User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:44, 9 January 2017

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 1 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Comparisons of Wikipedia to other organizations

I agree with NewYork Brad that the above discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't look like it will contribute much to do with Wikipedia's goals. But to get back to the original question of whether there are reasonable comparisons to be made of Wikipedia to other organizations (good done vs. amount spent), I should say something about the TED (conference) folks, supported by the Sapling Foundation.

The Sapling Foundation has about the same budget as WMF, $62 million in 2014 [1]. They also rely heavily on volunteer labor, e.g. the presenters. They have 2,000+ of their shorter-than-18-minute videos on their website. But they have something like 20,000 videos on YouTube, plus another 80,000 or so on TEDx talks on YouTube (all this should be checked). Altogether it looks like an interesting comparison could be made, after carefully checking the facts.

So there are at least 3 comparisons that look pretty reasonable to make. edX, Khan Academy, and Ted (conference). Can anybody think of another? Somehow a group of 5 non-profits would make a more convincing group to compare among. The only other I can think of is a for-profit Quora. Not that the efficiency of non-profits and for-profits can't be compared, but ....

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look for other websites or organizations in Category:Educational websites. Also, the group of websites or organizations being compared might be suitable for a new article in Category:Online services comparisons.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider these websites.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other websites for consideration.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite is quite similar to the Wayback Machine. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these websites will generate a significant amount of revenues via advertisements, e.g. on YouTube where the videos start after a commercial, and there are typically always indirect links to other commercial activities for these so-called "non-profit organizations". Count Iblis (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has compiled a list of the "top 100 nonprofit organizations" at https://topnonprofits.com/lists/best-nonprofits-on-the-web/.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you. I'm slogging through looking at most of these websites and hadn't imagined there's so much stuff (good and bad) on the internet. Keep more suggestions coming, especially if they are about large websites that distribute educational material (broadly defined), are nonprofits, and reach a mass audience. Budgets between $10-$100 million wouldn't hurt either. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can cast a wider net with these links, and then you can use your own methods for narrowing down your search.

(Incidentally, some editors may find that editing articles about non-profit organizations can be more satisfying than editing articles about big corporations.)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC) and 00:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-efficient nonprofit organizations".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo has search results for "most cost-effective nonprofit organizations".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can try variations of the two aforementioned searches, by using different search engines (Category:Internet search engines) or different search terms (for example, "most good for your charitable dollar", "most beneficial charitable organizations", "charities that give the most value for money").

—Wavelength (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can investigate microfinance and related topics and categories.

Grameen Bank (http://www.grameen.com)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company iFixit (https://www.ifixit.com, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.ifixit.com) provides free online manuals for fixing things, so it has economic and environmental benefits. (Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation can use some of its money-saving, earth-saving manuals. Maybe it has done so already.) The article "iFixit" is categorized in categories where you can search for other organizations.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses comparisons of altruistic organizations.

What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism (archived)—William MacAskill for Stanford Social Innovation Review (December 3, 2013)

Which parts of Wikipedia do the most good to society, and how can the Wikipedia community encourage editors to concentrate their efforts on those parts? How can the Wikimedia Foundation promote the aspects of other Wikimedia projects that do the most good to society?

—Wavelength (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC) and 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional leads.

DuckDuckGo has search results for free study online.
DMOZ has search results for free online courses.
Wikipedia has 41 pages in Category:Open educational resources.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing charities for different causes is like comparing apples and oranges. An apple farmer and an orange farmer might have a friendly discussion about the relative values of an apple and an orange of equal weight. In comparing Save the Arctic, Save the Children, Save the Elephants, and Save the Rhino, we need to identify the goals of each organization and the amount of good accomplished in the pursuit of those goals. Then we need to decide the relative values of the different accomplishments. For example, if one elephant has the same value as two rhinos, and if each respective organization saves 1,000 members of the species each year, then Save the Elephants has accomplished twice as much good as Save the Rhinos. If the annual revenue of Save the Elephants is twice the annual revenue of Save the Rhinos, then we might decide that the two organizations are equivalent to each other in the amount of good they accomplish in proportion to the money they receive.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional links.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lose Your Wikipedia Crutch: 100 Places to Go for Good Answers Online | Distance Degrees.com is inactive, but is archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, you posted at 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) in this discussion "Keep more suggestions coming, ...", and I have continued to post links and comments. Are you continuing to plod through, looking at most of the websites? How well have you been able to keep pace with my postings? I am interested in reading about your observations and conclusions, preferably in this discussion before it is archived.[reply]

—Wavelength (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wavelength: thanks for al the input - I was on vacation 2 weeks ago and barely managed to almost keep up with the reading you suggested (but not really doing anything with it). Last week I pretty much gave up and just said "I'll see how far he takes it." I appreciate your effort, but you may have put too much faith in me if you think I can adequately follow it up with the same enthusiasm as you've shown. I'll copy this all to a user page - say User:Smallbones/Wikicomparisons and deal with it all as I have time.

My main point - that we should have good comparisons between the WMF and other organizations before we make judgements like "the WMF wastes money" - that stands, and the main comparisons I'd use (for now) would be TED (conference), the Khan Academy, and EdX. It would be very nice to have a few more, but the closest organizations I see have something else going on that would get in the way of a good comparison, e.g. PBS/NPR stations, C-SPAN, maybe a few museums or universities. I would still welcome *specific* suggestions for comparisons (at User:Smallbones/Wikicomparisons).

Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology tax status history

Template:Formerly

I am revising the heading of this section from Just a question as a reader (attitudinal information) to Scientology tax status history (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC (• Section headings). This discussion is about Scientology tax status history. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath and got curious about the history of Scientology and their tax status with the IRS. Looking in Google under various plausible search terms and clicking around some apparently relevant Wikipedia entries, I don't find the history cleanly laid out anywhere. I haven't done a thorough search yet so I'm still convinced that it's here somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may need to be pieced together, as there have been multiple court and regulatory cases dealing with different incorporation of the church, and differences between state and federal taxing authorities. Here are some references that your talk page watchers may be able to start incorporating to an article. <ref>{{cite web|last1=Franz|first1=Douglas|title=Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-journey-from-tax-rebel-to-tax-exempt.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=6 January 2017}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Mo. Church of Scientology v. State Tax Comm.|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/1977/59551-0.html|website=Justia Law|accessdate=6 January 2017}}</ref>. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo has search results for scientology tax history. The snippets from cs.cmu.edu appear to be especially relevant to your curiosity.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC) and 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am always staggered that people genuinely believe in this cult, given the incredibly cynical reasons that Hubbard created it. I mean, if you basically tell the world that the way to get rich is to found a religion, then you found a religion, that's pretty blatant. Especially when it is an open secret that the whole rationale was to provide Free Exercise protection for his quack e-meters. Jim Humble has tried the same with far less success, of course, and Serge Benhayon too. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is available yet in the UK, but you should watch it. It seems like the sort of thing you would enjoy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I odn't think it is, but I have read a number of books that cover this. My current favourite book on the Scientology cult is "Church Of Fear". Did you see the Panorama documentary by John Sweeney? It's uncanny how closely their methods parallel the alt-right - they repeat bullshit as if it is true, they completely ignore refutation, and they accuse people of bigotry and bias if the challenge the bullshit. It really messes with Sweeney's head (which is, of course, precisely their intent). Guy (Help!) 22:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth taking seriously various allegations about "new religious movements" and spy agencies. For example, the Unification Church in Koreagate was accused of working closely with South Korean intelligence [2], and in general was long known as a hard core "anticommunist" political player, even when it came to backing the Contras. So when you consider how Scientology was able to break into IRS offices to steal its own files, then get a tax exemption, or consider the Stargate Project, where Scientologists worked their way into the project both as subjects and experimenters in bringing, it is claimed, real intelligence observations to the project (via claimed remote viewing), I think it is worth bearing in mind that L. Ron Hubbard always claimed to have worked in naval intelligence. There would have been some pretty obvious advantages in having a NRM with a global mission and a "Sea Org" in international waters when it comes time to infil and exfil agents; if their sacred services tend to closely resemble interrogations under a lie detector with archived transcripts of all sessions, well, that has some obvious applications as well. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I never even thought of that, and I am pretty fucking cynical! Fascinating, and very plausible. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, if you ran a quack cult that made blatantly outrageous claims and conducted sacred services that closely resemble interrogations under a lie detector with archived transcripts of all sessions, it might be very convenient if someone started rumours about your connections to naval intelligence. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why I dont bother with most of these discussions over motives, preferring to stick to the basically understandable and universal 'they did it for the money'. Sooner or later you run out of hands... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Jimbo re paid editing and WMF redux

repost, now that you are back, from this.

Hi Jimbo

I am interested to learn if the WMF board has discussed taking legal action against companies that offer services to edit Wikipedia and that have no on-Wiki presence disclosing their edits here, per the Terms of Use. We all know the companies and their websites, where they use the Wikipedia name, etc. I have looked and never found disclosure by any of those companies in WP. I have looked and found no public evidence of WMF legal engaging with these companies, other than Wiki-PR.

Two questions:

Has this been discussed, and if so, what has/have the outcomes been?

Also, is there budget for WMF legal to take action against such companies?

What can you tell me? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know what cause of action there might be. Trademark misuse? Guy (Help!) 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, violation of the Terms of Use, surely. Looie496 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most don't use trademarks, but WMF legal are very good at getting those who do to stop. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what action you can take in law for violation of terms of use. That was my point. And the name Wikipedia is also a trademark sis it not? So saying you can get content on Wikipedia may be abuse of trademark. I don't know. I was tempted to ask Mike or Brad but I expect Jimmy has had advice on this form current counsel. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, when you say "We all know..." perhaps we don't all know. I'm personally unsure to exactly what you are referring to. If you are worried about "outing" then please do drop me a private email as I'm very interested in this topic.

In terms of the board discussions - yes, it has been a topic of discussion at various times. The legal issues are subtle and complex. Trademark violations, as others have noted, are easier to deal with than TOS violations.

Here's the thing - the standard of proof needed for us, the community, to block people for bad faith action is much lower than the standard of proof needed for a victory in court. And the costs to everyone are much lower as well. So the first line of defense, in my personal opinion, has to be us. If it really is true that "we all know the companies and their websites" and if it is also true that we know (or even have solid evidence) that particular accounts are paid advocates for those companies, then we should be blocking them quite quickly and eagerly and vigorously.

My own view is that our policy on WP:OUTING is not well written, and prevents open discussion of the problems. In too many cases, speculating that an editor is a paid advocate is a mild example of failing to assume good faith (a real concern, of course) whereas proving it could be treated as a case of outing. That's not good policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc_James is most up to speed regarding who might be who. For example cases see ANI for Earflaps and for FoCuSandLeArN. They'd both edited for since 2012 and between them had 120k edits (not all bad). I suspect Jytdog might just not want to link to the sites, which I kind of agree with, so I will send you an email with the ones I know about. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One change that would help is a greater ability / willingness for CUs to run checks on these accounts. Many of the companies of course hide the connections between their accounts well.

We should also take a hardly line on deleting paid work IMO. I have received details from some of their clients that their contracts stipulate that the company must keep the article up for a year before they are paid in full. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to all of that. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're not going to be getting a speedy criterion, people have said No at WT:CSD to deleting articles created in violation of the terms of use. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ToS violations are "against" the WMF. They are not necessarily against the policies on individual projects. The community may choose to vigorously defend the latter and not the former. Of course there is a large overlap.

The deeper problem we should be addressing is one of work-flow. When the wiki was smaller, there was less chance of COI edits going unspotted, or so it seems. How do we go about spotting this with a larger article base, and the same, or a smaller number of editors? (One recent piece remarked that "very active Wikipedia editors are scarcer than paid Chess professionals".)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Jimbo thanks for your reply. When I said "we all know" i mean the ones we all know, like MyWikiBiz, Legal Morning, WikiExperts, Wikipedia Writers, etc etc etc. They are easy to find on the internet and have been discussed around the community many times.

The community is already doing everything we can here at the bottom, but what WMF can do, that we cannot, is cut this off at the top. The WMF can prevent these companies from advertising using the WP name/trademark and should do, when it is clear that a company is not following the ToU. As I noted above, I have looked and have not found on-wiki disclosures from editors working for or affiliated with any of those companies. (I invite everybody to look for themselves and if you find such disclosures, to cite them here). These companies are not following the ToU and they are advertising using the WP name/trademark. And as you know, they flaunt that.

It is not hard to a) find a company that advertises WP editing services using the WP name/trademark; b) search for the required disclosure in WP; c) if no disclosures are found, send the company a cease and desist letter. There are editors in the community who would be happy to help with steps a) and b) but WMF paid staff could do this just as easily. The WMF could also establish a "black hat" list of companies that advertise paid editing and have no evidence of disclosures on Wikipedia, which people who want to hire paid editors could consult. That list could also include companies formed by people we know have been community banned or indefinitely blocked, like Mike Wood and Legal Morning.

One reason these companies can keep doing what they do, is that the WMF does nothing. And I know that WMF legal would not do this kind of thing without authorization from the board or ED. That is why my question is directed to the board and management.

As far as I can see (and maybe things are going on that I am unaware of) one of our best tools to prevent paid editing is sitting there unused. Is that true? -- this is my question. And if nothing is being done, of course I am urging that real consideration be given to doing something along these lines. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, taking your bait against my better judgment, I followed one of your links to WikiExperts.us. And then I just watched THIS VIDEO. What, pray tell, are your objections to any tiny snippet of what they are saying here? If anything, their interpretation of notability is substantially more conservative than prevailing consensus at AfD. As long as subjects are notable and as long as NPOV is adhered to — as the site implicitly claims to do — whether they hang out the KICK ME sign for anti-paid editing warriors is not my circus, not my monkeys... Carrite (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean they don't openly acknowledge that they spam Wikipedia and violate the Terms of Use? I'm shocked. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are there any on-wiki disclosures by that company, per the ToU, and which would allow us to actually verify that they edit as well as they claim to? Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)

Rich, We have to get rid of that idea that the change to the ToU was not the wish of the Wikipedia community. As far as I can tell, the RfC was the largest in history [3], 1389 people recorded !votes (excluding the 42 abstentions), only 286 opposed the change (20.6%), and 1103 supported it (79.4%). I suppose somebody could try to invent some technicality to try to obscure the obvious - let's say somebody claims "It wasn't just en:Wikipedians voting!" It wasn't, but it's clear that the large majority of !voters were native speakers of English, and that the non-native English speakers probably had slightly more opposes. Any claimed technicalities just don't pass muster.

One thing that is not a technicality - the Terms of Use (and the change) are policies on Wikipedia. The change could be thrown out by an RfC on en:Wikipedia, but nobody here has even seriously tried to do that. Presumably because they know what the result would be. So the ToU change is en:Wikipedia policy and it is supported by the large majority of Wikipedians. End of story.

Jimmy, there are lots of things that the WMF can do short of going to court. Let me just mention a few:

Let companies and businesses know that we do not accept advertisements, paid advocacy, or undisclosed paid editing.

Fairly often there are newspaper articles that claim they know how to "get your article on Wikipedia" Let the entire world know that they are wrong. Just have a standard article available and submit it whenever people make that mistake. It would save a lot of hassle for everybody.

Use office actions to ban some entire companies from editing here. The most obvious cases would be the dozen or so companies that openly advertise that they write and place articles on Wikipedia while following our rules, but have never disclosed themselves on Wiki (or been disclosed by an employee of being employers of paid editors). They are committing fraud on somebody, either on us or their customers, actually both. That is against the ToU. Just ban them.
Let the customers of this type of firms know that the WMF accepts complaints against the above type of firm. e.g. "If you or your business are ripped off by a business that claims it can place articles for a fee on Wikipedia, let us know. We can use the information, help protect other people from this type of scam, and in some cases can pass it along to the authorities."
There are websites that run ads for free lance writers as their main business. A small part of this is for writers of Wikipedia articles. The WMF could simply ask the websites not to accept this type of ad. The WMF can do this, but an individual editor cannot. Legitimate websites would probably go along - they'd rather not have the hassle for the small amount of money these ads bring in. Can't hurt to ask.

I'm sure there are lots of editors who can let you know of "little things" that can make a big difference in fighting against paid advocates. Please take their requests seriously. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that there are 33 suggestions for actions that can be taken by the community or by the WMF at User:Doc James/Paid editing which was written right after the OrangeMoody scandal. I've reviewed these just now and it looks like one major theme is that Arbs do not wish to be involved in paid editing cases, saying they don't want to or are unable to do anything with these cases. If ArbCom won't deal with paid editing, then WMF has to step up to the plate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we won the popular vote, but paid editing won the RfC college 304-227... Guy (Help!) 09:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this "we have done everything we can" nonsense is just that, nonsense. Where's the RFC on increasing notability standards for organizations? Where is the RFC on automatic deletion of advertorial or promotional articles, especially those created by SPAs and obviously undisclosed COI editors? (I note that one of the articles we deleted during the Orangemoody case was just recreated, by someone whose username is identical to the name of the company's advocate - we'll have to take it to AfD now, and it will be kept because it meets GNG even though it's entirely promotional.) We haven't even tried, we've just wrung our hands. Risker (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean have a rough consensus that is "regularly" enforced (as "regularly" enforced as any rough consensus on Wikipedia?) Paid editors, and their lobby, have sufficient !votes to ensure 'not do anything' systematic, leaving it only case by case that they are are dealt with by the principled and brave rest (so 'all we can do'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That implies there are more paid editors on Wikipedia than unpaid editors, and I'm not buying that. What we have are lots of people who think that the GNG was as much of a concession as they were willing to make on the topic of notability. What we have are lots of people who regularly participate at AfD who regularly make the claim that the current content of the article isn't what's relevant when it comes to deletion, it's whether or not the topic meets the GNG. The result is that we have all kinds of spammy articles kept at AfD because a couple of people believe there is some level of notability of the subject. These aren't arguments from paid editors, they are arguments from editors who genuinely believe these positions to be true. It is up to this community to either change their minds, or to voice different opinions with a sufficient level of consensus to result in changes to the interpretation of the overall community consensus. There are many, many things that we could do; a bunch of them are enumerated on User:Doc James/Paid editing. But that's just a user's subpage and nobody is taking the bull by the horns and actively trying to put some of those proposals into place. Start there. Risker (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 *All this "we have done everything we can" nonsense is just that, nonsense. Where's the RFC on increasing notability standards for organizations?  Where is the RFC on automatic deletion of advertorial or promotional articles, especially those created by SPAs and obviously undisclosed COI editors?  (I note that one of the articles we deleted during the Orangemoody case was just recreated, by someone whose username is identical to the name of the company's advocate - we'll have to take it to AfD now, and it will be kept because it meets GNG even though it's entirely promotional.) We haven't even tried, we've just wrung our hands.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 ::You mean have a rough consensus that is "regularly" enforced (as "regularly" enforced as any rough consensus on Wikipedia?) Paid editors, and their lobby, have sufficient !votes to ensure 'not do anything' systematic, leaving it only case by case that they are are dealt with by the principled and brave rest (so 'all we can do'). -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
+:::Really? That implies there are more paid editors on Wikipedia than unpaid editors, and I'm not buying that.  What we have are lots of people who think that the GNG was as much of a concession as they were willing to make on the topic of notability.  What we have are lots of people who regularly participate at AfD who regularly make the claim that the current content of the article isn't what's relevant when it comes to deletion, it's whether or not the topic meets the GNG. The result is that we have all kinds of spammy articles kept at AfD because a couple of people believe there is some level of notability of the subject. These aren't arguments from paid editors, they are arguments from editors who genuinely believe these positions to be true. It is up to this community to either change their minds, or to voice different opinions with a sufficient level of consensus to result in changes to the interpretation of the overall community consensus. There are many, many things that we could do; a bunch of them are enumerated on [[User:Doc James/Paid editing]]. But that's just a user's subpage and nobody is taking the bull by the horns and actively trying to put some of those proposals into place.  Start there. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)