User talk:Guy Macon

A Wikipedia Content Dispute.

Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page. Please Click here to start a new topic. Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to. I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments. If you find this page on any site other than en.wikipedia.org you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that I have no affiliation with or control of mirror websites. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon.

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Only 993158723 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993158723 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article --Guy Macon

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App.

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia

• "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon

Another chart

Page views for this talk page over the last year
Detailed traffic statistics

--Guy Macon

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
--Guy Macon

Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

Updated essay: see new "2016-2017 update" information near the bottom.

User:Guy Macon/Just because you have some money, that doesn't mean that you have to spend it.

--Guy Macon

The most important^{[Citation Needed]} page on Wikipedia

User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house‎ --Guy Macon

"...It looks like Wikipedia is really pulling out all the stops in their latest appeal to their users..."

Donations Needed: Wikipedia Has Posted An Appeal Asking For One Night Of Physical Intimacy From Each User --Guy Macon

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence

"The Revolution's main adversaries were the patriots and the people from Braveheart," said speaker Tim Capodice, who has edited hundreds of Wikipedia entries on subjects as diverse as Euclidian geometry and Ratfucking. "The patriots, being a rag-tag group of misfits, almost lost on several occasions. But after a string of military antics and a convoluted scheme involving chicken feathers and an inflatable woman, the British were eventually defeated despite a last-minute surge, by a score of 89–87."[1]
--Guy Macon

Wikipedia: DNA edition

• Startup packs all 16GB of Wikipedia onto DNA strands to demonstrate new storage tech --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

13 years

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.

Comments from the phabricator page:

• "This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."
• "There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."
• The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
• "So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Captcha

Hi Guy, thank you for raising the captcha issue. I had been aware that there was a problem, what I hadn't realised was just how long the Foundation have known about it and done nothing. It's a really important issue - until it is fixed the "Encyclopaedia anyone can edit" claim rings rather hollow. My sister is a senior executive at a major educational organisation which has a blind board member. Anything they do to support him in his role, they do for any of their staff and students who need it. Why? well, of course they wish to avoid legal problems, and they wish to attract the very best, regardless of disability, but it's also a matter of behaving with basic decency. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Raystorm's response here. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Have

asked folks from WMF Finance dept. to answer your queries, Let's see ..... ∯WBG^converse 09:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Links: [2][3] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Have emailed them too at the same time, asking them (or someone else, who is in charge of the affairs) to kindly attend the queries.

So far, no reply. ∯WBG^converse 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Have replied over email. Since there's absolutely nothing, which can be rationally expected to be minimally private information and I'm (thus) copy-pasting the reply for your convenience:-

Hello Winged Blades of Godric and <redacted> (CC'd),

Thanks for your message. Our practice is to provide information about the Foundation’s budget and the work that is being funded at our Annual Plan pages and Medium-term plan pages, which is the most important work informing expenditures. You can find information about previous years and see how the budget has changed over time. I have linked to those and additional pages, below.

The information specifically referenced in the thread that you linked to (GuyMacon's questions) was shared with the Audit Committee and the Board at the time the expenses were incurred, in line with our procedures for governance and reporting. You can view board meeting minutes and board meeting materials on meta.

We have also been pointed to this discussion about the possibility of 10 followup questions. Keeping in mind our ethical, legal, and time limitations, we would be interested in hearing a little bit more about what had you in mind.

Best,

James

Links:

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan  

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_reports/Financial/Audits/2017-2018_-_frequently_asked_questions

CC:-Kudpung. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please send James the following reply, saying it is from me:

START OF PROPOSED EMAIL FROM GUY MACON

I have searched your email to Winged Blades of Godric dated [PLEASE INSERT EXACT DATE AND TIME] and titled [PLEASE INSERT EXACT TITLE] and carefully searched every link you provided.

I could not find the answer to my question (see copy of question below).

You ask "we would be interested in hearing a little bit more about what had you in mind" What I have in mind is that you either answer the question I asked, tell me who can answer the question I asked, of just tell me straight up that the WMF refuses to answer the question I asked.

Here, once again, is my question:

• Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[4]

That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that.

I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely.

If I can't get an itemized list of where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was spent on computer equipment and how much was spent on office furniture? It wouldn't be an actual answer to my question, but it would at least allow me to either ask a question about computer equipment or ask a question about office furniture instead of repeatedly asking the same question about computer equipment and office furniture.

A little bit of financial transparency would go a long way here. -- Guy Macon

END OF PROPOSED EMAIL FROM GUY MACON

Getting back to my ongoing discussion with Winged Blades of Godric (in other words, not part of the question I want asked in the email), WBG, in your opinion does the above email answer the question I asked?

Also, concerning the claim "The information specifically referenced in the thread that you linked to (GuyMacon's questions) was shared with the Audit Committee and the Board at the time the expenses were incurred, in line with our procedures for governance and reporting. You can view board meeting minutes and board meeting materials on meta", does anyone reading this believe that back in 2013 they predicted the question I would ask years later and gave the Audit Committee or the Board an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013.? Or did they simply give them a copy of [ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_Reports/Financial_Statements_Ending_June_30_2013_and_2012 ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Passersby Feel Sorry For Aging Deep Blue Sitting At Washington Square Park Chess Table All Day

[5] -Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiBlind as a fledgling organization

My view of this group is that their present priority is the establishment of a like-minded userbase who wants to edit together. Conversations focused on basic wiki editing and collaboration seem best for right now.

• meta:WikiBlind Wikimedians User Group

You mentioned an interest in the demographic engaging with wiki outside of a visual interface, and I thought you might like to know of this group. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, oh, you found the group yesterday, if not before. Best wishes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on Talk:Fictitious telephone number

Hey,

Is there any reason why you reverted the edits on Talk:Fictitious telephone number made by me? If we are talking about the section specifically regarding Telephone numbers in movies, television and music, Mike Jones has had many specific songs where he called out his own phone number and asked people to call him, including his single Back Then. The infamy of the number is still talked about today, with articles such as this here being written about it. I don't understand why you'd remove what I thought was a legitimate contribution to the discussion, especially since other real life examples of musical artists using their own phone numbers, such as the example given by The Time, have a place on this page. Dermato1 19:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)