User talk:Jimbo Wales

Complicated situation in Macedonia and Wiki

Hi Jimbo, today I observed Balkan news and find maybe interesting matter for Wiki users/admins. relating to situation in Macedonia [1], namely Macedonian Parliament will vote for Constitutional amendments with two-thirds majority. What was stunning for me is that despite of the unanimous call of US and EU leaders it seams that Members of Macedonian Parliament will probably not reach 80 votes necessary for passage of amendments and the number of them is exactly as predicted by user Operahome two weeks ago, i.e. aprox. 75 Members of Macedonian Parliament. Looks Operahome arguments were relevant after all.Алфа БК (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Predictions of the future are seldom relevant for Wikipedia, however insightful they may be. It is not for us to speculate or try to influence events, it is for us to record what reliable sources have said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo for your prompt answer. I agree with your opinion completely. Still, under circumstances, I would strongly recommend that someone create BLP for I.J., since it appears to be crucially relevant person who actually decisively influence the political situation in Macedonia and by saying that I mean broader European and US affairs in Balkans. Sometimes, as you may agree, absence of any action can influence (historical) events too.Алфа БК (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm, change of Constitution will go in 3 phases. First, decision to change Constitution with two-thirds majority, than vote for amendments with the simple majority, then third phase is final adoption of amendments again with two-thirds majority. As I was informed minutes ago Parliament voted with two-thirds majority, and this is a major victory for prime-minister Zoran Zaev. But, as was explained 2 weeks ago by prof. I.J. or his assistant here ( I assume user:Operahome) there is a long way to an end the process of Constitutional change because finally the President of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov will never sign the adopted of amendments, and again agreement between Macedonia and Greece will not enter into force..178.223.41.197 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes there are three steps, and the third is an adoption of amendments with 2/3 majority, with 80 or perhaps 81 vote. If its needed 81 vote, than they will have to vote with a different majority on the final adoption and that would be apparent blatant embarrassment, because either they were wrong first time when voted with 80, or second time (81) i.e. or both times with only 80 lawmakers majority.Алфа БК (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I will not give further comments on victory of Zaev. It was reached with 80 Members of Parliament and all international community is celebrating that. When I spoke with prof. I.J. who actually participated in writing / creating of the first Macedonian Constitution he told me that unlike some other Constitutions, Macedonian constitutional procedures requires NOT 80, but 81 votes of the all lawmakers! Than I found similar information on several places including Macedonian Wikipedia https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Собрание_на_Република_Македонија were they use text from Rules and procedures: "двотретинско или квалификувано значи дека за одреден закон е потребно позитивно да се изјаснат две третини од вкупниот број пратеници во Собранието. Ова значи дека законот е донесен кога за неговото донесување гласале 81 пратеници.", that mean 81 Members of Parliament. Now I really don't know. But I noticed that in previous discussion user Operahome uses "81 MP's"[2]. Is it possible that lawmakers, some of them students of Janev didn't knew what was legal meaning of term: two-thirds majority. If its mean 81 vote, than Zaev has lost the procedure. I then consulted with two more teachers of Constitutional Law from Macedonia and surprisingly they were "not sure" about majority!! I am puzzled!Алфа БК (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Our article supermajority assumes that precisely two-thirds will work in most parliaments. The Macedonian article is uncited. However, searching for articles that use "81" I find [3] and [4]. But the AP article says it was passed by 69 votes last summer -- the 81 applied to removing president Ivanov, if he wouldn't ratify the bill. The Guardian article says a "constitutional amendment" passed by 80 votes, a bare 2/3 majority. It is conceivable that a different standard applies for amending the constitution vs removing the president? Wnt (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear Wnt, same rule applies for removing the president Ivanov, and Zaev one month ago had sent threats to Macedonian president, and Ivanov have replied to Zaev: "try it"!. As for 2/3 majority, if prof. Игор Јанев (prohibited person I.J. here on Eng. wiki) contacted oppositional block or VMRO-DPMNE or vice versa, they (VMRO) will not later than on Monday react to that fact, when (or before) it is expected US State Department envoy M. Palmer to arrive in Macedonia and try to calm present war-like situation. As for The Guardian, I would conclude that it is not reliable source, because even professors of Constitutional law cannot unanimously interpret what represent 2/3 majority under Constitutional order in Macedonia. Now you may ask yourself "What kind of country is Macedonia" if no academic authority can interpret what legally represent 2/3 majority under Macedonian Constitution.Алфа БК (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now a couple minutes ago from pro-VMRO-DPMNE portal "Infomax" there is a first unofficial reaction by the VMRO that states "Decision was null and void" and have "no legal effect" [5]. Comment was given by a Constitutional law professor at State University in Skopje Tanja Karakamisheva, chief advisor to the Hristijan Mickoski president of the party VMRO-DPMNE. That is certainly more relevant statement than the statement by prof. Игор Јанев (related here at Wiki to user:Operahome), who is currently professor of International law and basically work most of the time in Belgrade (Serbia). Maybe, one should not take these statement(s) too seriously because prof. T. Karakamisheva is a college of prof. I. Janev, who is well-known extreme nationalist and probably bias. (By saying that, it does not mean that I suggest that he is not expert on Constitutional Law or International law.)Алфа БК (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a useful source, in that it shows text, I assume from the constitution ... with a few iterations of searching I was able to get to the plaintext "Одлуката за пристапување кон измена на Уставот, Собранието ја донесува со двотретинско мнозинство гласови од вкупниот број пратеници." That's all Greek to me (sorry, couldn't help myself!) but presumably it sheds light on the issue. (the above links were an experiment, but it appears Wiktionary is very incomplete where Macedonian is concerned, sorry) Note though that 117 of the 120 apparently voted, so this is also a question about how the abstentions (?) are counted. I still say they should have called it Paeonia or Macedonia Salutaris ;) Wnt (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Every nation has a right to choose and right on opinion, even a wrong one, and no one has an exclusivity on the interpretation of History, and neither wrongful interpretation of history affect any international right of Greece. Take the present new description in the areement "North" as a "Republic of North Macedonia", and that even doesn't solve any aspect of historical so called "dispute" with Greece. So present addition to the state name "North" will do exactly nothing explanatory even if Greece had legitimate concerns, but in fact Greece don't have any such concerns. If even finalized in Greek parliament agreement will not last long. You can not with international agreement regulate how people feel and think, their nationality, language, identity, because its impossible and impermissible to regulate with the international treaty national identity as such.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wnt, thanks for your understanding and patience. As for results were: abstentions=0, against=0, yes=80, and total=117, believe me no one understand that mathematics or logic, except some Macedonians and perhaps especially those Macedonians from the ruling party SDSM. Regards!Алфа БК (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So do you know who the missing three people are? How do they describe their votes and their current status within the assembly? For example, is there some way to not abstain but just plain not vote available? (I mean, if abstaining is equivalent to "no", maybe not-abstaining is equivalent to "yes"???) Wnt (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wnt, "abstention" under Mac. Const. order means not voting or not present and not voting, and its not equivalent to "yes" or "no". Thanks for asking.178.223.41.197 (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Great job, Wnt, even Алфа БК didn't saw monitor in the Parliament. Thanks!178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

That Agreement violates basic Human Rights, by restricting Freedoms of speech and opinion, including historical and social science, archeology and broad areas of media and all levels of "education", where no one should have "different opinion" and use term "Macedonia" in any "official communication", since all "Hellenic heritage" belongs "exclusively" (under agreement) to Greece. For instance all National institutions such as Parliament and Supreme Court (more than 100 institutions) including the name VMRO will have to be changed. Or History text books, even by private editors, will have to be written and studied again, or further there will be certain restrictions on what you can say on public or private media (TV, etc.). And, besides Human Rights restrictions contained in that agreement, contrary to the modern international standards, stipulates that final approval of Macedonian Constitutional change will rest on foreign parliament! i.e. Greek one, because they will act as a last superior instance (like sort of Superior Parliament) where all amendments related to the agreement and Constitution will have to be approved! The question is if Macedonian Parliament even make such changes to its Constitution, that even violate international standards, and the Government in Greece fall/change or the Parliament in Greece do not finally approve Agreement (in their Parliament), what will happened with Macedonian system, because its not easy if even possible to undone Constitutional changes? This changes itself are in violation of international Human Rights standards, and especially its apparent by direct restricting of Media, Education and Culture, meaning controlling and policing them by government and even (joint) Greek Commissions, and by degrading democracy Macedonia will stil not be ready for EU admission (standards).178.223.41.197 (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

One of obligation in the agreement is for Macedonia to inform all UN member nations on the new state name Republic of North Macedonia, and by doing so delegitimate recognition of present Constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. If Macedonia pass all amendments and delegitimate itself in UN, and than nothing pass in Greece Parliament, Macedonia will still remain delegitimized with new name, and it cannot be undone. Not in a short period.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Later, the government corrected statement and said in media that MP's who voted against were 39 (against=39) and with yes =80, and that still doesn't work since 39+80 is 119, and it is not 117 total! But since international community already congratulated victory to Zaev, what can I say? Welcome to Macedonian Parliament! This is the place on the planet Earth where everything is possible.Алфа БК (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

At photo here https://mia.mk/2018/10/parliament-endorses-decision-to-initiate-constitutional-revision/?lang=en you see that oppositional MPs were not on their seats, but were staying beside the wall and boycotting the vote, so there were no even one voting AGAINST! To say 39 is a hoax.178.223.32.253 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I read that all members of VMRO, except 7 (and plus one from the Socijalist party) where not in the Macedonian Parliament, but government still reported that 39 voted against[6][7]. And still 39+80 = 119, not total=117. VMRO said that 8 Members of Parliament were bribed with approximately 1 milion US dollars from Greeks shadow funds for secret ops. where total sum reached 50 milion. I also learned from a person close to well informed people that in all what happened there in Macedonia VMRO-DPMNE was also perhaps not innocent, and that for example one Member of Parliament (VMRO) who was in jail by SDSM was released from the prison (by SDSM) only for a purpose to vote Yes, and than he suddenly survived deadly hart attack (Mr. MP Krsto Mukoski) [8] and after some medical help in Skopje hospital (urgent div.), sent back to Parliament to vote: Yes. To conclude this boring discussion about Macedonia, in all that developments in Macedonia, there were no good or bad people. Basically they (regardless VMRO or SDSM or anyone else) all are bad, but like in life everywhere else some are worse than the others. So personally I don't feel sorry for anyone. God help them.Алфа БК (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Алфа БК, you may believe it or not, its up to you! MP Krsto Mukoski was one of the three MPs all from VMRO, arrested on 27 of april last year and placed for some period in jail by court, but their status as a Member of Parliament was, surprisingly, not removed! And in Friday 19. Oct. all three MPs were promised freedom by a Secret Police (UBK) if they vote YES for Constitutional change. After they were released from the jail(Mukoski was released in Friday, and other two previous day(s)) , all three MPs have voted in the Parliament, to create 80 votes.178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be stupid to engage myself (any)more in discussion here about Macedonian problems. Thank you Wnt, Jimbo and all of you who followed this debate and I could say idiotic stuff and show some interest in this generally stupid issue. All for all of you who finished elementary school, I guess you could apply to become a Head of Mathematics Department at Skopje University in Macedonia. Or even to be lawmaker(s) in Macedonian Parliament under condition previously to learn Macedonian language. As for Russia, I just saw news that they have refused to recognize decision of Macedonian Parliament [9] and will continue to call country Republic of Macedonia. Thanks guys!Алфа БК (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There are/were many procedural issues even when starting Constitutional procedure. According to art. 52 of the Constitution, bill previously had to be pub. in Official Gazette of R. Macedonia, and that could not happened because it was not signed by the President. Than, According general principles enshrined in the art. 51. of Constitution, Int. agreement must be in accordance with Constitution. Namely, system in Macedonia is based od so called "dual theory" (describing relation between Int. and Const. law, see about that theory in Wiki, same is in US and Germany). So, shortly, there were many issues about even the beginning of the Constitutional procedures of amending highest legal act.91.150.96.228 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just in case, Any attempt to remove the President of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov will only lead to the arrest of Prime Minster Zoran Zaev.178.223.41.197 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, they never resolve such things in Parliament, but rather old fashion way were someone has to die. And keep in mind that police in Macedonia is heavily armed and stronger than the army. As for his advisor from Belgrade, this people always somehow survive, and that may not be the case for their commanders-in-chief.

178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

:I would not bet on the police or secret police in case of war against the Army. Half of hour before 22.20 local time when voting took place, police that was providing security left the building of Parliament, and if they were late only 10 minutes from the moment of voting (22.20 local time + 10), like around 22.35 local time, its unclear what would happened.178.223.32.253 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Today Mukoski is free MP and his debts were paid by a State, around 10 milion dinars or 165 000 EU[10].178.223.37.146 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

see http://mn.mk/aktuelno/15429-Mnozinstvo-potrebno-za-donesuvanje-na-zakoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.247.65 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! And according to Macedonian Constitution [11] all contracts and agreements "must be in accordance with the Constitution", International Law standards, including International jus cogens norms and principles! (meaning not contrary to Constitution, as it is case with that act), so in the process of contracting and approval of that Agreement, there where flagrant Constitutional violations and breaches, both on procedural and material substantive level, beginning from the moment of the signing of the Agreement by two ministers (in Prespa).178.223.41.197 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• In addition, see article of Macedonian Constitution where it is provided that such political agreements with other countries can be signed and concluded only by the President of Republic of Macedonia, and that is not the case now (Agreement was signed and concluded by the Minister of Foreign affairs, not the President)!178.223.41.197 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

According art. 119. of Macedonian Constitution its crime. MFA was not entitled to do so. (Меѓународните договори во името на Република Македонија ги склучува претседателот на Република Македонија.)178.223.37.146 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How we got here? And where is the link to Wiki? 10 years ago 99% of Macedonians were pro-EU and pro-Western, and in 2004. US had recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia. Today, situation is 180 degrees opposite and more than 90% of ethnic Macedonians are Anti-western and Anti-NATO. Why? The reason for that is the speeding of US to bring the country in NATO and attempt to forcefully change the identity of nation, and that was seen in Macedonia as siding with Greece. As for Wiki, admins here apparently pissed off I.J. who had some influence in Macedonian opposition and on crucial politicians[12], where he explained games over his name as some political agenda.109.93.70.99 (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If Agreement of Prespa fails in Greece Parliament, Macedonia cannot restore back some Constitutional changes because of the Robert Badinter principle of "double majority" that requires also "majority given by ethic group" such as ethnic Albanians to approve changes in "ethnic sensitive Law(s)" and Constitution, so for Macedonia it is "one way process" for Constitutional changes with irrecoverable damage. That's makes political situation even worse. As for prof. I.J. his contribution to the legal theory is that he apparently discovered principle that "no one can externally regulate national identity", by an Int. agreement or a resolution, such as UNSC Res. 817 (1993). I agree with it.91.150.96.228 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Google is paying PR companies to write articles about their employees

Jimbo, I came across this edit where an editor is declaring their conflict of interest. They are claiming to be hired by Google to write an article about a Google employee. What do you think of this? Peacock (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many things that can be said about this, but I've got nothing very original.

• First we should thank User:A+o Kommunikation for following our rules and declaring their paid editor status. Actually they didn't do this formally in the correct way, but in substance they did.
• Of course the user name is against policy since it is the name of a company.
• Perhaps I'm just a worry-wort, but how do we really know that they represent Google? Maybe they are just trying to embarrass Google. (Is this an original thought?)
• After giving the draft a quick read:
  • The subject looks to be at least borderline notable
  • The refs look real and there are enough of them, but are not top quality (e.g. not the NY Times)
  • the PR firm seems to be trying not to write in a PR style, but ultimately fails, e.g. "Ana has a penchant for fashion and the arts and is active in supporting these industries." (why not just give some specific details that would tell the reader what they are talking about?) and the next sentence "Ana has a history of supporting STEM education for young girls." (same criticism) . "Ana", of course, should be replaced by her last name "Corrales"

• They should not have written "If we should adjust or change something in the draft, please let us know" as it implies article ownership. See [13]
• I suppose @PCock: is really interested in whether Google should be doing this. Our rules apply to everybody, so it's difficult to single out Google. OTOH, their size and influence and donations to WMF do raise some interesting questions - but I'll let others address those. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's strange they can't afford someone who writes decent English! Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not to say that the article is well written, but the language is better than in the usual article written by a PR firm. My theory on why PR firms can't write a good article is that they have to train themselves to ignore the usual standards to satisfy their clients. They just lose the ability to write well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is it too much to ask for paid editors not to use bold in section headers, and to create reference sections? I'm exceedingly skeptical that "Google LLC" did anything (as Google is not an LLC), though it's very likely their PR agency doing the work. The current version is drowning in promotional language to the point that I can't easily evaluate notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be right on the notability issue. My evaluation above was based on a quick read. Bolding in section headers is just a newby mistake however. This really is a better article than 95% of those I've seen written by a PR firm. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, our article does say "Google LLC". Google was "Inc." before Sep 2017 but was restructured into an LLC. Regards SoWhy 15:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  That is stupid and should be illegal, but I stand corrected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I remain strongly opposed to paid editing of this type and think that accounts like this should be banned on sight and that the PR firms who do this should be pariahs in their industry for supporting what is basically a fundamentally corrupt practice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of what went down in the paid editing RFC, and like I said back then, we should discourage paid editing of any sort as monetary gain should not be the motivation for contributing to Wikipedia (too many COI and NPOV issues). Although that's just my opinion, I'm sure plenty will agree with my sentiments.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jimmy and @Mythdon: that this type of article should be against our rules. But currently it is not. In fact it is one of the better written of the drafts submitted by PR firms. It was submitted as a draft - not as an article - and the paid status of the editor was revealed. I'm almost certain that if this draft were ever submitted to an administrator or ArbCom it would not be deleted by them, and the editor would only receive a mild reprimand and encouragement to learn our rules about user names, COI, WP:NOADS, etc.

Probably the best statement IMHO that is against this type of editing is WP:Deceptive advertising (an essay that I mostly wrote). Following standard definitions and the US FTC rules, the draft would almost certainly be violating US laws if it were to be placed as an article.

The real problem, however, is that admins and the ArbCom do not enforce our rules against paid editing. One egregious example of this was a private case I submitted to ArbCom in July. An administrator had added PR text to the article about his employer. The text was sourced to a Press Release (I doubt a footnote would meet the FTC's disclosure requirements, nor WP:PAID). The reason the case was private was that I discovered the admin's identity on sources he had posted off-Wiki, one of which was linked to on-Wiki. ArbCom decided that the case was not paid editing, and that the admin did not even need to declare a COI. Not much else was explained to me about their decision. The admin did finally declare a COI a week ago, three months after I filed the case. If that's the type of enforcement we get, it's no wonder we are swamped with paid-for garbage articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This editor may be good at "women encouragement" for all I know, but apparently was unaware of past work on the ROLI article, instead making only a direct HTML link to the company site when saying Draft:Ana Corrales was "an advisor to Roli, a company inventing new tools that extend the joy of music-making to everyone." That article has quite a complete product list... Wnt (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiTribune restructures around community following editorial exodus

"WikiTribune, the ambitious community-driven newsbrand backed by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, has restructured after confirming to The Drum the departure of its original 13 journalists. The title’s co-founder, Orit Kopel, has said that it will extend its pilot period while it hunts for a more 'community oriented' editorial team that will better work with contributors."[14]

I wouldn't read too much into this. Startups often make these sort of corrections as they discover what works and what doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But did the 13 journalists "depart" from the company or did Wales lay 12 of them off (with the exception being Peter Bale, who left this past April)? IntoThinAir (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what you're asking here. I laid them off, and they departed. And the number isn't really correct, as a few had moved on, some were freelance/contractors, etc. This letter explains it all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It just seemed like one source was saying they "departed", implying that they left voluntarily/quit, while the other source was saying that they were fired, and I thought that that was a contradiction, but never mind. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

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

"What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[15][16]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)