User talk:Jimbo Wales

Horseplay vs. foreplay harassment

The last thing I thought Wikipedia would need to explain, in the 21st century, is the difference between non-sexual horseplay and foreplay, as with sexual harassment. As you likely know, in the U.S. recently, numerous claims of harassment have been flooding the news. I think we need more articles to explain the behavior of affectionate, loving people versus loners, hermits, or sexual predators. As typical, people should write what they know about physical horseplay, and meanwhile find wp:RS sources to support the explanations. If someone tickles your ribs, it does not mean they are groping, and there is such a thing as affectionate people accidentally brushing against another body part. If a person walks around naked, then it is not automatically harassment, but often getting attention or show-off of workout results. When teenage boys romp around in the gym shower, it is not likely foreplay but rather, water play, and we should find swim coaches who write to discipline teenage boys when the shower horseplay lasts too long. Perhaps there are several other page titles to cover, but I would suggest "Horseplay versus foreplay" or such. I think many affectionate people are being misjudged about tickling or risqué jokes (lewd jokes), as if intended to be harassment. Perhaps other readers can suggest more page titles, and WP might need a whole navbox to link related articles to explain the spectrum of personal behaviors displayed by affectionate people, misinterpreted as harassment. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikid77, this issue is interesting because your points are valid while at the same time, real sexual harassment is, or at least has been, occurring at epidemic proportions. I think its futile to try to have articles addressing the differences between what's harmless and harmful in this area as its too subjective, I think. Its kinda like having articles about "what's drinking too much". Also, it may be too soon to try to be comprehensive about the variations of this topic because, in the USA at least, there is perhaps an hysteria or avalanche aspect going on right now, maybe? This could be a seismic cultural long term event unfolding which may effect many aspects of society and it might just be beginning. In summary, I think its too early to even try to address the valid points you make in an encyclopedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikid77, I'm not sure you have considered the point of view of someone who is at the receiving end of unwanted tickling. It's fine to be an affectionate person, but that doesn't mean you should feel free to demonstrate that affection if you don't know that it is welcome. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There are issues worth pursuing here, especially in the context of this story. We are confronted with some significant philosophical or political issues we have to sort out.

• First, is "stealing a kiss" ever a form of sexual assault, and if so, when? Since there are many, many movies that idealize a bygone era's ideal of attempting to steal a kiss under various circumstances, do we regard these as portrayals of sexual assault, and if so, are their G or PG ratings inappropriate?
• Second, is there a defense against "groping" based on the presence of a physical barrier to sensation and/or whether pressure is applied through it? If so, how thick a barrier, how much pressure are we talking about?

Now, my feeling is that even to suggest that philosophy could apply to such situations will be taken as inherently offensive by many/most. The way these things are meant to be settled is through universal condemnation, followed by the inevitability that in the future some famous personage gropes Sophia (robot) or a projection on a holographic screen or even a TV and suddenly, within hours, under intense supervision from a few aristoi among us, the world says "No!" and establishes that such a thing is invariably wrong, no matter what people might have believed in the past, and this is never to be questioned again (and never will be). But that isn't actually my preference for how we would establish moral standards. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, prior norms for "serial dating" (or flirting) in U.S. are beginning to rival "serial killer". The complex issues include whether workplace dating is prohibited by company rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Is hanging a man from a tree ever a form of murder, and if so, when? Since there are many, many movies that idealize a bygone era's ideal of justice under various circumstances, do we regard these as portrayals of murder, and if so, are their G or PG ratings inappropriate? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, relations between human beings are complex and full of grey areas and shades of understanding rather than black-and-white interpretations. But a couple points.

If someone tickles your ribs, it does not mean they are groping

No, it doesn't. It does mean that they're committing assault and battery though, if the person being ticked doesn't consent. It can also be a form of torture by the way.

there is such a thing as affectionate people accidentally brushing against another body part

Again, assuming consent, there is indeed such a thing. Consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes, have indeed been known known to brush their body parts together. So what? What does that have to do with anything? The implication, which is extremely offensive, is that only one person need to consent otherwise you would not have raised the issue. Right? Are you claiming that consenting adults in their own homes are in some way, shape, or form being penalized for brushing their body parts against each other? You're not and you know you're not, but are rather advocating frottage. Don't.

is there a defense against "groping" based on the presence of a physical barrier to sensation and/or whether pressure is applied through it? If so, how thick a barrier, how much pressure are we talking about?

Precisely 5.3 millimeters and 2.7 foot pounds respectively, of course. Neither more nor less. Hopefully this answer brings as much enlightenment to the discussion as your question. Sarcastic implications that the problem here is that you're a philosophical genius and everybody else is a moron are also not helpful. Can somebody hat this pointless and offensive thread, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You might imagine it pointless and offensive, but the harassment topic, for months, has recently occupied almost half of U.S. mainstream news coverage, including concerns about rules of meetings for work at home or work at hotel room. WP should have more pages about affectionate people, beyond charismatic people. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Moral panic?^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 08:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean, yes, point taken. It is an important subject. It is fraught, complicated, and difficult to analyze and discuss. So, if we want to -- count me out, but others may -- it has to be handled delicately. And it's about social behavior so it's a political question (in the larger sense).

It is also true that many activities are debatable at the margins. Questions of consent, establishment of unequal power relationships, intent, creation of hostile environments, and so forth are subject to complicated analysis and there's not always one correct answer especially at the margins.

However, mostly we don't need to worry about the margins because very few of these things at the margins enter the public discourse. The margins are interesting questions for late-night conversations in the freshman dorm common room, or maybe for law school or philosophy class. But it's not helpful here.

Again: discussed with special care. I'm not seeing points about thickness of fabric, tickling of ribs, brushing of bodies, and so forth as evidence of special care. Herostratus (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think one thing that we could do, and I intend to try myself, is to expand our sexual harrassment article with branch articles covering some of the different national,societal and religious perceptions, norms and mores, both present and past (e.g. men in Italy pinching unknown women on their butts...hopefully that's in the past). And there are definitely different societal attention to,reactions and punishments related to this issue varying between countries where you would not expect much variation. Here in Canada, as you see here, half our women say they have been sexually harassed, however, media stories and content within the past year has been much less than in the USA. Why? One reason may be that the aspect of big money, especially hush money, is in play in the USA but not up here. Our civil courts are dramatically more stingy when it comes to any civil payouts and especially any where quantifiable damage can not be proven. In fact, if I understand the basics of 1 of the highest profile USA settlements of $30 million dollars, it was related to a former consensual girlfriend and I doubt she would have gotten a penny in court up here and thus likely nothing from an employer either. The perpetrator might have been fired, but even then, he would have a good wrongful dismissal suit if the victim had no tangible proof to support her allegations. As another example, this event would have likely gone very differently in the USA. I'm NOT implying that one or the other approach by employers and courts is more valid, I'm just saying there can be substantial differences in victims coming forward, employer approach, and results of allegations in different countries and especially when big money is in play. So, I think that expansion of our existing article to include any national or religious differences in law, norms and mores, is our best approach going forward in terms of encyclopedic content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, if there's anything we're not up to doing here, it's dealing with these issues very well. This is really best left to publishers with small focused editorial boards. There are a few other issues like this. A few.

One reason for this that the demographics of our editors is... well, you know what it is. And we have an unusual organization -- everybody's on the editorial board -- which works great for >99% of subjects, but not very well on those that are political hot potatoes. IMO our material on these subjects should be as short and anodyne as reasonably possible, and let the reader look elsewhere for in-depth material on these issues. Herostratus (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, once we've established that people thinking for themselves or asking questions about one issue is bad, particularly because it's a serious issue, the obvious question is whether it is actually "pointless and offensive" for people to think for themselves on any issue. After all, it is surely not useful to think for oneself about an issue that is completely unimportant to anyone, and difficult to explain why only issues of a specific level of importance, not too high or too low, would be beneficial to speak about. Certainly we see the imminent introduction of a more top-down model with monitoring by Xi Jinping via a "social credit" model in China; [1] a less advanced country cannot move at that pace, but Donald Trump's "extreme vetting" scheme is close enough to it that I imagine the Americans may be handing over many billions of dollars in patent royalties to their betters once all of the patents are published. (A logical progression probably involves first immigrants, then air travelers, gun buyers, and finally just about anyone who finds themselves with a need to work) Obviously such a scheme is well integrated, able to take on anything from a casual question to a casual grope with ease, and probably with similar effects on scoring. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Wnt, the unitizing of humans by both China and the USA is interesting as is, I might add, the credit score addiction even in the face of rampant manipulation of credit scores. This sociological/economic event is unfolding so fast, e.g.[2][3] I must agree with Herostratus that its like chasing a meteor on a bicycle and we are forced to keep our material short and anodyne...that is the only rational thing for Wikipedia to do at this stage of this sociological earthquake. Just as an aside, one of the solutions being mentioned is to separate men and women in large company workplaces, wherever possible, on the basis that would avoid potential harassment issues. That would be a disaster, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence aspect

This 2 day old article contains an allegation: "..... said in a Facebook post that she quit Friday because she was sexually harassed on the job in March. She said the person who harassed her was “disrespectful” to several staff that night." which seems to conflate "disrespectful" with sexual harassment. The venue took immediate action. And within 2 days there were these consequences:

1. A sign on the door Tuesday read: “The Needle Vinyl Tavern will be closed indefinitely. We will let you know if and when that changes.”
2. Jeremy Taggart and Jonathan Torrens, who were to host their Taggart and Torrens Podcast at the Needle on Monday, instead relocated to a south-side venue. “We are heartbroken to hear about the allegations of mistreatment of the staff at The Needle Vinyl Tavern in Edmonton,” said a post on their Twitter account. “We cannot in good conscience perform there tonight.”
3. The biweekly Edmonton music podcast Cups N Cakes, which covers the Canadian indie scene with an emphasis on the western provinces, said Monday in a Facebook post: “Cups N Cakes will no longer support The Needle in any way, shape or form. Our hearts go out to anyone affected by this. Stay strong and know that Edmonton’s music community stands beside you.”
4. Other acts who had cancelled or relocated their performances included Nuela Charles, the Red Cannons, Chron Goblin, LA Timpa, Cold Specks, Craig Cardiff, Simon Hoskyn and Dylan Ella.

So, does this event deserve a Wikipedia article and if so, how many more like it? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Re wp:RD talkpages. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see your opinions on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed.

The refdesk is amazing at providing answers, but I am concerned that it is fundamentally in conflict with core policies (WP:V) in many cases; I don't see how it can conform to Wikipedia rules without massive reform or a spin-off; I am concerned that the discussion will end with no consensus (status quo) because that's easier than continuing a controversial discussion. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no possibility of any discussion at Wikipedia closing the ref desks because there are too many participants who enjoy them. The RfC is an indication of what happens once a group of similarly minded people grows to a critical size. As Wikipedia's influence grows, external groups will be more and more motivated to attempt to dominate topics which match their interest. That's likely to be US politics due to the amount of money and dedication available, but it could be creationism or a host of other contentious topics. Such attempts have occurred, but have been rebuffed since the external groups lacked patience and coordination, so far. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There are many situations where I suspect such external influence -- the constant featuring of video game ads on the Main Page, most notably, but also the permanent opposition to any competition of Wikipedia's news aggregation with publishers or medical articles with the companies that control those search results. But of all the places to suspect such influence, the Reference Desk with its utterly heterogeneous stream of questions seems like the very last place I would suggest such a thing. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the ref desks provide an example of a group of people who are impossible to shift because they are now entrenched and can dominate any discussion about their future. I'm not commenting on the ref desks other than to observe their example. Obviously external sources are not directing them. The gamergaters presented a major challenge and with a bit more clue and organization they might have won. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) fundamentally in conflict with core policies (WP:V) in many cases; Reference desk posts are not encyclopedia articles. —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the point being made concerns the desirability of having a walled-off area where regulars can offer unsourced forum commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

What sort of attempts have there been made to change it to what you want? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does anything seem even slightly ironic to you about making that point on this particular page? Not that Jimbo's talk page is the only one -- Wikipedia is actually full of unsourced forum commentary ... it's just, usually, it's commentary about how much one or more of the other editors suck and why some kind of administrative action is needed against them. To me it seems like a pleasant change to have a page where it's unsourced commentary with the goal of developing a real answer about a real educational topic that we at least could and occasionally do write an article about. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

How would you feel about having a forum page where editors can discuss anything, and a reference desk page where editors can only discuss topics relevant to improving or understanding existing Wikipedia articles or potential ones? In the case of a discussion about existing or potential articles on the reference desk page, an explicit connection would have to be made to such Wikipedia articles or the thread could be moved to the forum page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like it [1] would basically become a forum for arguing about what could potentially become a Wikipedia article (or else, have that on its talk page). Call it [1] PAfD, a hypothetical debating club for people who want to argue about whether colonization of Saturn or neural flossing ever could or couldn't become an article, before finding more than (perhaps) one reference about it. Heh, we have a link, but it's a misnomer, points to living on moons, not my pet notion of people living on Saturn at 10-50 bars. It seems like it would be wiser to stick to the forum [2]. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify your message where you use "it", "the forum", etc.? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, annotated with [2] being the "forum page where editors can discuss anything" and [1] being the "only discuss topics...". Though [1] might also include [3] a talk page for arguing over what is allowed on [1], and [4] some administrative process or RfD where people argue over what is allowed on 3, etc. (It's all been done before by people who like enforcing/proposing Refdesk policy more than answering questions...) Wnt (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see your main point that the RD I suggested might result in discussions that should be at other places such as article talk pages, etc. The situation of the actual RD is getting more unclear to me as I think about it more. Would you happen to know what was intended for the activity of the RD when it started or what was the motivation for starting it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading something about it coming from the WP:Help desk early on. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, it may be that the Reference desk was created as a place for questions that weren't appropriate for the Help desk. It's interesting that as I look at the Help desk today there are some questions there that are not appropriate for the Help desk but appropriate for the Reference desk. If the Reference desk was closed, more people with Reference desk questions might go to the Help desk. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality redux

I don't see anything on this talk page about the proposed repeal of Net neutrality in the United States, vote to happen on December 17, 2017. I've been hearing a lot about it on the news the last few days, so dropping a link here MSN — Maile (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possibly bears mentioning here that there has recently been a substantial uptick in the number of OTRS tickets requesting that Wikipedia pulls another SOPA-style blackout. Many people out there seem to expect Wikipedia to take a stand on the issue. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest that very same thing. Every time net neutrality is threatened, we as Wikipedians must take a stand against it. If we do not, then net neutrality will die, and Wikipedia will die along with it. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, isn't this the case of the "internet bat signal" regarding which you half a decade ago promised us vigilance? Now would be a good time to ramp it back up. 185.13.106.221 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for it. The community should lead, of course. My personal views aren't that relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No Jimbo, like it or not, you're the only leader around here with any public name recognition, so if you think its best to leave it up to the community, you should get out altogether. What's best is for you to immediately ( only 3 weeks left) call for a mass demonstration of Wikipedians, including Readers, at FCC Headquarters 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C. during the Week of Dec.7-14. This is a great time to use the moral capital that yourself and the rest of Wikipedia has accumulated by not selling out/not being monetized. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

While I very much appreciate in a way your persistent calls for me to act unilaterally, I don't think it's wise. It is true, of course, that I have public name recognition and that I can rally people. But the way it works is that I should only act if the community wants me to act. If there is a community vote for a site-wide protest, then I'm absolutely ready to do what I can. But it is much more powerful if I can speak with confidence on behalf of our community, than for me, as a single influential person, to write an editorial. (Which I'm happy to do as well, my point is just: if we want to have a real impact, the community needs to lead and I need to act as the physical symbol of that by going on television and so on to be the face and voice of it on your behalf.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please consider the four possible outcomes of the worst and best that could happen if you do and don't act unilaterally to open the necessary RFC, announce it to the appropriate village pumps, WP:CD, mailing lists, IRC, and movement leaders in the Foundation and chapters, and Wikipedians known personally to you who would be harmed if network neutrality ended (i.e., most of them in the U.S.) My estimate is that if you personally take initiative to lead, the chance of success is in the mid 90s percent, but if you don't it's probably below 50% and possibly below 35%. If you say, "yes, this is what I want and the community should do it for me," then you need to be very explicit about that or (1) people won't do it for you, (2) other people won't believe it's actually what you want, and (3) it will happen slower than if people see you took initiative. 136.148.221.174 (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This is another existential event, I hope you know. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One good argument for you now is that the Dark web renders most of the alleged benefits from this change irrelevant. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with JW above that unilateral action is a bad idea. Open up an RFC if you feel strongly about the issue. I personally don't believe that the Trump administration is manipulable by public pleas — they'll always do the wrong thing, regardless. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think JW should act unilaterally, but just anyone who feels strongly should, because you believe it's a waste of time? Would a blackout-scale action influence Congress (leaving Trump out of it for the time being)? The FCC is the target of our action, and as an independent commission is the U.S. Executive influential over it at all, relative to the sway Congress holds over its budget, agenda, appointment schedule, and regulatory guidance? Trump and his cronies are buffoons who have no idea how to hang on to their base, let alone manipulate telecoms policy that they've already flubbed. 136.148.221.174 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedians can and should try to create a clearinghouse of neutrality violations. Most likely this can be a plain article, provided we can brush aside the people who will claim it is a "coatrack" for us to pull together all the cases we can find. Let's bear in mind that the worst of net neutrality violation that we can expect is direct censorship -- companies trying to ban us from accessing streaming sites, file sharing software, interlibrary loan sites like Sci-Hub and so forth, until at last they reach the level of political censorship they prefer. But that puts them in a position like China five years ago, where they can't do that effectively until they have to block or severely slow privacy options like the Tor browser and virtual private network software, things which are really very practical options and not at all difficult for users to implement. However, unlike China it is not clear that they have a unified central committee with sufficient power, resolve, and coordination to orchestrate the change, particularly if people on Wikipedia are tracking every trial balloon they float in that direction and helping thereby to orchestrate the inevitable resistance. Wikipedia can also work as a social network to get a bunch of Tor nodes online and try to walk every single editor through the process of getting Tor installed and running (not that they really need any hand-holding, the thing is just as easy as Firefox to install, but we can convince users it's worth doing). Remember - if we can gnaw away at the reward the companies are seeking, we can sap their motivation to even get started! Wnt (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, how can you be revolted by Kohs as a person but when his company tries to take down your website by buying off the government and lying about it you want the community to lead? The community would prefer that you do what you can to save it's existence. We know you don't prefer a return to the commercial model under strict government censorship. Your role as our figurehead requires you to take measured responses to genuine existential threats. 83.137.1.196 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for founding Wikipedia. It's now one of the most used sights in the WORLD. Here’s a cute little kitten! I hope you’re a cat person or you like cats...

BabyPugsAreCool (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

"There’s Now a Dark Web Version of Wikipedia"

Albeit an unofficial one, as reported here on Motherboard today. Although it has been suggested in the past that Wikipedia should have a .onion version, critics have argued that a high traffic top ten in the world website such as Wikipedia could never serve a large number of users over Tor (anonymity network) simultaneously. The current service is experimental and unofficial, and the link is in this tweet for anyone who is interested. When I tried to use it, the site produced a HTTPS certificate error which had to be overridden before it would work properly. Personally, I don't think that this method offers many significant advantages over accessing Wikipedia directly via Tor. It wouldn't solve problems for users in countries such as Turkey, as Wikipedia bans editing from known Tor exit nodes. A person can still read pages over Tor, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a roundabout way of accessing Wikipedia proper -- for example, trying to log in gets a notice that your particular Tor exit nodes' IP address is blocked, which was definitely not going to be mirrored. The response is reasonably fast - Tor carries a bit of a burden, and once it seemed to jam up on me, but in general the main problem was the certificates, which he presumably didn't want to spend money to register given it was only a few days experiment (note there is one for the main landing page, one for en.wikipedia, and one for the image server ... at least) There is a conceptual advantage in that one particular person holds the .onion address secret key and so the DNS enforcers don't get a say over what you connect to. But that's only if you trust the .onion holder and you also trust he is better at making sure he's not being hit by a man in the middle than you are, I think.

In any case, the site is at least technically an infringement on the Wikipedia trademark, and more to the point, Wikipedia shouldn't be leaving it to see if some guy like this manages to take de facto control of its ".onion identity". (Note that knowing who put up this .onion link is a gift you can't count on with the next one!) Just go ahead and make a site yourself, even if it is not recommended for general use, so that you can publicize it enough that someone else can't beat you to the punch permanently. While it may seem unlikely right now that Wikipedia will be given the Daily Stormer treatment by the DNS registrars reveling in newfound power, over time it is possible their demands will ratchet up to the point where you need to have this identity, and when it does, it is best that it is already firmly established and reliable and under your control. "The Internet is the TV of the '20s -- The Dark Web is the Internet of the '20s" -- believe it. Wnt (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)