User talk:Jimbo Wales

Systemic bias within Wikipedia.en

Jimbo, we have a huge problem of systemic bias in the content of many of our articles and that fact just became obvious to me in a round about way. I was thinking about how the term "conspiracy theory" has become the most prevalent "shiny object" that can be thrown into a discussion which has the effect of distracting or blocking critical thinking discussion about any topic. This happens even when there is no conspiracy or even theory being discussed. The "shiny object" usage of the term reminded me of something that I could not put my finger on until just now. It is being used in exactly the same way the term "communism" was used as a "shiny object"in the USA in the 50s. e.g., Any thought of universal health care was decried as being "communism". Even worse, in the South, school integration discussions were often shut down because any form of integration was said to be promoted by communists. In fact, MLK was widely denounced as being a communist as later on JFK was. This taboo (of which the distracting shiny objects are only one part) on critically examining any issue which reflects negatively upon "the establishment" has severely infected the Reliable Sources in the USA. CNN reporters even refer to themselves as the Fourth Estate meaning they are a part of the establishment, and their reporting reflects that systemic bias. Just today a CNN show about the 4 Americans killed in Niger was typically filled with weasel words like "appears to", "believed to" and the only unqualified thing in the report was that the soldiers wore t-shirts and baseball hats. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You've probably saved wikipedia, just with this one insightful post. I can't see why you'd be banned from anything, though you say you are, above. Illegitimi non carborundum. -- Begoon 18:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait. Would it be more concise to say that there is a conspiracy to maintain systemic bias by pointing out conspiracy theories? Or are you saying that systemic bias is a conspiracy to deny conspiracy theories? Or are the conspiracy theories just systemic bias that trigger more conspiracies? Personally, I like my word salad shaken, not stirred. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. --DHeyward (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Veal" you say? I'll stick with the yummy tofu, thanks... The t-shirts and baseball hats are the dead giveaway here - I'm surprised you missed that. -- Begoon 14:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Giveaway to what? That you are the one making things up? US troops had only one heavy machine gun, no body armor and were driving unarmored 4x4s while wearing "t-shirts and baseball caps," the Nigerien soldier said.. What's wrong with you 2 guys? Scorn is just as stupid now as it was 2017 years ago, and I guess I have to spell out that I'm comparing the scorn, not the target. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How many heavy machine guns and how much body armor do you have? Do you carry and wear in every instance of when you may be attacked? In the Las Vegas shooting, many off-duty police attending the concert have body armor and machine guns that they left at home. Circumstances, not conspiracies are what drive these decisions. Heavy machine guns and Level IV ballistic vests stick out like a sore thumb in a small unit. Not every death is preventable or foreseeabl, let alone a conspiracy. --DHeyward (talk)

I'm sorry, I must not have explained well enough the issue. I am not suggesting anything at all to do with a conspiracy nor that there was anything lacking in the military protocols of the USA military unit. I was trying to say that the reporting we are getting from USA main stream media, on virtually all topics which relate to U.S. government activities, is next to useless for an encyclopedia because the reports are too much/almost all speculation and theorizing, couched in qualifying phrases ("weasel words") which by definition means the conclusions reported are not actual facts, e.g. "The US officials said it was "quite probable" that someone in the village tipped off the ISIS-affiliated terrorists that US forces were in the village, setting up the ambush"and "more likely a target of opportunity". The only reported "facts" are often secondary and often unimportant or much less important aspects of the topics, e.g., the fact in this case that they were wearing t shirts and baseball caps. I used this particular article only because I happened to see the TV version 2 days ago and I thought it supported my point. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Implicit comparisons to Benghazi: The coverage in U.S. reports seems like a "Trump's Benghazi" of a diplomatic massacre while Trump controlled the U.S. State Department. So he gets to see how Secretary Hillary Clinton felt, except no formal investigation yet, and Trump gets to be President and write hundreds of Executive orders by President Trump, to reverse numerous federal decisions, while tweeting about Obamacare or tax-breaks-not-for-the-wealthy (ya right). So perhaps WP editors will write paragraphs about shiny distractions, while listing the erstwhile executive orders issued during those Niger events. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this entire discussion doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It feels like this is actually a conversation about something else, something unspoken. If there are particular examples of us calling something a "conspiracy theory" when it is inappropriate to do so, I'd be interested in us chewing on that for a bit. If this is an indirect discussion about someone's conduct, then let's just have a direct discussion about conduct?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, it is not about anyone's conduct. I will respond with examples later. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that the vast majority of USA reliable sources, as a collective, have a strong bias supporting whatever the USA "establishment"/Liberal International Order (usually alligned with the USA federal government) messaging is, similar but not as extreme as Pravda's pro USSR bias 40 years ago. The fact they refer to themselves as the fourth estate supports this observation. Therefore, when our editors rely mostly on these biased publications the resulting articles are themselves lacking in objectivity and neutrality. It is no fault of our editors. I'll give 1 important, if not maybe the most blatant, example in a minute, but first I'd like to say that the solution is simple; A Reliable Sources cull should be undertaken annually by an elected or appointed committee of editors and I'd guess less than 10% of our existing USA reliable sources would qualify as unbiased. Right now the Guardian, Reuters are the most neutral sources for USA news, imo.

My example relates to our articles...thus sourcing..for how the Iraq War started and how General Wesley Clark's crucial report of the fraudulent justification for the war has not made it into our articles in any substantive way. Just to emphasize how vehemently main stream media was pushing the Administration's bull shit, just have a look at the CNN's anchor's ridicule of one of the former weapons inspector's pre-invasion view that there were no WMDs "People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid". Only the Guardian, a non-USA media, gave a good account of this inspector's view.

General Clark's shocking whistle blowing happened in 2007, but only Salon picked up the story in print whereas over a million people have viewed his interview on youtube, yet a google search of "Wesley Clark 7 countries" shows virtually no USA main stream media published his revelations. Our articles on the Iraq War and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction do not include anything about Clark's revelations, and even Clark's own Blp just mentions it in passing at the end; but as I say, this is understandable given the extreme bias in MSM reportings. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, I’m a bit confused about journalists qualifying statements. That’s generally considered good journalism when simply quoting sources. Capeo (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, Sometimes bias is in the eye of the beholder. You wrote, "Right now the Guardian, Reuters are the most neutral sources for USA news, imo." Perhaps they will lose that distinction when they write something that you disagree with. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, it's tough to take your reservations seriously when you misrepresent your links. Ritter was quite clear, at the time, that he had no idea what WMDs were in Iraq. That was his point. There hadn't been inspectors in there for far too long to make an informed action, certainly not going to war. Also, "people are accusing you of" is simply a statement of fact and Ritter gave his response. I also don't get the issue with Clark's treatment. By that time an anonymous conversation confirming what we already knew wasn't much of a bombshell. It didn't get much coverage because Clark was a bit late to the game and was light on specifics or any actual, you know, evidence. Actual memos, etc. And he was trying to sell a book.

Lastly, you keep bringing up the Fourth Estate when historically in America it represented the power of an independent press. The derogatory term, in America, would be the Fourth Branch. This isn't to say there isn't strong bias in MSM. There is and always has been. This is nothing new. Even prior to TV every major newspaper, European and American, was always editorially biased towards one party or another. The problem with WP isn't MSM sourcing. It's trying to cover every MSM report the second it comes out before history has time to shake the facts out of the matter and qualified secondary sources present broader, evidence based, summaries. The problem is editors treat articles, particularly political articles, as extensions of the news cycle. Capeo (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course articles are "extensions of the news cycle". There are two ways we can run Wikipedia. In one, we let every editor add each new fact as it comes out... together with other editors who add the sources that show it's not a fact. The other way we can run it is that the editors get together on the talk page and have a straw poll -- whichever of the two main parties has more adherents then proceeds to write a "consensus" party-line version that carefully decides which qualified secondary sources will be echoed and which will be unceremoniously consigned to the dustbin (ideally with any editors still advocating for the other side, who can be dismissed as disruptive). Personally, I prefer the first way -- but it seems like we're pretty close to right in the middle on this one. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Outdent and bold bit because, well, look at me... - so, Wnt, you prefer the model that allows every unsupported allegation made by any nutjob with an internet connection and a grudge to be included in the world's number one search result for a living person until a vote of wikipedians is held? I'm sure you couldn't really have meant that, but that's how it parsed for me at first glance. -- Begoon 12:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the model that allows every supported (i.e. secondary sourced) allegation made by any nutjob with an internet connection and a reliable editing process to be included. Wikipedia isn't here to render "history's verdict" -- we're here to summarize the existing literature.

I should add that I support this even when I don't think it's right because the entire media, "both sides", is biased or foolhardy. Notably, I am disgusted that Republicans so eagerly lined up to glorify the acts of terrorists in Libya in order to score political points against an Obama administration that did what every administration in a war does -- get attacked in a way that might have been avoided. I am equally disgusted with anyone who tries to turn a terrorist attack in Niger or elsewhere into bait against the Trump administration. But I can't spout off like that in the article. Best I can do is say, I want all sources included, so just in case some lone notable person ever goes on about how dumb it is to let a faction fight extend to siding with people who want to kill us all, there's a chance people will be able to include it contrary to whatever particular partisan party line prevails at the present. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that there is a systemic bias in English Wikipedia relating to US politics. As a result it is trusted far less on discretionary (spin, wording, inclusion, exclusion, weight) content on such articles / topics than it is in general. The remedy is further refinement of content policies and guidelines. Some are unusable or inadvertently biased in key areas, others are too easily mis-used by biased people, and there are other huge blind spots that need to be fixed. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• In the 1st message of this section was, "the term 'conspiracy theory' has become the most prevalent 'shiny object' that can be thrown into a discussion which has the effect of distracting or blocking critical thinking discussion about any topic." I just encountered that shiny object from User:Geogene in a discussion. diff --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Bob K31416, yes and it happens all the time. Just a few minutes after you encountered the shiny object from User:Geogene, it was used again diff by User:SPECIFICO in the same discussion.

What is particularly disturbing in your cases is the way the "conspiracy theory" term, albeit completely misapplied (no conspiracy nor theory being mentioned in the discussion), is part of arguments/threats? to hat/censor? diffdiffdiffdiff

that discussion thread, even though there appears to be thoughtful interest and discussion from many editors on both sides of the issue of that thread.Apparently they had already hatted it once before being unhatted. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That was a pretty crazy section. It appeared to me that some editors were so inclined towards combat, or had such limited reading comprehension, that they didn't even recognize when I made a point that helped their position of being against using a statement from a Reuters article. My statement began with, "On second thought, the statement in Reuters may be misleading." diff --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiAlpha

Jimbo, I recently came across WikiAlpha, a site that encourages users to "save" articles tagged for deletion on Wikipedia. It provides a tool to copy them from here to there. The trouble is that WikiAlpha is not respecting the licensing terms of the content that is copied. It is not copying the history (only the latest version) which means that it is not crediting the editors who worked on the article. In addition, the content of WikiAlpha is licensed as "public domain" which is not compatible with our CC-BY-SA licensing since there is no attribution requirement. Perhaps someone from the WMF could contact WikiAlpha to help understand what needs to be done to comply with the licensing and terms of use? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's "PD unless noted otherwise"; maybe they hid the otherwise really, really well. meanwhile... If Wikipedia content can only be reused if its history remains publicly accessible, then no publisher can reuse Wikipedia content with any confidence unless it has the entire history in its possession. Furthermore, no one can reuse the reused content without having the publisher's files. And as the lack of re-reusability means that the CC license is invalid, that means there is no way to publish a book with material from a Wikipedia article. Indeed, maybe the whole project is legally invalid because WP could license admin-grade access to deleted article history to make their content commercially distributable, so we should all go home now, eh?

Suggestion ... maybe citing the source of your CC content in a "convenient" way, at the instant, should be enough to make it attributable even if it is hard to do so? Wnt (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Casual use of "hatting" to "censor" talk page discussions]]

Jimbo, sorry to use the word "censor" but I can not think of a milder term in this instance. Please have a look at this discussion thread and the "hatting" threats and applications thereof related to the thread, i.e. diffdiffdiffdiffdiff

There appears to be thoughtful interest and discussion from many editors on both sides of the issue of that thread.Apparently they had already hatted it once before being unhatted. Your thoughts? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)