User talk:Jimbo Wales

I'm interested in bringing this to wide attention in the community

This tweet leads you to information about an upcoming vote in the European Parliament which is very important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo Wales why are they choosing to police this now?--5 albert square (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Pressure from the as-ever overreaching copyright lobby, I would say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

[ec]

• European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.
• Updated position paper: Article 13 remains a terrible idea and needs to be deleted
• Copyright wars are damaging the health of the internet
• Article 13 could "destroy the internet as we know it": What is it, why is it controversial and what will it mean for memes?
• EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line
• European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
• Text of the proposal: English Other languages and formats

Especially troubling for Wikipedia is the proposed link tax which allows large media corporations to charge Wikipedia licensing fees for posting links through a new type of copyright. It would also require that we install software (presumably written by the copyright owners) to monitor edits and censor them if the computer program detects copyrighted content. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that's going outwith what can be policed. I can't see it being passed because I would imagine that is going to be near enough impossible for websites to police especially the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc. It's going to present a nightmare for the Commons admins!--5 albert square (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am being told that it is very likely to pass unless a lot of noise is made quite quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright monopsonists. Europeans click here: https://saveyourinternet.eu EllenCT (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This really couldn't be more urgent as far as WP is concerned. Let's just consider the filtering proposal. Under this rule:

• Sites that make material available to the public are required to filter according to rightsholder-supplied lists of copyrighted content

• Even if they do filter, they are still liable if infringing material is uploaded and made available

• If you believe that you have been unfairly blocked, your only remedy is to contest the block with the host, who is under no obligation to consider your petition

• There are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright on material -- I could upload all of Wikipedia to a Wordpress blocklist and no one could quote Wikipedia until Wordpress could be convinced to remove my claims over all that text, and Wikimedia and the individual contributors would have no basis to punish me for my copyfraud

• There was a counterproposal that is MUCH more reasonable and solves the rightsholders' stated problem: they claim that they are unable to convince platforms to remove infringing material when the copyright rests with the creator, not the publisher (e.g. Tor Books can't get Amazon to remove infringing copies of my books because I'm the rightsholder, not them); under this counterproposal, publishers would have standing to seek removal unless creators specifically objected to it

• There is a notional exception for Wikipedia that carves out nonprofit, freely available collaborative encyclopedias. This does get WP a lot of latitude, but Article 13 still has grossly adverse effects on WP's downstream users -- anyone who mirrors or quotes WP relies on the safe harbours that Article 13 removes. Think also of all the material on EU hosts that is linked to from Wikipedia References sections -- all of that could disappear through fraud or sloppiness, making the whole project (and the whole internet) more brittle

We have until June 20 before the committee votes, and then it will go to plenary, either during July 4 week or in late September (depending on whether it makes it in before the summer recess). I and EFF am really interested in helping to organise a European online blackout to contact MEPs on this, and we need an anchor. If EU Wikipedia sites blacked out for a day to alert Europeans to this foolishness in our Parliament, it would be enormously powerful and could stem the tide. Doctorow (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I proposed WP:VPPR#Banner in EU countries explaining dangerous European Parliament copyright proposal and linking to SaveYourInternet.eu for site-wide banners. EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The blackout is necessary, but we need to have a solid article to direct readers to. I am no expert on the EU and some people here seem quite knowledgeable, so could you please get something started, especially in regard to basic context of what article 13 is, why the "revision", how much this kind of EU process actually means to member states, whether any of these claims would be recognized via copyright treaties anywhere else, etc. etc. etc.? We need a Feature Article on this in two weeks and at the moment I don't know how to write a stub on it. Wnt (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It's fairly difficult to find "neutral" sources here, and I'm not even sure how the EU makes legislation. Hopefully the magic of collaboration will improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Controlling and suppressing what could be said and/or published, by a few low IQ corrupt, and overreaching legislators, is tyranny, and is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Look at Tommy Robinson's scandal in the UK, as one example. The optics and ethics are extremely bad. Explorium (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reality and negativity coincide, imo, on this and other similar attacks by establishment control freaks. Sheep get fleeced, and I see nothing but an enormous herd of sheep in Europe these days surrounded by professional political wolves and smooth talking, self serving NGOs. I'd suggest trying to get 1,000 people physically out to a protest somewhere and if/when, imo, you can't do that, just chalk this one up as another loss to reality. When it comes to what actually could be done, about this, absolutely nothing; not enough time. To fight off future attacks, you (someone) need(s) to start up a new political party. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: "an enormous herd of sheep [...] surrounded by professional political wolves and smooth talking, self serving NGOs", as I have said before, I am convinced that the ability of politicians and political organizations to deceive us far exceeds our ability to detect deception. To that I would add that the vast majority of people thunk that they are somehow immune, that the politicians on their side are pure and good, and that only those on the other side are deceived. And Wikipedia suffers because of this fundamental fallacy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You can help!

Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market needs to be expanded. Please jump in an expand the article. I am offering double the usual pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a WMF dictatorship

A proposal for a banner has been snowed under an instant blizzard of Oppose votes that turned up after it was listed in the centralized discussion index. But what all the proponents agree is they need some lawyer or somebody to figure out what the proposal means, while even the opponents sometimes say WMF can just do it. Maybe it's time for WMF to just do it. I mean, if the proposal goes through, they're going to have to hack away half the contributing users, and they won't be doing that by democracy. Either that or install a passel of EU-mandated AI censorware keeping people from citing sources, and that won't be done by democracy either, I can assure you. Democracy is vanishing so rapidly on a worldwide basis it isn't even clear that it has a future as a philosophy. At least if WMF took dictatorial action to preserve a human right rather than the other alternative, it wouldn't be wrong. Wnt (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way, now we have a list of everyone who needs a teachable moment. There is no deadline. If the copyright law changes go through, then Wikisource could be in trouble.

Hey, Jimbo, there's a board meeting coming up. Why not ask the board and staff (in that order) for authority to place the banner on all EU projects? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: please see ^ EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think dictatorship is ever the answer. The answer is broad education. I think we need to make sure that Cory Doctorow's statement up above is given very wide distribution within the community. With awareness of the seriousness of the issue, I am confident that the right answer (whatever that may be) will follow quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, if you were to vocally ask for help on the Foundation and chapters' mailing lists, for example, I'm sure you would have no problem garnering the necessary support. But since it should be cross-language, isn't the Board the preferred source of authority? EllenCT (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

US Distribution of 2016 Cable Royalty Funds

@Jimbo Wales and Doctorow: here; please see this Federal Register announcement and its corresponding docket. If you really believe in free culture, then why not start a petition drive to provide some of the royalty distribution to Wikipedians, open source software creators, and other authors of free works who make cable television more than it would otherwise be? EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Because that doesn't make any sense at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there part(s) you don't understand, or do you disagree that distributing royalties to those who chose to work for free on projects which improved the commercial content for which royalties were collected will not improve incentives for free content creation? EllenCT (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well we are doing it for free now. I doubt it would make any real substantive difference to the quality of editing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This is one of those bigger picture issues, matching rewards to effort; to take a stand and refusing, for once, to let the volunteers go uncompensated on principle. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely demand money for working for free. What do they think - that we are working for free without expecting to get paid for it? Outrageous! --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's record low approval, dishonesty, indictments, and resignations

@Slatersteven: you asked me for proof that Donald Trump editors act in concert to keep all four of his most embarrassing presidential records from the introduction of his article.

Here you are.

One of those records alone as the worst out of 45 presidents would be profoundly notable and clearly noteworthy for including in the introduction for any US President when they are such outliers. But all four? Exponentially less likely to be omitted by any responsible commitment to accuracy.

This, Jimbo, is why you must overcome your revulsion to acting under emotion, and seize the brass ring of the great leaders. Whether it be for a banner or a normal article introduction with normal standards of noteworthiness, if your leadership is lacking then the encyclopedia, by definition, suffers your neglect. EllenCT (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Recall Jimbo has been insulted, even off-site, when he tried to shepherd articles to fair coverage. More below. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As you will see from many of the replies the issue is often that these are not in fact true. For a start there is not a record number of indictments made against his administration. Also the question you also was "included in the introduction", not the article.Slatersteven (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Which presidential administration has had more criminal indictments than Trump's? EllenCT (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

13 federal employees were convicted under the Clinton administration, how many under Trump?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been 17 indicted and plea-bargaining Trump administration officials in his first year and a half. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Have there (ohh and indicted and "pleas bargained" are not the same thing) CONVICTIONS: 4 (Papadopoulos, Flynn, Pinedo, Gates) INDICTED: 1 (as far as I can find, Paul Manafort), So who did I miss?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I will add that many of the edds who opposed this (and this [[1]] mare not exactly pro Trump. If they are I suggest you provide evidence of their making edits to make Trump look good. Ohh and as one other user pointed out, we have not done this before when any other serving (or living) politician (of any nation) has achieved one (or more) of these milestones.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Jimbo has noted he avoids Trump issues and can't respond: Remember, when Jimbo has tried to shepherd other articles daily into fair coverage per wp:RS reliable sources, then the progress was slow, and opponents even posted false insults onto other websites, increasing the danger that Wikipedia's reputation would be scarred with outsiders believing contrived insults as if Wikipedia were slanted by management (not). Meanwhile, the U.S. news media, echoed by the foreign press, have given intense coverage to Trump issues, whether good or bad, and hence numerous WP articles link those sources to paint a detailed coverage of Trump's low opinion polls but also praise for his protection of war memorials or cemetery monuments which various protestors have attacked, while majority polls have confirmed Americans want gravesite memorials protected. While some WP articles might be slanted, the information is being linked in hundreds of related articles. Also, remember the public was not deceived by WP pages so much, but by thousands of faked ads posted on social media, as paid by propaganda groups, and major websites have reformed their advert policies to deter fake spam from influencing government events: "Fool us a million times, shame on you; fool us million+1 shame on us". As I noted before, the U.S. founding fathers intended the Presidential runner-up to be Vice President, head the Senate, break tie votes, and replace the President upon impeachment and removal. More needs to be linked in WP as to how a more popular runner-up for U.S. president no longer becomes vice president. People need to know the original genius design of the top U.S. election was ruined. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's then do a few trial RFC and polls on a similar hot button Trump-related topics. We first do an RFC where everyone is allowed to participate. And then we do a poll where we ask the same question, but we select the people randomly from the pool of editors who did not take part in the RFC. That should give us some indication of overrepresentation of Trump supporters in RFCs. Count Iblis (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)