that can dispute the proof presented earlier that this Wikipedia article is unfair and unbalanced. In addition it is both misleading to unsuspecting Wikipedia readers, and directly harmful to Anni Hindocha's surviving family. If Wikipedia refuses to remove the bias from this article, it is shown to be deliberately violating not only objective standards of fairness, but it's own article standards as well. Therefore the article should be corrected. And I call upon not only Jimbo Wales (talk), but all objective, neutral Wikipedia editors to ensure that the bias from the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.129.229 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Quack quack. This is a post by topic-banned user Lane99. Will administrators following this page please take appropriate action? While it is true that one of the editors on the topic of the Murder of Anni Dewani is a single-purpose account, this is a rare case where a single-purpose account is contributing positively to Wikipedia by disagreeing (along with various experienced editors with a diversity of interests) in combating BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Done, thanks for pointing out the connection here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lane99/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22, your multiple sock/meat puppets have been banned for good reason. Your false and misleading claims about this crime being "proven" to be a contract killing have no place here on Wikipedia. You have specified the three rulings upon which you base your claim and it has been explained to you why those rulings carry no weight since they were all proven to be based on perjury.

• In the cases of Tongo and Qwabe, no findings were made. No trials were held. No witnesses were heard. No evidence was presented. No verifying of the confessions took place. These court proceedings were merely plea hearings rubber stamping pre agreed sentences for guilty pleas. Confessions were accepted at face value. The confessions later turned out to be filled with lies so they can be all but ignored.

• In the trial of Mngeni the court accepted the evidence of witnesses Qwabe and Mbolombo at face value and did make the finding that they participated in a contract killing. It later transpired during the 2014 S v Dewani matter that the evidence given by Qwabe and Mbolombo had been perjured and filled with lies. Mbolombo even admitted it. Therefore it would be completely misleading if Wikipedia were to state the Mngeni court's findings as fact, although they are mentioned in the article's section on the trial of Mngeni.

In summary, what this sock puppeteer terms "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.

23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"

Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with this sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows the sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false.

This sock puppeteer continues to make false unsubstantiated claims that I am a PR agent. Nothing new here. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred, casting aspersions over the credibility of any journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that doesn't stop the lynch mob from propagating the claims as though they are fact.

This sock puppeteer has been canvassing for meat puppets all over social media, attempting to find people to back his cause and has failed dismally. Even those who share this editor's view that Mr Dewani was complicit in the murder of his wife, have not taken up his cause on Wikipedia because even they realise that the facts and court findings do not support the claims being made.

Last but not least, it is distasteful in the extreme that this sock puppeteer should be employing emotional blackmail tactics by trying to draw the murder victim's family into this discussion, especially when he/she has actually tried to impersonate a member of the victim's family with his banned ahindocha account. There is no evidence of the murder victim's family being caused any distress by the contents of the Wikipedia article, and even if this were the case, it would not and should not influence the inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced consensus based content. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia is refusing to correct the article, despite its having been proven to be biased, and its having been shown to be in violation of multiple of Wikipedia's own ostensible standards. To make matters worse, the Wikipedia minions actively refusing to allow removal of the PR rhetoric from the article have effectively admitted they don't care if it is biased- citing legal concerns should they allow a balanced and NPOV article to be published. Does this make sense to you, Jimbo Wales? Surely if Wikipedia is afraid that telling the truth will get it in "legal hot water", then it is simply better to say nothing at all, rather than continuing to disseminate a knowingly dishonest and harmful article that rubs salt in the wounds of a murder victim's survivors, wouldn't you agree?207.102.255.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Quack. Quack. The only lies being told are those claiming that this was a murder for hire, when those findings fell apart in S. v. Dewani. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Socky. Jimbo clearly has little interest in engaging with your puppets. I believe you might find some solace in this page. Its time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. You are making a fool of yourself. Best Regards, Dewanifacts (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of the full scope of the Knowledge Engine

All this seems to have fallen off the page. Jimmy, I for one remain hungry for a forthright disclosure of the scope of the knowledge engine and the shenanigans that went on around that. I am still hopeful you can pivot on your approach to this. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain, in detail, in what way you find the answers you got in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 204#Where we left the discussion unacceptable?

"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[2]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what I'm being asked here. Jytdog, could you be more specific?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

After the events, it looks like all this Knowledge Engine was the required  just cause to provide some smoke screen in the factional battle against Lila Tretikov. Between [Template:Staff_and_contractors&oldid=103682] and now, the WMF staff has grown from 265 to 289, 65 names have disappeared, while 89 have appeared. Among the 200 that stayed, 120 have kept their job description. So that 80 have changed of job description. From something to Senior something, from Senior something to Director of something, etc. May be such an increase of seniority will help fixing the software problems. Pldx1 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Many in the community were furious that details of such a large project had been withheld by an organization that prides itself on radical transparency. Wikimedia’s public story—that it was never working on a search engine—was directly contradicted by a grant proposal made to the Knight Foundation and leaked internal documents."

 —Jason Koebler, Vice[3]

Jimbo Wales, I understand you are willing to discuss the Knight Foundation grant and Knowledge Engine. One of the main issues is what were the events leading up to the Lila Tretikov's resignation and your involvement. The Knight Foundation grant was presented to the board members in September 2015, but Lila Tretikov and other board members initially refused to allow the full details of the grant to be shared with James Heilman. Jimbo Wales, did you tell Lila Tretikov to make the Knowledge Engine project completely transparent to the other board members or did you tell her not to share the full details of the grant and engine or did you not say anything specific to Lila Tretikov in September and October 2015 regarding the grant or search engine project. People want to know what really happened since the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy.

Jimbo Wales, the initial blogpost by Wes Moran and Lila Tretikov contradicted the original grant application leaked internal documents. The leaked internal documents states the "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media, news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries the reputation of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation." According to the leaked internal documents, the Knowledge Engine was originally intended to be a search engine on a new site and there is a concern that "Google, Yahoo, or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project."[4] Jimbo Wales, did you tell or not tell Lila Tretikov to inform the Wikipedia community regarding the full details of the Knowledge Engine project? I am not sure what happened since Lila Tretikov never revealed all the grant documents. Jimbo Wales, was the Knowledge Engine project originally intended to be a much bigger project run on a new separate website, according to the leaked internal documents? Lila Tretikov never commented on the leaked internal documents as far as I know. For an organization that prides itself on transparency, I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project and what is the current goal. If you did urge the board and/or the WMF towards full publication of the details of the grant and project how come the details and events have not been fully disclosed yet? User:Eloquence, the former Deputy Director of the WMF, is concerned about the current situation.[5] I hope you can clear up the confusion a bit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: since you pinged me, just briefly interjecting: I was talking specifically about the deterioration of staff morale at that time, and the risk of literally losing people who keep the site running. That risk has been significantly mitigated since then, though the org is still in crisis mode and hopefully will enter a stable interim period soon.-Eloquence* 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Eloquence, what or who do you think is the cause of the crisis situation at the WMF? According to Ariel Glenn of the WMF, it is "not just about an [Executive Director]."[6]. There is more to the story. What is happening at the WMF? QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I can't speak for Ariel and I don't know everything that happened, but I know there was significant concern about how the Board handled the situation in November, about the James Heilman vote, and the Geshuri appointment. All of this coming together really hit people hard and significantly eroded trust in the Board. To their credit, Jimmy and Alice have since spent considerable time with staff, but I think more will likely need to happen, including better training for Board members, greater Board transparency, etc. Some of those conversations are ongoing on wikimedia-l and you're welcome to join them. Right now folks are waiting for the interim management responsibilities to be clarified.--Eloquence* 03:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, in your comment above you presented as if it was an established fact that "Lila Tretikov and other board members initially refused to allow the full details of the grant to be shared with James Heilman", yet your link goes to an editorial opinion by James Heilman. We have already established that we are hearing two different and incompatible stories, one from James Heilman and another from Jimbo Wales and, it appears, the rest of the board. There are no verifiable facts that would allow you or I to make a ruling on which story is correct, so it comes down to who you believe. This has all been discussed at length before and doesn't need to be re-argued here. My point is that you just acted as if one of the two stories is an established fact. Contrast this with my comment below, where I clearly attribute Jimbo Wales' opinion to Jimbo Wales with a diff. Please do the same when you reference the opinions of individuals, and avoid presenting opinions as facts.

You also claim that "I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project". This has been asked before and has been answered by board member Jimbo Wales:

"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[7]

That is an answer, whether you are willing to accept the answer or not. The original intention of the Knowledge Engine project was (deliberately) kept open-ended, and various documents about the Knowledge Engine project talk about a lot of blue-sky things which were and still are are barely even ideas. Ignore them and focus on the deliverables. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia’s User Experience Engineer Julien Girault stated "At some point, we start feeling shame about what we’re doing, which causes problems. 3 of our goals are about search. The Knight grant talks about a search engine, and some mock-ups look like google. There are legitimate reasons people might think we might be planning to create a google competitor."[8]

There is no clear message from the WMF what were the original plans and what are the current plans for the project.

Maybe you can also read the little blue quote box above for us. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear message from the WMF about what the project is and was WM:FAQ. see also, Joint Press release with the Knight foundation. As for transparency and limitations, that it will necessarily be transparent, and have many limits, is the nature of creating open source freely licensed software, which is what is being worked on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, your "little blue quote box", along with your comments and the comments made by the VICE writer (which pretty much accuiratly report what you and others feel about this), all ask the WMF to do two completely incompatible things:

1. Be completely transparent, letting the Wikipedia community know every detail of any preliminary brainstorming, including bad or poorly-thought-out ideas. For example, if somebody floats the idea of a general-purpose search engine, report that. When everyone looks at that idea and shoots it down, report that.
2. Only present to the Wikipedia community finished, good, and well-thought-out plans. For example, if somebody floats the idea of a general-purpose search engine, keep that proposal secret. When everyone looks at that idea and shoots it down, act as if it never happened.

The WMF chose the second path, which I think was a mistake. But they made that choice in an environment where you and others do not seem to be willing to let them float bad ideas during the preliminary planning stages but instead insist on holding them responsible for every idea they reveal. So of course they try to keep the early brainstorming secret. Add to this the legitimate fear that pissing of even a small minority of the Wikipedia community can (and has recently) get a WMF staff member fired.

This is essentially a problem that we created. If we want transparency, we need to dial down the criticism of what gets revealed and accept the fact that many of the preliminary ideas and plans that get revealed are going to suck. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of effort has gone into into suppressing the above comment,[9][10][11][12][13] but responding to the arguments in the comment? Not so much. (sad trombone noise...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo Wales - in "Beta features" under our user Preferences, there's a feature that suggests related pages at the bottom of an article. There are currently 8,892 users trying it out. I think it's pretty remarkable and quite helpful. Is this feature somehow related to the concept of the Knowledge Engine? Atsme^📞📧 14:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jimmy, thanks for replying above. There is a gaping hole, where I am looking for the story of what transpired over last year and a half or so, loosely centered on the KE (what was planned, by whom, the lack of transparency around that (within the WMF and with respect to the community), and how that played into James's dismissal and the ugly knot of stuff that happened leading to that, and Lila's ultimate failure to be an effective ED). All that stuff is one story - a series of events that happened in real time. What is that story? If you don't know it, you don't know it. If you have a piece of it, you have a piece of it. But your responses to my questions in our earlier discussion were empty - either high level to the point of having no information, or negating small points. Leaving a hole in the face of my questions. (Analogy: My question: "Where is the hardware store?" Your answers: "Well hardware stores are great, and we have one. It is a really great store when it has everything in stock - ladders and hammers and nails and whatnot, But boy it runs out of stuff a lot. I wish it were close to the bus station but it isn't". Me, thinking the first time: "ummm, where is the hardware store?" Me thinking after the fourth time: "OK, this guy has no intention of telling me where the hardware store is")

I know that you owe me nothing. You showed me that, very clearly. I keep hoping you will be actually transparent, and just out with it, instead of obfuscating. I know you did some ugly things that have not been made public yet, and you clearly made some mistakes. So what. Out with it. Right now, you are part of the problem. The longer you persist in obfuscating, the more irrelevant you become to making this place function better, and the more we just have to work make that happen without you. I am pretty much out of hope with regard to you, and am turning to other efforts, like getting the board elected, so we have people who are actually accountable on the board. But I'll keep asking, to give you the chance.

So, do you have information to provide - can you tell at least part of the story? (btw I would prefer that you don't reply at all, if you don't have actual information to provide.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dog - You don't have to ask the same question for the 27th time. All you have to do is accept that Jimbo has given you an answer, whether or not you like the answer or not. It's time to stop beating a dead horse, back away and drop the stick. Yes, you are being obnoxious. See WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bones. Jimmy is free to give me a nonanswer, but I do not have to accept a nonanswer. Jimmy asked me a question and I replied and you are inserting yourself again inappropriately. You are apparently unaware of the wider conversations going on about this, if you think I am the only one raising these issues. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your question is (for the 27th time) "I am looking for the story of what transpired over last year and a half or so, loosely centered on the KE." You've had Jimbo's answer to that several times. At some point, well past, you should have understood that repeating yourself ad nauseam is obnoxious. Please stop being obnoxious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, if you wish to have a conversation with Jimbo without others doing what you call "inserting yourself inappropriately", send him an email. As long as you choose to make your comments here, anyone is allowed to respond as they see fit. You are correct that you do not have to accept what you consider to be a "nonanswer", but you are not allowed to ask it again and again after it becomes clear that it is the only answer that you are going to get. In my opinion, the answer was fine and that your refusal to accept it has nothing to do with it being a "nonanswer" and everything to do with it being a direct, clear answer that you don't like. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy asked me what I meant. I answered him, "in detail" as he requested. You too are butting in inappropriately. Jimmy is a big boy and doesn't need your protection. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What James said publicly

Hi Jimmy. According to this, you wrote to James that "I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine with it". My emphasis. That said, do you have the exact quotes? I can't find anywhere where James said this. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

You are suggesting James is either a liar, or has 'poor memory or low emotional intelligence', or that 'emotional trauma' has coloured his perceptions on certain details. This is a serious thing (and nasty) to say about a man whose integrity and honesty is so far not in doubt. I have searched for evidence of what you claim James said publicly, and I can find nothing. There is something I copied here, but the first reference to 'Google like search engine' is in fact yours. Then James suggested someone should verify that WMF has a group of staff that want to work on a Google-like search engine. 'Verify' /= 'claim'. So where, according to you, did James make this public statement? You can't say mean things like this without digging up the exact quotes. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been getting some pings about this, which had to do with a statement of mine, so I think I should clarify: I made a comment suggesting a "Google-like" search engine based on this Signpost article and some other source which had mentioned an attempt to make a search engine at Bomis, which apparently predates February 15 when User:Jytdog referred to it. This was only my take on some unclear things I'd read. After which Jimbo responded that it was never intended to be Google-like, and James Heilman made a purely hypothetical response to a scenario I'd raised. The original quote by User:Doc James did not say "Google-like", but was persuasive, because it was a quote: he noted a February 11 document said that "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the Internet's first transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the Wikimedia Foundation", citing the document.

I think the main point here is that we all need to take a chill pill. Every person coming to this and seeing statements that are frustratingly vague is a) getting frustrated, and b) reading things into what is said that are not quite true. The statements are apparently vague on purpose - User:Wbm1058 suggested there is a reason for this shortly after the quote Doc James provided in the archived discussion, and in any case I still don't know what KE really is. If we can't solve that, at least we can try to resist getting quite so frustrated. This is all blind men and the elephant, and we should consider it most likely that each person involved is not lying, not crazy, just behaving in the way that makes the most sense based on what they know. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

it would be nice if this were an "elephant" story but there are directly contradictory statements. Just in that thread you linked to, we have James saying here that "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." And Jimmy said here that there were absolutely no such threats. These kinds of contradictions are not resolve-able with the "different parts of the elephant" hypothesis. Believe me, I tried. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Doc James#What you said publicly. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Actually, in that link Jimbo said that if anyone on the board made such a threat he'd be astonished, and encouraged Doc James to specify who said what when. This is not really a direct contradiction until the two have narrowed it down to a solid disagreement about a specific conversation at a specific time. Wnt (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

from the dif: Absolutely not. The very idea is ridiculous. Based on everything that I have seen from the rest of the board, this is a complete impossibility. I am specifically checking with every board member to try to get some idea of what, if anything at all, this accusation could be based on, and I have so far come to a preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie. If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished. and it goes on. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today Guy Macon asked James: "...Doc James, when you say 'pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the board' was this pressure applied in front of the entire board? Was it clear or ambiguous? Was Jimbo there? Does any other board member collaborate this claim?". James's reply: Yes Jimbo was there. And it was clear. I would imagine other board members would confirm this. (NB spelling error corrected "their" >> "there"). Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not an "elephants" story. That is a hope I had too. But it is not possible. Which is why I have been saying that for anybody who is paying attention, the contradictions are unbearable. And this is not the only example. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, the longer Jimmy keeps digging, the worse this is going to get for him, and for the movement. Which is the real tragedy. My hope is that he pivots, and hard. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, if this is a he said, he said, you may never get to the bottom of it, but that does not mean you should stop seeking reality. I somehow don't see Jimbo pivoting...Southerners like to dig..:), and are beyond stubborn. Its entirely up to you, but if it was me and I could not let it go, I'd use the Thought experiment process to figure out what happened. That may work better than trying to "dig" relevant info from the combatants. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I still want an answer to the question "Does any other board member corroborate this claim?" Doc James say that an unambiguous statement was made in front of the entire board including Jimbo Wales. Jimbo says it never happened. What do the eyewitnesses say? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Answer A would mean board members were threatened and acquiesced. Answer B would mean it didn't happen. Acquiescence is not compatible with giving Answer A, and answer B would be silence as there is nothing to witness. I wouldn't expect any verbal/written answer but people tend to vote with their feet in cases like this. (p.s. I corrected a typo in your bolded area) --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon that seeking info from other board members/eyewitnesses is the logical next step. One or more of them might feel an obligation to help those who are interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. There is nothing to lose by trying to get them to speak up or at least answer some questions. Even if they all clam up/stonewall, even that will provide an additional piece of reality for acceptance and/or possible reaction. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:

It looks like you are accusing Jimbo of something but not quite saying what it is. Your technique looks like a combination of tabloid journalism, McCarthyism, and schoolyard bullying. If you have an actual accusation to make, you should make it clearly, with evidence to back it up. Otherwise you should apologize. Please note that WP:No personal attacks says:

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. ....

"What is considered to be a personal attack? ....

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

So I'm calling you on this. It's time to put up or shut up. Please take a few days to get your accusations and evidence in order and then present them so we can all see what you are talking about.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You can choose however you like. Everyone has to deal with contradictions. They are right there, and turning the focus on me does nothing. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is all an argument about I-don't-know-what said I-don't-know-when by I-don't-know-who. If User:Doc James wants to explain exactly who, exactly what, and when, and says Jimmy Wales was right there, and was paying attention (I mean, they call them bored meetings for a reason - you sure he noticed?) and then he gives a contrary description, then maybe we can start speculating one of the two is actually saying something untrue. More likely, they'll simply say they interpreted the same statement differently, and if we heard the statement, then we'd have a chance to interpret it differently ourselves. This isn't hard science here ... more like an argument over how many smurfs you can squish in a barrel. Give me a bigger hammer and I can prove you a liar. :) Wnt (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I support Jytdog's free speech rights here because his persistence is within the bounds of civility, in my opinion.Smallbones is understandably getting tired of all the criticism of Jimbo, but persistence is often crucial when trying to get to the bottom of something and I think Jytdog's persistence is an acceptable approach in a seemingly complicated puzzle involving human behaviour with different spins and even different facts having been placed in our piublic arena for acceptance. It could be harmful to the long term soul of any movement to accept and archive presentations/reports about something important, that include what appears to some as a false reality propped up on flawed logic. At least that is my position on whether or not Jytdog has gone too far. I say no, he is just seeking the truth. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

===Once again===There is a lot of stuff about elephants and 'he said she said'. I don't care about this. Jimmy, my point is that if you are going to accuse people of being liars, or mentally traumatized, or talking 'utter f---ing bullshit' or other such mean things, then you need to back this up with 'exact quotes'. Indeed, even with exact quotes I am not sure those things are justified. ONCE AGAIN: where did James say publicly that he wrote to you in October that WMF was building a Google-competing search engine and that you "more or less said that I'm fine with it". Simple question. Peter Damian (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Beta Feature

Jimbo Wales - I moved my question to its own section so it doesn't get buried in any controversy. It's a simple question - in "Beta features" under our user Preferences, there's a feature that suggests related pages at the bottom of an article. There are currently 8,892 users trying it out. I think it's pretty remarkable and quite helpful. Is this feature somehow related to the concept of the Knowledge Engine - a simple yes or no will do. Thx Atsme^📞📧 17:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Related pages is being developed by the Reading team and not the Discovery team, so "no" is a reasonable guess. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Nihiltres. What I found at the related pages site was the following: [14] which suggests to me that it might be part of the concept for the Knowledge Engine. It certainly appears to be a vast improvement with a great deal of potential regarding WMF's move to keep readers engaged as well as to reach more readers. Atsme^📞📧 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme I have written out a description of what I think the "Knowledge Engine" was as best I can gather it, and why it caused problems, here. And my answer to your question is "no" as well. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

UK biographies (notability)

Hi Jimbo. I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of living Circuit judge's (c. 600), District judges (c. 400) and Queen's Counsels (c. 2800), while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) (c.110) was de facto notable in itself. Recent successful AFDs of Liza Gordon-Saker (Circuit judge), Laurence Marshall (Circuit judge), Peter Carr (Circuit judge), Jane McIvor (District judge), Jonathan Radway (District judge), Peter Bowsher (QC), Charles Sherrard (QC) lend support my assertion. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. The publictaion also included a large number of headteachers with another successful AFD example here. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here, here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You would be better raising this elsewhere, perhaps at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. — foxj 15:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And maybe reading WP:ANYBIO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Important question about legal implications

Jimbo, you said in an earlier discussion that the pros and cons of embedding pornography in WP articles warranted discussion but it hasn't progressed further than a couple of RfCs. I recently came across the following information: In 2005, the Department of Justice issued regulations that expand the definition of a "secondary producer" of sexually explicit material. As of June 23, 2005, federal regulations apply the 2257 record-keeping requirement to secondary producers, and defines them as including anyone who "inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct." 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,468. The article Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography includes links to the laws of other countries as well. I'm not an attorney but based on the language in that particular law, it may warrant some degree of concern regarding the proposed practice of embedding videos like Debbie Does Dallas in an article. Don't you think it's something the WMF legal department should seriously consider? It doesn't have anything to do with censorship and everything to do with US Laws, not to mention the laws of other countries. I also think there should be a policy preventing the embedding of links like that in en.Wikipedia. It seems the legal implications are great enough to warrant legal input regarding the inclusion of such videos on WP:Commons. Just a suggestion - ball is in your court. Atsme^📞📧 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

2257 is a censorship law. Funnily enough censorship and US laws are not mutually exclusive. It only applies to material produced after 1 November 1990, so has no relevance to "Debbie Does Dallas". I would not be surprised if it were struck down, in whole or part, as being overbroad at some point.

However it is something the legal team should look into.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC).