User talk:Jimbo Wales

Your CHANGE statement from two years ago. A modification or qualification?

Jimmy, you seem like a great guy and very reasonable person. A couple of years ago you were criticized by some people in the community when you said:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals—that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn't'.

As I understand it, your response was to a petition by activists promoting a type of energy psychology who were frustrated by the Wikipedia community's characterization of their modality (which apparently did not have solid scientific backing.) If I have my facts straight, I must say, as an editor of Wikipedia, I agree with your response. Wikipedia, after all, is not a puff piece or whitewash service that fly in the face of science. People read Wikipedia in order to know unbiased facts.

And yet I can't help but wonder if your strong and necessary response to some pseudoscience pushers has, unwittingly, emboldened a group of editors who see it as their mission to disparage all fields they deem pseudoscience. Take a look at the Acupuncture article, for instance. In the lede it says that "acupuncture is a pseudoscience", definitively as if it came from the Mouth of God (and not merely the opinions of a couple of scientific authors.) Since there are numerous Cochrane Reviews which show acupuncture's efficacy for various conditions, as well as WHO, NHS and NIH consensus statements about acupuncture's efficacy for certain conditions, how can such a statement fall within our neutrality guidelines? Of course the entire scientific community hasn't established the consensus that acupuncture is pseudoscience. States don't have licensing boards for obvious pseudoscience, nor do scientists publish hundreds if not thousands of studies on obvious pseudoscience each year like they do with acupuncture. Anyway, impartial statements and biased statements are given prominence throughout the acupuncture article. Whenever neutrality tags are placed, they are summarily removed within hours and a team of POV pushing editors keeps them away, no doubt to keep third-party editors from seeing the dispute on the talk page. Whenever high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses show acupuncture in a positive light, they are rejected or deleted by these same editors who cherry-pick their own reviews and give them prominence. I make it a practice to always assume good faith, so I don't think these are necessarily bad editors; but I do believe they may have been emboldened by your statement a couple of years ago. Anywho, I'm curious if, after articles like this have turned into blatantly biased hit pieces, you would be willing to qualify your statement from two years ago? Do you believe articles like Acupuncture, which give QuackWatch more prominence than the NIH, fall within the spirit of this project? LesVegas (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It can be both true that acupuncture is pseudoscience and that it is effective for treating some types of pain. The lead of the article should (and does) say both things, and that's good. Almost every other aspect of the lead is problematic, but not this. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, JBL, it could be true that acupuncture could be both a pseudoscience and effective, but we would need sources that state that. As it stands, we can't say definitively, in Wikipedia's voice, it's absolutely a pseudoscience no ifs ands or buts, unless we had sources representing the scientific community at-large that come to that conclusion. We don't. Further, acupuncture isn't a science either, although there may be effects measurable by science. Acupuncture is an alternative medical practice. Unfortunately, a group of editors on a crusade prefer to slime something than make a reasonable, readable, and accurate article.LesVegas (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"unless we had sources representing the scientific community at-large" ⟵ a cunning plan: invent an impossible-to-satisfy policy to try and remove facts you don't like from Wikipedia. We have excellent sourcing telling us about acupuncture and pseudoscience and it's very clear, as (in WP:PSCI) is our obligation to be up-front about it. Understandably, acupuncturists don't like this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we do it with other articles like climate change. Here's your problem: you find one or two sources that represent your tiny little group's opinion, and then treat them like they're the Word of God, writing in Wikipedia's voice, even though you know those sources don't represent the scientific community at large. Further, you ignore consensus statements from NHS, NIH, WHO, conclusions by Cochrane, well published research, etc, all because you don't like it and because you think Jimbo's statement empowers you make articles like this into a mockery. Honestly, I shouldn't even care. The Acupuncture article is so over the top, so obvious a hit piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article, that it discredits it. Any reasonable person reading it would know it's been hijacked by editors with an agenda. I just hate seeing articles like this give Wikipedia a bad name. LesVegas (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is a disaster, a cabal is ruining all the most important articles, everything is terrible, etc. Please go find something better to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's what we know about acupuncture at this point:

1. It doesn't matter where you put the needles.
2. It doesn't matter if you put the needles in or not.
3. The usual claimed mechanism - manipulation of qi in meridians - is bullshit as neither of those things exist.
4. There is no plausible mechanism (pace the attempts to co-opt purinergic signalling, basically the equivalent of Chopra saying "quantum!").
5. For most conditions the evidence shows acupuncture doesn't work.
6. For the small number of conditions where there is currently net positive evidence,
   1. Measures are always subjective;
   2. Outcomes are always consistent with the null hypothesis;
   3. No reason is advanced why it might work for these and not similar conditions for which there is net negative evidence;
   4. Effect size is always small.
7. Many studies come out of China and these are never negative (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280).
8. Popularity of acupuncture owes a great deal to a propaganda coup played on Nixon's party during their visit to Maoist China. Much of "traditional" Chinese medicine is in fact a creation of Mao.

P=0.05 means a 5% false positive rate is expected. Guess what? About one in twenty frequently investigated conditions has a small net positive evidence base.

Acupuncture itself is an archaic practice based on the refuted doctrine of humours, like purging and bloodletting. It has risks, it has zero proven benefit for the vast majority of applications, and the apparent benefit in the small number of remaining applications is almost certainly a statistical artifact. Most acupuncture research is classical pseudoscience, designed to validate a belief rather than test it. The genuinely open and honest research, for example using stage dagger needles (http://edzardernst.com/2013/10/never-let-the-truth-get-in-the-way-of-a-lucrative-story/), shows no benefit at all.

The definition of pseudoscience is adopting the trappings of science while holding on to a belief in the face of refutation. It's easy to see why so many reliable sources characterise acupuncture research as pseudoscience. I personally draw a distinction between a refuted belief and the pseudoscience that underpins it, but not all sources do. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, well it looks like one of the skeptic editors most adamant about sliming the article just tried cleaning their mess up a bit, but only once he saw I posted here. Look at his time stamp above. I guess he knows they've gone too far and doesn't want to be embarrassed now that far more reasonable eyes will be on their article. It's still a hole for them to go pee and poo in, not an article, but at least the giant turd on the entrance to the hole has now been buried. LesVegas (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, a check of the history will show I've made such edits before. It's silly to say "pseudoscience" twice in as many sentences. Otherwise I think your contribution above is most revealing of where the real problem is here ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as recently as a week ago. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

To set the silliness on which this thread is based aside, though, here's a sentence from the lead: "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely inconsistent." Can anyone tell me what this means? I think it is extremely difficult to decipher. The article would probably be improved by deleting the current lead, putting all citations that are in the lead into the body in an appropriate way, and then writing a summary of the existing body from scratch. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That would normally be a great idea but special considerations apply, namely that acupuncture is a highly contentious topic with proponents wanting to use Wikipedia to present it as an accepted and effective treatment for many ailments, while others want the opposite. I once went through the article in great detail and found it has many clumsy sentences. However, the clumsy wording is the result of following a good source, and attempting variations of the wording wanders into original research by unduly promoting or opposing acupuncture. The particular sentence you highlight is well sourced and is pointing out the unfortunate fact, namely that there are papers claiming acupuncture is wonderful, while others say the opposite. The clumsy sentence is possibly better than having the lead say something like "X thinks acupuncture alleviates back pain and tinnitus, while Y says it doesn't". The "X vs. Y" approach is a magnet for cherry-picked news-of-the-day boosterism with paper after paper being added to point the reader towards one conclusion or another. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, thanks for the response. To be clear, I did not literally mean that anyone should follow my suggestion; as long as the forces that have made the lead terrible still exist, something bold like that is doomed to failure. I disagree that attempting to vary the wording [necessarily] wanders into OR or promoting a point; for example, your sentence ("there are papers claiming acupuncture is wonderful, while others say the opposite") is much more straightforward than the one that's there. (I am also not literally suggesting that we should replace one with the other.) I do not think the sourcing of a sentence in the lead is important: what should matter is whether the body is well-sourced, and whether the lead accurately reflects the body. (The tendency to add lots of sources reflects back on the forces making it a total mess.) TL;DR: mostly agree with you, but it still could be better. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In principle what you say is correct, however my point is that I once tried to reduce the clumsiness of many of the sentences and it is not easy due to the points I mentioned. When I tried some variation (without saving) I could see that by straying from what the sources said I was coloring the point (aka original research). Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

LesVegas, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Those are facts. They have been established by diligent scientific inquiry. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Since it is clear that acupuncture can only work via the placebo/nocebo effect, you need to consider the science that has been done in that field. A lot is known today that wasn't know just a few years ago. This also has bearing on clinical trials where one tests a conventional drug against a placebo, because the placebo matters as pointed out here: "These findings show that different placebos may use different mechanisms to reduce high altitude headache, depending on the therapeutic ritual and the route of administration. In clinical trials, placebos and outcome measures should be selected very carefully in order not to incur in wrong interpretations." Count Iblis (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fundraiser will continue although target has been met

On December 2, you stated, "We would still stop the fundraiser if enough money were raised in shorter than the planned time." Today, the WMF announced that the fundraiser target has been reached, but the fundraiser will not be stopped early. I can think of only two possibilities here:

1. You stated something you believed to be true, without a formal confirmation or commitment from the Foundation;
2. You lied.

Assuming good faith, I will assume possibility #1 is the case. If so, I advise you in the future to be more circumspect in making statements about Foundation matters. You may feel you are simply making an offhand statement as a private individual, but, as a member of the Board of Trustees, many people give your words on such matters the weight of authority. I note that I asked you whether your statement was official, but did not receive a response. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a third possibility: you are trolling again, and this section should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for that third possibility. As the letter clearly explains, the fundraiser will be stopped early just as I said it would. Banners are coming down over the Christmas holiday - they would have run then. Then there will be one last push because we know that historically, those last couple of days are when a lot of people do their charitable giving for the year.

If you were to ask me what I'd like to see done differently going forward, that's easy. I'd like to see the various options spelled out more clearly up front. The reason that didn't happen this year is that this year was really unprecedented in terms of how well the fundraiser meant. For some (who like to troll about it) this is an opportunity to try to cause trouble, but for most this is a reason to rejoice: we can raise money that we need to accomplish things that are community priorities, while at the same time having a less aggressive banner schedule over the coming months. That's a good thing.

The fact remains: if enough money were raised, we would stop the fundraiser. The stopping point is not hard and fast at the minimum goal, obviously. I think it would be better if we spelled out the exact options on the upper end as well, even though we never expect to get all the way there. Something on the order of "We must raise $X, and if we hit that we scale back over the holidays until we hit at least $Y in which case we stop completely." We don't need to raise infinite money, but neither do we need to guess a priori how well the fundraiser will go down to the last dollar.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I resent the accusation that I am trolling. Paring back the fundraiser during a portion of its remaining period does not count as "stop[ping] the fundraiser", in my opinion. I think the average person would regard reaching the stated goal as raising "enough money". If I am wrong, I would appreciate others saying so. Of course, your statement was comfortably vague; without hard numbers, you can always argue that the WMF hasn't raised "enough" money. But to me this is slippery politican-speak and should be avoided by an organization that espouses transparency as one of its guiding principles. And the thing is, while I can't speak for everyone, I'm not unconditionally opposed to the WMF trying to raise more money. The proposals in the aforementioned e-mail sound at least reasonable. What I don't like is the lack of forthrightness and honesty. I've given to various Kickstarter campaigns, where it's standard to have "stretch goals". Why can't the WMF do something similar? "We'd like to open a new caching center in Asia, but we need X amount of money to do so. Would you be willing to help out?" I actually think this could possibly increase fundraising, by giving donors concrete examples of where their money is going. If the campaign is successful, keep them in the loop with updates on the progress (which can also serve as gentle encouragement for future donations). --47.138.163.230 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of an extra caching centre in east asia to speed up Wikipedia user's response times in east asia. I may never go to that area myself; But I've heard complaints about response times there from people I know and I think this could be a worthwhile project. I'm certainly not aware of any arguments as to how it could possibly be out of scope to make such investments in giving our readers and editors a better user experience. Maybe one day the main pipes of the Internet will have so much capacity that one data centre in one part of the world could support the whole planet. But that day is not today. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Register article

Will Wikipedia honour Jimbo's promise to STOP chugging? by Orlowski, and Slashdot It's never been clear to me what the Foundation actually does. I suspect it costs well below $10m a year to run the servers and all the other costs of keeping the lights on. And as we all agree, Wikipedia itself is completely written and maintained by volunteers. So what does the Foundation do? Peter Damian (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter, you're a Wikipedian, albeit one who has spent a significant portion of your career here rightfully banned from editing. If you want to know what the Foundation does, I should think you'd know that The Register is a satirical rag rather than a valid source. Perhaps you have forgotten or never knew that they once ran an article calling us "Khmer Rouge in Diapers", etc. That was Orlowski in 2004 - 12 years later, and we've still not committed genocide. I'm sure Orlowski is disappointed.

As I say, you're a Wikipedian. You know how to do research. I recommend doing so. Here are a few links to start: Financial reports, Wikimedia Grants (lots of good reading there).

I suspect I am not alone when I lose respect for you when you offer such ill-informed opinion. If you have some ideas about how the movement might better make use of resources, then the best place to start is by getting informed, not just trolling by here with an ill-informed "it has never been clear to me" (presumably because you've not bothered to learn) but "I suspect it only costs $10 million".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As an aside: Would like to point out historical observations. Any organization that can survive for three human generations or more, has done so, because they have built up a layer of fat to see themselves through the lean times and still have the financial resources to continue innovate. The WPF is only in its teenage years but already it has taken its mothers advice to build up funds for a rainy-day. Just having enough funds for today doesn't mean that next year or the year after your chief accountant will still be smiling. The WMF is now a very large and influential source of knowledge. For this resource to be still be available for the next generation(s), the long-term financial planing cosiderations need to be put into place now. Think JW may agree with me that whilst transparency is important, they are very difficult to put into words, because nit-pickers will take issue over things that they have no understanding of. Oh Gosh, feeling like a JW apologist, when all I'm pointing out is the realities of keeping an organization like the WMF on an even and level keel.--Aspro (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of the blame for why nit-pickers may have no understanding of something about how the Wikimedia Foundation is spending money, is that when the nit-pickers ask questions to get better informed about that something, the questions are either ignored or erased from view. As an example, there once were some questions about how a company called Q2 Consulting was selected by the WMF to run a survey of donors, in 2010. The company seemed to have been selected without a competitive bid, had little experience in running surveys, drew some clumsy conclusions in its report, and happened to be the former employer of the WMF staff member who selected them for the job. When the question was asked about the dollar value of the contract, the question was erased. When it was asked again by someone else, it was ignored, then ignored again, then ignored a third time, then finally answered with "we don't remember, it's not important, stop worrying about it". You can figure out for yourself whether the nit-pickers there were the problem, or whether it was the WMF policy of wagon-circling that was the problem. A couple of years later, the Foundation teed up a paid editor for the Belfer Center, with the editor working directly for the husband of the woman who granted the Foundation the money to pay for the editor. Questions about that fiasco also were erased, then ignored, ignored some more, then finally responded to with "oops, we kind of messed up on that one, and since you caught us, we won't do that again, we promise". Again, decide for yourself whether that was a nit-picker problem or a wagon-circling problem. - 2001:558:1404:102:0:0:0:868 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A very good inquisition (rather than a question) but as-it is well past my bed time- will answer later. Will just say though, I can remember discussions about WFM appointees being paid oodles of money. A far higher salary than many a Wikiipedia editors earn in in their day job.... but ask you, have you been in that position of responsibly? Pay peanuts you get monkeys. Who can cope with a multinational PR men threatening one's origination with litigation whilst at the same time that a key worker that has been tasked to it, starts to suffer from a UTI from a IUD (whatever that is?) (but another trusted member of staff informs one) and you have to make the on the spot decision to rush them to hospital, leaving one in the position where one suddenly has to be in three places at once? Do you begrudge those that can keep level head in those situations a fair remittance? Or can you perform at that level? If you can – even Donald Trump may be eager to sign you up. Yet, I think your asking about more about transparency. JW reads these posts and maybe he will answer, because it is (I think) a fair inquisition. For when one is in control of a budget as large as WMF one also has to look at the broad issues as well, at the same time when everything else that is coming -at-you-all-once. Oh Gosh, feeling like a JW apologist -again. Yet, you are right to ask ask such questions and state your point of view. P.S. I too... have many questions... about the way that the WMF runs -but run it does...and very well. --Aspro (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)--Aspro (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Statutory financial reports rarely break down the expenses in ways that are meaningful. ‘Hosting’ is given as about $2m, but I do not know whether that is just the hosting, or whether it includes staff costs for maintenance. When I look at staff costs, this is given as around $32m, but that presumably includes all sorts of other activities. ‘Awards and grants’ at $11m is clear at one level, but what are these awards and grants for? Peter Damian (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, El Reg has a long history of publishing anti-Wikipedia diatribes spoon fed by griefers within the community, so we should take that with a grain of salt. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Orlowski quotes a WMF staffer: "The urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my [admittedly limited] understanding of our financial situation", and he claims that each year, the Foundation raises far more than it costs to operate the site. Are you saying these claims are false? Peter Damian (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that El Reg has a history of spinning stories from people with grudges and incomplete information. Don't believe what you read, check the accounts, which must, by law, show both income and expenditure, and are properly certified. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember wp:Office actions: The WMF also handles wp:OFFICE actions, which could be numerous when the next U.S. president takes power in late January 2017. Recall how the popular band Dixie Chicks, at a concert in Paris, said they were ashamed President George W. Bush was also from Texas, and their careers went into blackout within days. Also, Whoopi Goldberg made a joke (about W.), was immediately dropped by corporate sponsors, and noted she could not get work for months afterward. Donald Trump is currently on a multi-city, self-congratulatory tour, and hears the vast crowds cheering for him. The event organizers have been phoning Americans several times per week, to overbook the stadiums, and ensure vast crowds inside, and outside, can cheer rabidly. Beware, there's a storm coming, folks. You might not see it, I do. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikid77, I must say, you are speaking nonsense and I mean that literally. Perhaps you are just being cryptic. But why exactly do you think the election of Donald Trump will lead to more wp:OFFICE actions?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there will be increased pressure to alter WP content both positive and negative, through whatever means, such as discredit by repeated innuendo. But that is still cryptic, so perhaps let's just see how events unfold in 2017. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Zakat is one of the 5P. I've always wondered why Wikipedia chose Islam as its noosphere architecture metaphor. wikizakat... :) SashiRolls (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It´s part of a long-term plan we have with the Missile Defense Agency: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. [2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Five pillars seems like an appropriate symbol, regardless of where it originally came from. I think very few in Wikipedia who aren't Muslim are aware of the Five Pillars of Islam, although there may be more after this discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just the usual trolls doing their usual "don't donate to Wikipedia because I hate them" act. Frankly I think anybody who doesn't want to donate to Wikipedia, should just not donate to Wikipedia. And if they hate Wikipedia so much they should just leave. Somewhat hidden here is the accusation that the WMF wastes money. My response is: can you name any organization the does as much or more good with the same or smaller amount of money? If they can't answer that, they are just (jerks). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I think there is always room for a legitimate discussion and debate about the priorities of the Foundation - we want to make sure that spending is neither too cautious nor too bold. By too cautious I mean that if we never have any experiments that fail, we are not being creative enough. By too bold I mean if we are wildly trying things that don't work, we aren't being focussed enough. But I have found from long experience that the same people who complain about the Foundation raising money are the same people who complain that the Foundation doesn't do enough. Those positions are difficult to reconcile!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Legitimate discussion and debate is fine. We are not getting discussion here. The replies to my question above include (1) The Register is a satirical rag, has long history of publishing anti-Wikipedia diatribes etc, (2) is spoon fed by 'griefers' – what is a 'griefer' (3) I was banned for a long time (4) anyone who asks questions is 'the usual trolling'. See ad hominem. "A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate." You suggested I was misinformed and that I look at financial reports. I just did so and replied that breaking down expenses into 'salaries' e.g. does not tell us anything meaningful. Note that I also discussed budgeting in 2012 with Garfield Byrd who was very helpful. At that time it cost $6m just to keep the site up and running which included salaries, benefits, internet hosting, capital expenditures and other costs. However, he pointed out that 'no technical operations team operates without administrative, legal and HR, etc.. support and space,so this number would be a material understatement of core operating cost of Wikipedia and its other sites'. So we are still missing a number that tells us the cost of running Wikipedia with 'lights on', and all development of the encyclopedia supported, as it already is, by volunteers. I can't imagine it would be materially higher than the $10m I suggested. For example in 2012 legal expenses were $800k. Peter Damian (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make clear that in no way was my comment about zakat meant to be a negative comment. (Just as I have nothing against Wikipedia asking for money for its projects I also have nothing against Islam as a religion, though I am personally not religious). Since it turns out I have interacted with the page creator of WP:5P, I asked him about the coincidence. I should have checked the talk page instead of going back to the beginning of Wikipedia time... (the correlation is mentioned in the FAQ on the talk page): it is indeed a coincidence (though, I would argue, an interesting and potentially fruitful one). SashiRolls (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm curious about something. Is there any nonprofit enterprise out there that can be said to have "too much money"? Is there any nonprofit enterprise that stops fundraising in order to avoid that horrible fate? I'm not saying that the WMF is spending all that money properly. I have no idea. But the notion that somehow having money creates a burden or an obligation to stop raising funds strikes me as utterly insane. If the press wants to do something useful, it should examine how the money is spent, not take a stupid position like that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. Every non-profit would like to spend less money than that they receive. Why? To fund financial endowment, and basically live off the interest from savings, making fundraising less critical or unneeded. Unfortunately this is the likely criticism they will receive if they attempt to do this from normal contributions, viz. "why raise non-critical funding?". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Harvard and Yale undoubtedly have too much money, and no one should donate money to them, but they still do lots of fundraising. I have heard it argued that certain advocacy groups (I don't think it is fruitful to name specific ones) fundraise in a way that is counterproductive to their stated goals, by out-competing other organizations that would be more effective at certain tasks. --JBL (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Harvard, but I do know that Yale is very expensive to attend but due to its wealth is able to make sure that they can ensure that finances need not be a barrier to students. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A bit like not being a barrier to read/write/participate in global projects, except Yale is not for everyone and it does charge for services. (Here, of course, unlike Yale, everyone gets to decide what they want to pay on their own, or whether they want to pay, at all.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's actually prudent for the WMF to have a substantial reserve in the event of litigation. We're entering a new era, there may be efforts to reduce protections for websites and libel law changes. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this is part of the rationale for fundraising aggressively, except that all nonprofits fundraise aggressively. Asking them to stop fundraising is like asking Exxon to stop selling gas because they're making "too much money." Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's a cultural thing (or just an individual 'feeling' thing)? Sure, in some sense, one could say all fundraising is annoying (and perhaps it depends how much you are around fundraising). I don't happen to think the banner is particularly "aggressive", either personally or, in part, because of its success -- if people thought it "too" aggressive, they would be turned off and not contribute, just as anyone asking for money has to decide how aggressive to be, you want to be assertive but not too much, and most definitely not too little. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no, it's not close. Yale has between 5 and 6 thousand undergraduate students; sticker price is about $65 thousand per year (including room and board). That's total nominal tuition of about $350 million per year. This is about 1.5 percent of the Yale endowment. In other words, if Yale stuck its entire endowment in a long-term certificate of deposit, the interest would be more than enough to cover all the tuition paid by all its students forever. Of course funds with $25 billion get much better returns that CDs in the long run, the actual amount brought in by tuition is much smaller than the nominal amount, so a more accurate comparison would be less favorable towards Yale. (One could also remark that Yale tuition is not connected in any sensible way to the cost of educating a Yale student, making this kind of computation less favorable to Yale.) The computation for Harvard is worse because the endowment is larger. On the other hand, endowments around $5 billion for universities of this size are definitely defensible (at least by these measures). --JBL (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A π for you!

3.14 times the love! Bell 602 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

fyi...

Thanks. Lourdes 08:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Hello. I like to invite you to the discussion that I relisted. Feel free to comment there. By the way, I have another message to tell you. --George Ho (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussion review

I drafted the proposal page and then tagged it as "brainstorming". You can notify whoever else deserves to be notified, and you can go to whichever venue you like to go to. Also, you can contribute to this draft process. --George Ho (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A good start would be: which recent discussions do you think could not be reviewed due to lack of an appropriate venue? They would, byt definition, be non-admin closures, normally those are just brought to the admin boards anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Private Vices, Public Benefits and the German arbitration Comittee scandal

Dear Jimbo Wales, as far as I could see from the archive, the scandal currently rocking the the German Wikipedia has not been discussed here. Three members of the German arbitration comittee stepped down in October after they have been told internally that one of the longstanding arbiters is - in RL - an activist of Alternative für Deutschland, a right wing populist party with strong antiimmigrant leanings. Now recently, WP:ANON has been compromised after one arbiter mentioned the issue to an outsider. The whole thing escalated last week. We now have various press articles about WP being compromised or undermined by AfD and a large and heated discussion on de Arbcom talkpage. [3][4] and the deWP Kurier.

The conclusions out of the case are far from positive. The arbiter in question, [5], has been an member in good standing of this project and the ArbCom for years. It might have been due to group pressure or personal integrity, or both (compare Bernard Mandeville's bee fable), that his political leanings did not impair his work as an author and arbiter. At least at first sight. After being outed as an AfD activist in RL, he is sorta being put to the stake. There are various contributors asking to have any future candidate for Arbcom being screened along political party lines. That said, both the principle of authors being judged on contributions rather than credentials and WP:ANON is in danger of being compromised. Most of the German authors seem not to be aware of possible implications - if you screen the CVs of German WP arbiters to avoid AfD allegiances, why not screen Chinese WP authors on Falun Gong? But if you do nothing, you end with a rather bad press about the German:WP in danger of being compromised by right wing members.

I personally think the WMDE could or should play a more active role here - third party arbiters would be better than an internal process with a sort of prescreen in breach of WP:ANON. But, as said, the role of the community would be weaker then. I welcome your feedback on the issue.

That said, nevertheless seasonal greetings respectively Fröhliche Weihnachten.

Polentarion Talk 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: After Sebastian Wallroth stepped back today, the German Arbcom is not longer able to work currently.

Season's Greetings

Hello Jimbo Wales: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

Hello Jimbo Wales: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

BLP violation at Serbo-Croation Wikipedia (The misspelling of this header is entirely the work of Future Perfect at Sunrise)

Clean your mess at SH.Wikipedia.Едгар Алан По (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edgar,

I have to guess that you are making a complaint about the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (SH =SerboHorvatsky?) I believe Jimmy has great difficulty reading and following all the goings on there, like most of us English speakers do. Could you politely and briefly list the articles of concern and what you think that Jimmy can do about them? Thanks in advance for your understanding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The original poster above is another sock of Operahome (talk · contribs), aka the "Igor Janev spammer", who will no doubt continue to swamp this page with more socking rants shortly. The problem is: in this particular matter, he has a point, and it would be good if Jimbo (or the Foundation) could deal with it. Background: Operahome's single-purpose activity on Wikipedia has been to push promotional articles about a guy called Igor Janev, a (just-below-notable) academic from Macedonia. We don't know if Operahome is Janev himself or somebody close to him (could be a family member or something; definitely somebody with close real-life contacts though). Somebody pissed off by Operahome's disruption on sh-wiki then wrote a satirical piece about Janev (in user space, but with a redirect from article space), presenting Macedonia as "Janevistan" (sh:Korisnik:Orijentolog/Janevistan. Operahome wants it deleted – rightly. It is quite clearly a serious BLP violation, and just because Wikipedians are rightly pissed off about Operahome's antics doesn't justify those. Since administrators on sh are apparently unwilling to delete the page, it would be good if the Foundation stepped in and deleted it as an office action.

(Please, people, help keep this section clean from more socking: delete any contribution by new suspect IPs on sight. And, Operahome: if you want anything done about this, then please, please, for the love of god, do one thing: stay out of here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Igor Janev is not in any way associated with User:Operahome or any socks. Igor Janev is NOT Wikipedian! He is the major Donor of Serbian WMF (verify that: 20 000 dinars.), not Vandal! And for Igor Janev eng. wiki BLP is not important at all!!!79.101.188.11 (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Igor Janev does NOT need Wikipedia at all! He is not interested in Wikipedia!79.175.69.129 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Igor Janev is not in any way associated with User:Operahome or any socks. Igor Janev is NOT Wikipedian.Igor Janev does NOT need Wikipedia at all!

Igor Janev is not in any way associated with User:Operahome or any socks. Igor Janev is NOT Wikipedian, nor Vandal. Igor Janev does NOT need Wikipedia at all!79.175.69.129 (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's Future Perfect at Sunrise who is the problem here. He deleted a page and to do it he lied in the deletion log. He deleted it under G5 "page created by banned or blocked user in violation of their ban or block". The page was created by Primefac who is most certainly neither blocked nor banned. Future Perfect at Sunrise is responsible for most of the upset on Wikipedia, as documented here (note particularly example 36, where he comments Dear Baristam, as a card-carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA", I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way.):

This covers the period from inception to the moment when the respondent was notified of the RfC/U.

2006

1. 09:49 16 May still active, did William forget to perform the block?

2. 15:44 28 May block 'em all

3. 10:12 30 May τίνα γαρ αναγνωστέα αγέλη λύκων βιβλία?

4. 10:26 30 May τίς άρα όμαιμος τίνος?

5. 10:59 30 May Μακεδονικήν ερυγγάνων μεγαλαυχίαν

6. 11:22 30 May Προς Ινουιτοπελασγομακεδόνες

7. 07:01 8 June archive troll-food

8. 07:05 8 June Trollish threads removed to archive

9. 17:04 10 June Am I a wikistalker?

10. 17:08 10 June Am I a wikistalker?

11. 17:36 10 June Am I a wikistalker?

12. 08:44 13 June Am I a wikistalker?

13. 20:45 13 June comment:"stalking"

14. 15:18 22 June User:Mywayyy wanting to have it his wayyy

15. 22:33 22 June User:Mywayyy wanting to have it his wayyy

16. 05:07 23 June User:Mywayyy wanting to have it hiswayyy

17. 22:03 24 June [asterisks in original] Good grief, even *Paparigopoulos* called them Albanians. Read the f***ing literature

18. 09:43 27 June New pest: no idea ...

19. 12:55 27 June The Mywayyy ritual, twice daily :-()

20. 10:14 29 June Rajput ritual, now six times a day

21. 21:02 11 July You will be assimilated

22. 21:09 1 June Resistance is futile

23. 13:59 12 July Mywayyy, swallow twice daily after meals

24. 07:30 21 July Anyway ... removing off-topic trolling rant

25. 08:06 16 August Future Perfect's critiques?: senseless

26. 16:43 21 August striking apparent sock troll vote

27. 14:11 22 August Hey, could you two perhaps take your personal feud elsewhere? Like, outside in the parking lot or somewhere?

28. 16:59 28 August go and read a good book

29. 18:08 7 September RFC comments (2): don't feed the trolls

30. 15:31 13 September don't play silly buggers

31. 12:47 25 September Speaking of points, I was in Berlin yesterday, and I certainly would have climbed the Reichstag in protest, with or without my Spiderman costume, had I known what was going on here. What else can I do now to get my point across? Oh wait ... how about edit-warring on Macedonia until I get myself blocked too?

32. User JzG edit wars out any criticism of the respondent. This has been going on a long time [6].

33. 16:44 29 September [asterisks not in original] However, if you think that "f**k off and die" is ever a good way to communicate you are seriously mistaken. No matter how annoying someone is, sinking to that level just makes the situation worse all around. - CBDunkerson

34. 09:14 15 November hah, let's have a sexy picture too.

35. 00:15 19 December just curse him silently ...

36. 10:23 20 December Dear Baristam, as a card-carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA", I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way.

37. 23:15 20 December +protected, by admin Fut.Perf., on the Wrong Version.

2007

38. 23:27 9 January vre kalos ton ...

39. 16:52 23 January Only a person who saw me throwing one of my infamous temper tantrums when I was five years old will ever be able to say they fully and truly know my personality.

40. 10:46 2 February From now on I'm just going to rollback anything you guys write here. Knock it off already

41. 23:55 11 February If Wikipedians have filthy little minds that's scarcely my fault. - Silent Sphinctre

42. 12:23 7 March just stick it somewhere

43. 11:25 8 March go away, troll

44. 13:47 1 April You are blocked, don't you get it? Forever. Forget that Wikipedia exists, you are not allowed to edit here.

45. 20:56 1 April remove crap section

46. 11:19 5 April no use debating with Albanau and Dodona

47. 16:47 5 April Dodona, learn to read

48. 20:59 6 April heavens, it's spelled "Tyrol" in English, when will you ever learn?

49. 21:28 6 April where the hell do you get this nonsense from, are you just making it up?

50. 13:10 28 April Now I'm at a loss to know how to respond without getting rude ...

51. 13:21 28 April I have to admit it's probably just a matter of mutual stubbornness, but somehow I'm about to lose my mind. Can you please have a quick look and tell me whether I'm going insane or not?

52. 15:41 28 April Which still leaves me with the troubling question whether I'm being the madman or him. Should probably consult an oracle about it. Or a shrink.

53. 03:32 4 May I still think its kinda arrogant for anyone to decide unilaterally that they are going to purge an image without explaining adequately the fair use issues (he simply called it decorative). That I felt (and feel) that he approached the situation with two left feet wasn't wrong. - Arcayne

54. 20:25 20 May trollfest

55. 22:10 23 May rv. Shupp, people have tolerated you editing despite the ban, but don't push it please. [shows what a hypocrite the respondent is]

56. 18:12 4 June rv - sorry, the anon is a banned troll, please don't act as a proxy for him. [doesn't have a clue about policy]

57. 21:53 19 June nope. rv to legitimate version by owner

58. 16:20 5 September worth, it barely has girls so special (in Greek)

59. 15:43 6 September rv, please don't change other people's talkpage contributions

60. 07:28 15 September You weren't "in a dispute" with people, you have "handed them their ass".

61. 16:28 15 September oh boy. There's an angry ego with more rhetorics skills than it can carry

62. 23:37 13 October The Pope is not a reliable source. (I'm a Catholic, I must know.)

63. 23:31 22 October The foundation people are probably going to kill me for this ...

64. 17:58 5 November I don't normally find it very useful to remove an individual posting just because its nasty or uncivil or otherwise objectionable.

65. 20:07 9 November "Helicopter" comes from "heliko-pteron", and the moon is not made of green cheese.

2008

66. 11:19 9 January I would appreciate an apology considering I've remained courteous throughout the discussion and you've effectively told me that I ought to sexually assault myself. - Yeanold Viskersenn

67. 16:18 11 January BTW, I'm not lifting the blocks on your other accounts - when we get to an agreement here, I'll try and do something to the IP blocks so you won't be getting caught in autoblocks from the old blocks. The blocks on the other accounts shouldn't be affecting you. [Chillum claims that if an editor has one open account and many blocked accounts editing from the open account is block evasion]

68. 08:40 13 January hey, I wants my lolrollbackcat back! I'll uses adminz rollback to editwarz you until death and protects this page!!1!

69. 18:22 16 January Should I just quit?: yes, different guy, but let's get him.

70. 22:58 17 January ... to boldly merge what no man has merged before.

71. 09:57 24 January People, ***LEARN ENGLISH***.

72. 22:06 30 January He is venerated on March 12 in the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church (March 25 in those churches that follow the Julian calendar). [That's news to me. I thought 25 March was Lady Day everywhere - it's exactly nine months before the Nativity - work it out]

73. 15:23 4 February You are no longer equipped with a valid community mandate to issue blocks or unblocks.

74. 23:05 4 February Well, I admit I noticed that too. But then again, surely it is policy that admins should have a clue. Is it written somewhere in a more quote-worthy form? I suppose not ..

75. 09:35 6 February You are therefore from now on banned from making any edits while logged out. [Says who?]

76. 09:42 13 February Hello? Anybody at home?

77. 13:50 4 March So what condition is Future Perfect in? Pristine, slightly foxed or rough round the edges? - ChrisO

78. 18:30 14 March Keep out please. You had all the second and third and last chances there were.

79. 15:47 2 April Complete bullshit. Not worth discussing.

80. 07:45 3 April Fut.Perf, your book is wrong, and apparently you do not understand WP:NLT or our blocking policy. - Ned Scott

81. 13:13 20 April First of all, the cursive "Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα" is offensive language regarding my person. - Elampon

82. 16:43 20 April Doomsday Athenian, therefore, neither theirs is nothing great sock prix priasthai (in Greek)

83. 16:51 20 April get out

84. 19:38 19 May Like I said before, F P is a rogue administrator. It would be a miracle to get him to apologize for what he has done. - Deucalionite

85. 21:57 24 May So should I bring this to deletion review then? Because it would take a long time to systematically upload all the photos again, and Future Perfect threatened to delete them again if I did. -- CyberGhostface

86. 16:51 25 May From what I can tell at WP:NFC I don't see anything remotely as stringent as what Fut.Perf. suggests. - Fletcher

87. 04:48 12 June I've had enough of this. Full protection, *FOREVER*.

88. 18:28 17 August You clearly don't like use of this template, but it's grossly inappropriate to delete work on the basis of your personal opinions -- and even less appropriate to do so without notifying the uploader. - Tillman

89. 19:03 17 August Wah. This is the Diff from Hell. Diffs are called diffs because sometimes it's so darn diff-icult to diff-erentiate which of the two versions is worse ...

90. 13:03 18 August I am now concerned that you may be starting back your old bad habits, something that must not happen. - Jerry

91. 19:20 18 August Who writes such crap?

92. 01:43 22 August There are three sections on this user talk page from three unrelated users who are trying to explain to you that some of your communication with other editors lately is abrasive and unacceptable. My assumption is that there are other editors who are afraid to speak up. - Jerry

93. 14:39 24 August Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. - Baseball Bugs

94. 13:02 30 August yawn. Wake me up if something new comes up there, because I'm not going to watchlist it.

Future Perfect at Sunrise has been stirring the pot on en:wp as regards Igor Janev. An article about him was approved by Panyd, who noted it was "a good-faith attempt to write an actual article about a guy" and added There is some...insanity going on. Future Perfect at Sunrise then deleted it - hence the disruption - and he is now, despite all the evidence, describing Janev as a (just-below-notable) academic from Macedonia.

The administrators at sh:wp acted correctly in refusing to delete a humorous piece on a userpage. If Future Perfect at Sunrise hadn’t interfered nobody would have felt the urge to write the piece in the first place. The guy is notable - he has articles on other wikis, there is no reason why he should not have one on en:wp as well. Future Perfect at Sunrise is now harassing Panyd, as this log entry confirms:

09:36, 12 December 2016 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) protected User:Panyd/Janev [Create=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (hist)

Just by the way, the various IPs that have been disrupting this section today were probably not Operahome, but one or two other banned users piggybacking on the case (Vote (X) for Change and probably Wikinger). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What a goon. Wikinger isn't banned and the other editor mentioned probably isn't either. 86.131.187.195 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And as might be expected, after the offensive comments nos. 14 – 16, 19, and 23 Future Perfect at Sunrise made the disparaging remark about an editor "It's Mywayyy or the highway". 151.230.66.102 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m pleased to note that Cassianto has returned. Welcome back! Glad that Future Perfect at Sunrise didn’t succeed in driving you away. 92.8.223.93 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Samtar is a very rude man.Take a look at this sequence:[7]. 79.68.135.52 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, please say hello to F P and О.Ц. Рипер for me. 5.45.62.167 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 03:24, 16 December 2016‎ Johnuniq (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,939 bytes) (-202)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 31.54.201.146 (talk) to last version by Johnuniq)

(cur | prev) 03:23, 16 December 2016‎ 31.54.201.146 (talk)‎ . . (35,141 bytes) (+202)‎ . . (edit summary removed) [was Undid revision 755081199 by Johninuq (talk). Now, why did you ask Future Perfect at Sunrise to "deal with" 5.45.62.163? What's your problem?]

(cur | prev) 03:13, 16 December 2016‎ Johnuniq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,939 bytes) (-202)‎ . . (Undid revision 755081074 by 31.54.201.146 (talk) WP:DENY)

(cur | prev) 03:12, 16 December 2016‎ 31.54.201.146 (talk)‎ . . (35,141 bytes) (+202)‎ . . (edit summary removed) [was Undid revision 755077862 by Johninuq (talk) How many times? Jimbo welcomes all good faith comment on his talk page. If you insist on reverting explain why.]

(cur | prev) 02:44, 16 December 2016‎ Johnuniq (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,939 bytes) (-202)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 5.45.62.163 (talk) to last version by Bob K31416)

(cur | prev) 02:39, 16 December 2016‎ 5.45.62.163 (talk)‎ . . (35,141 bytes) (+202)‎ . . (edit summary removed)

(cur | prev) 02:28, 16 December 2016‎ Bob K31416 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,939 bytes) (+205)‎ . . (→‎Systematic problems at US-Russia articles) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:19, 16 December 2016‎ Joel B. Lewis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,734 bytes) (-232)‎ . . (→‎Your CHANGE statement from two years ago. A modification or qualification?: replace with a substantive comment)

(cur | prev) 02:17, 16 December 2016‎ 5.45.62.167 (talk)‎ . . (34,966 bytes) (+218)‎ . . (edit summary removed)