User talk:Jimbo Wales

Article about WP

Jimbo - Fast Company, one you might like. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, so cool @Atsme:! Congrats :) -Darouet (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, when it works, it's great. Other times, Wikipedia volunteers are the ones spreading false information or preventing the stopping of spreading false information. We've seen that before. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"It was an obvious hoax, and a rather cartoonish example of Wikipedia at its worst—the reason why many people still believe it can’t be trusted: Anyone can edit it! But it was also Wikipedia at its best: Anyone can also edit an edit!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That article led me to this website [1]. It flashes up Wikipedia edits as they happen with a vandalism rating out of 100. Users are invited to scrutinise the diffs and recommend the appropriate action. The ones I saw, all obvious vandalism, were reverted within a minute or so. Well done the vandal fighters! 2A02:C7F:D63F:AF00:3DEA:735E:3297:2E5F (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does that need OAuth permission to read and write watchlists and send email? EllenCT (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not the same thing, but have you tried Listen to Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have. I love it. I play it on max volume in the shower, and have for years. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried Jazz. It’s got tunes and stuff. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Only as I remember seeing this one posted here, here is a new article related to misinformation related to COVID and specificly to application of WP:MEDRS with focus on User:Doc James' and the WP Medical project efforts, from Wired. [2] --Masem (t) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s even better than the fastco one from Betty. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The following statement in the article stirred memories: Once an article has been flagged as relating to medicine, the editors scrutinize the article with an exceptional ferocity. While typically an article in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal would be a reliable source for Wikipedia, the medical editors insist on peer-reviewed papers, textbooks or reports from prominent centers and institutes. It made me think of Project Accuracy, and the initial reception it received back in 2016 User:Atsme/WikiProject_Accuracy. As evidenced at the top of the TP, it started off with some positive feedback. I still believe it could be a worthy endeavor and a viable project that will attract more positive reviews by media. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"Calls for political action in geonotices" on Village Pump

Jimbo, would you please opine on WP:VPP#Calls for political action in geonotices/watchlist notices? I tried to put the first-ever call for comments from the Office of Science and Technology Policy to require open access to federally supported research (which has a March 16 deadline) in a US-targeted geonotice. Admin Deryck Chan added it, but TonyBallioni removed it, with other editors and admins saying that strong consensus is needed. Editors from e.g. Elsevier can just as easily dissent. Since this is something the movement has been trying to achieve since the 1980s, would you please opine on this? EllenCT (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the OSTP solicitation does not limit comments to US citizens, nationals, or residents, I have opened meta:Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research. EllenCT (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo, I feel that this is completely irresponsible. What is your opinion? EllenCT (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, Jimbo? EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Give him some time, he hasn't been active on en.wikipedia for over a week. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; it's just that the March 15 deadline is weighing on me. Any collection of editors can form a consensus, but who other than Jimbo can form a strong consensus? EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this one issue - which is an important one of course, particularly in the time of coronavirus in which open access to research globally is critical as we need scientists and medical professionals and engineers all sharing the best available information openly and quickly - I think I'd rather just weigh in on my views about how and when we should message proactively: much more often than we have traditionally.

I think, and have said so, that it was a mistake to not do more messaging around the European Copyright Directive. When we did it, we won the first battle in European Parliament. When we didn't do it, we lost the second battle.

There are relatively few issues where I think we can get to consensus about what ought to be done in public policy. The Wikipedia community shouldn't weigh in on every policy debate in the world, in no small part because we are not experts on every possible thing. We do know a great deal about open access and the sharing of information, so we have an intellectual right to inform people.

Separately, I think there are things that we can and should do which are not super political but are part of our mission. Here are two examples: link to quality information on every page of Wikipedia about the current covid-19 crisis, and completely non-political messages aimed at persuading people to vote in democratic elections. My thinking on the latter one is this: it's not up to us to tell people how to vote. But I think most of can agree that the sort of people who really should vote are *people who read encyclopedias*. A great many people are voting after being wound up to do so by flamewars on twitter, reddit, facebook, etc. I'm pretty sure that isn't leading to great outcomes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of elections (c.f. List of elections in 2020) - are you thinking these should be targeted to users in the respective regions? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is an idea worthy of consideration, yes. There are many details that would need to be worked out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

While not on every page, we did just add a Covid article navigation box to Main Page, leading the In The News section - may help get more information out. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

≥ Wikimedia Foundation's data center in Asia ≤

I just saw Wikimedia Foundation's data centers and I have been wondering about if Wikimedia Foundation selected Singapore to build its data center, why it didn't choose Taiwan where the plain land supply is abundant in the nation's south?

Thanks for having me here! --Reciprocater (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. However, I will say that we don't really "build data centers" if you are imagining that we have our own building there. We are a customer of Equinix and have some servers in their facility. Normally the criteria for choosing where to locate servers has to do with pricing, capacity, the speed of light (it matters, which is why it's good to have geographically close by 'edge caches', which is what the page you linked says that the Singapore servers are).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

speed of light – What nonsense! The speed of light is the same everywhere on earth. EEng 06:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

So is the pull of gravity, but it's still quicker and easier to fall off a horse than it is to get back on a condor (something about distancing). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Hopefully, we could see more presence and investment of the WMF, who runs the freest and progressive online encyclopedia on the planet, in the nation's south where the nation on the move has once again been ranked as the second-freest country across Asia. :) --Reciprocater (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is some background about how Singapore was chosen. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you not only for the reply but also for the detailed information. Thank you very much. Together and united, freedom and progressive values will prevail in the end. :) --Reciprocater (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Continued the thread above: Paid-version of Wikipedia that permits paid-contribution that is meant to support a more efficient and higher-quality debate among democratic processes around the world!

By seeing Given the aim of the project and our current network structure, only a select few cities within SE/E Asia are viable candidates in terms of network topology at all. On this front, we're looking at how the cities fare on being well-connected to a large number of submarine cables, hosting open and widely-used peering exchanges, having multiple carrier-neutral datacenter vendor options, and overall latency to populations across the region. Basic infrastructure issues like utility reliability are a concern here as well. On these fronts alone, the top two ideal locations were Singapore and Hong Kong. Tokyo was a third-place option with some caveats. Taipei and Seoul were possible last-resort backup choices if all else failed, but significantly less ideal than even Tokyo (to the point that we might have to rationally re-evaluate many aspects of the project). from Decision making of choosing Singapore to host Wikipedia, it strikes me that just being free and democratic is not enough 😥, executive power is another key factor to guarantee a country's future prosperity. (ﾟヮﾟ)ヾ(•ω•`) Perhaps democracy and freedom don't prevail over authoritarian leadership because the democratic process is often time-consuming and therefore lacks executive power. User:Jimbo Wales, how do you think about this? Maybe Wikipedia can consider opening another Wikipedia that permits paid-contribution, which, I expect, will provide incentives to people all around the world to argue about the local issues they care for based on Wikipedia's Five Pillars, leading to a faster and higher-quality democratic process all around the world! People will then study reliable sources before they argue and governments' public projects will no longer be postponed anymore by any low-quality quarrels between citizens who don't study reliable sources. Of course, I anticipate the Wikimedia Foundation to hire people to fulfill the obligation of administrator that tirelessly enforces Wikipedia's Five Pillars in the paid-version of Wikipedia in order to demonstrate what is called the executive power. We can really make good use of Capitalism which is a friend of Democracy. It's impossible to talk about Democracy alone without saying Capitalism; they're bound together as everyone on the planet requires to earn money for the sake of survival and at the same time everyone also deserves freedom which is not identical to non-government state, which is also why I believe strong civilian society requires its citizens to study WP:reliable sources prior to they argue.

Please feel free to let me know you think! 🙂

--Reciprocater (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reciprocater, For one, not sure what this has to do with the above thread. For second, I read your statement as asking for Wikipedia to pay people for their edits: where praytell would such money come from? Wikipedia has thrived where others have failed because it is free, works on the efforts of dedicated volunteers, and can be edited by anyone. Wikipedia seems to be doing pretty well without having to pay contributors, we remain the world's foremost encyclopedia and among its best knowledge sources. I fail to see the need to pay folks, and can see lots of problems if we did. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I meant that Wikipedia Beta (The version of Wikipedia that permits WP:COI) pays for its administrator who serve as a neutral judge on the Wikipedia Beta version to resolve the dispute over specific local issues between two parties who're paid by their investors behind to edit on Wikipedia Beta to express their parties' views to the public. Wikimedia Foundation only needs to pay Wikipedia Beta's administrators. Editors on Wikipedia Beta are going to be supported by the local environment protection organizations or oil refinery factory that wants to expand its scale that may increase plumes of smoke billowed from the chimney. The two parties in question can be government and NGO who opposes the government's construction plan. --Reciprocater (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For one, not sure what this has to do with the above thread. Look, Wikipedia _{The Free Encyclopedia} chose some partly free, non-democratic countries to host their website due to the reasons that those countries have better infrastructures or kinds of stuff like that. This reminds me that just being free and democratic is insufficient. In democratic country, we probably have seen too much populism that in turn delays their countries' future growth. Populism has no place in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is rule-based with excellent rules.--Reciprocater (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:DEM Wikipedia isn't an experiment in any political system. About Taiwan: China could invade it at any moment, you never know when they decide to practice what they preach. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not really politics. It's more of people's welfare and the aspiration to seek the truth. I can say the reason for Taiwan fails to deliver a better infrastructure than Singapore and Hong Kong is because Taiwan is the second-freest country in Asia. Because in those non-democracies, any major investment rolled out by the government doesn't involve citizens' participation; but in Taiwan, if the government plans to build a sewage sewer, it could then encounter a great deal of diverse WP:OR that end up delay the progress of the modernization of Taiwan. The root cause for the trend that democracy is losing competitiveness to authoritarian leadership is because citizens in a democracy tend to do WP:OR rather than read WP:RS before they argue. If this habit continues, democracy will keep losing ground.

As Jimbo tends to talk about broader values that include freedom of speech and other universal values we all share, I would like to suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation might have such responsibility to make our future world towards democracy by creating a new platform called Wikipedia Beta to provide incentives to civilians in the democracy to read before they argue. As I said, Wikipedia Beta only needs to pay its administrators; general editors on Wikipedia Beta are supposed to be funded by the interest groups behind such as government who wants to complete sewage sewer construction and those civilians who don't want sewage sewer to pass by their home and show objections to the construction. --Reciprocater (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is especially true when you learn China's third-line, fourth-line cities are now enjoying LRT while some second-line cities in Taiwan are still stuck in the so-called democratic processes that involve citizens' participation in which two sides are debating based on their self-invented concepts. If this tendency keeps going forward, Taiwan will collapse itself and beg for China's care. What a shame for democracy. As far as I know, such nonsense also happens across other non-English-speaking democracies. Can you imagine one day that those English-speaking nations are surrounded by authoritarian states? --Reciprocater (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Export makes up a nation's GDP, native English speakers' way of life will sooner or later be squeezed to the extent that we will feel so sorry for our offsprings that we can't do something bold and correct right now. QQ--Reciprocater (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Politicians don't dare to request their citizens to read WP:RS because it can risk their own political careers. Wikipedia Beta can be like Wikipedia that features anonymity and thus allows editors to do the right thing without distraction. (Look! This is why high-quality journals feature anonymous peer review. ) --Reciprocater (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Look, this move would not provide Wikimedia with executive power, but remove it from them and offer it outwardly, in return for extra finance. This is called political spin. ~ R.T.G 14:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm...Thank you for sharing your opinion. But is that so? Is Capitalism really that bad? Is it a zero-sum game, in which Capitalism gains what Democracy loses? But when we look at the jurisdiction system, judges are paid by the government but remain independent from the government. Furthermore, the decision-making process of Wikipedia is open to the public. Therefore, I feel Wikipedia Beta is worth a try. :) --Reciprocater (Talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

    Reciprocater, Wikipedia is not a critique on capitalism, nor is it an experiment in democracy. It is a collaborative encyclopedia. It has worked very well by using only volunteers for 20 years, and I think that is exactly the reason its worked so well. Realistically, I see essentially zero chance that we would ever have a version of Wikipedia that paid its administrators. There are so many barriers to establishing such a system (How much? Who? How would you stop a flood of people applying for adminship just because they want a paycheck and don't give a damn about Wikipedia?) and rather little reason to do so. If you're suggesting Wikipedia Beta be a separate entity where all the WP:PAID editors go, I can't imagine paid editors listening to us and not using regular Wikipedia. Regardless, I don't think the problem of paid and COI editing is going to be fixed by adding more money into the process. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Pure and unadulterated evil.

In my days as a regular Wikipedia contributor I had many run-ins with others over what I considered to breaches of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. In all my time here though, I don't think I've ever come across anything (beyond simple vandalism and the raving of lunatics and neo-Nazis) that struck me as pure and unadulterated evil in the manner that List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 does. A list like that would sully a shit-house wall, and why anyone with an ounce of common sense would think it in the slightest appropriate to place it in anything purporting to be an online encyclopaedia is beyond me. Both WP:BLP and The WMF's resolution on biographies of living people with regard to taking "human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account" may as well be printed out, used to counter the current toilet-roll shortage, and deleted. Utterly repulsive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's already nominated for deletion and it will be interesting to see how this goes. This is one of the dafter "List of... " articles that I have come across, although individual articles like Tom Hanks have noted that he contracted the virus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

While I don't endorse the dramatic language of "pure and unadulterated evil" I agree that this list is not a good idea at all. For notable people, it may or may not in the long run prove to be encyclopedic that they got it (if they die of it, that certainly will belong in their biography). If, as many people in a position to make reasonable forecasts believe, 70% of us are going to get this in the next couple of years, such lists will quickly prove to be pointless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Even ignoring the obvious privacy concerns (which can't be done without amending WP:BLP, and telling the WMF to stick their 'Biographies of living people' resolution where the sun don't shine), the list can only ever be a random selection of Wikipedia-notables that tested positive while the media considered it worth commenting on. This is Wikipedia data-mining at its worst. Except that it isn't 'data' in any meaningful shape or form. It is a list of random people.

I sometimes wonder whether Wikipedians would have considered it appropriate to have compiled a List of Jews known to be hiding in Nazi-occupied Europe had it been around at the time. (Yeah, Godwin's law, I know. Except that given the enthusiasm for Jew-tagging on Wikipedia, Godwin's comments regarding exceptions to his rule seem worth consideration.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the list, but Andy your provocative language and excessive hyperbole (both here and in the AFD itself) is not helpful to this conversation, and the comparison you just made above is particularly off-based and offensive. — Hunter Kahn 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Not so many years ago Wikipedia had a list with a subsection for 'Persons of debated XXX', with the inclusion criteria helpfully displayed below the header that read "The following list includes those who some people legitimately believe there is meaningful evidence the person is or was XXX. This speculation should be supported by documentation or historical record. More information about what is known about each individual's XXX should be available in the individual's biography". And no, I'm not going to link it here, per WP:BLP for a start. Or even say what XXX was. And I would strongly advise anyone else not to do that here either, if they find it. Not without taking due notice of who is on the list, and what the consequences might be for making it visible again. If Wikipedians could do that in the past, who's to say what they will do in the future... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you entitled to vote on the AfD Jimbo? It would help if you could, I feel. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but who knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe I am eligible but I seldom get involved in such matters directly. Better, I think, if I speak most often about broad principles and values, reminding us why we are here, rather than getting involved in detailed matters of judgment about which other people are better placed than I to discuss and understand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That would give all new meaning to the term supervote !>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, not evil, just... really dim. Guy (help!) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I !voted "Delete" on the basis that non-notable attributes of non-notable persons are actually not notable enough for Wikipedia. Else we ought have "List of Measles Survivors", "List of Prostate Cancer Survivors" and so on ad infinitum. I am not usually one who !votes "Delete" but this example is a tad egregious. Collect (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a good idea on reflection, is how I would phrase it. People want to have some measure of control, and making lists and writing articles is one way to do that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 02:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
  

Fair enough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• • On the one hqnd, it's true that within a day or two, this article will make no more sense than list of people with arms. On the other hand, the idea that we need to protect the privacy of people who are working hard to publicise that information about themselves is so divorced from reality it's hard to know where to begin; but if anything is evil, it's treating fully functioning adults trying to good in the world like they're mentally incompetent children who need to be protected from themselves. Tommy Hanks et al. didn't hqve their statuses leaked, they're actively trying to publicise it to destigmatise the disease and raise public awareness of its seriousness and the need to take efforts to combat it and save lives. Trying to undermine those goals is certainly unethical. WilyD 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here is what you need to understand... This is difficult to explain. The people under threat here are almost exclusively old. The virus is basically a variant of the common cold. It just happens to be more deadly than usual for physically weaker people. You have seen talk of herd immunity. You see the pictures on the article, where one person who hasn't caught the virus is surrounded by people who have already recovered from it, and in that case no longer transmit it? Well the people in the middle are the old people, surrounded by us, the getting old people, and the young people. You get it? Well... the point is... you get it... And isolate... and return... That's the point. Get this virus and get over it, for at least two or three (or four) weeks (making sure that you are guided by medical advice), away from the old people, the pregnant and poorly healthed people... In such a way that they are buffered from contact with it. It's not easy to explain. Can anyone explain what I am saying please? I've watched so many speeches. They haven't explained in a broadly digestible manner. This is quite important actually... Let's have some more attempts to explain it please... ~ R.T.G 04:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about COVID-19, it is a discussion about the merits of a Wikipedia list of people who have contracted it. If you want to discuss the virus, there are plenty of forums elsewhere on the internet to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the story of life and death. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The list is inert. The potential for evil resides everywhere in this human world. We should be able to be cautious without destroying ourselves or targeting each other. War this, war that. The saddest thing I have heard through all this beyond the fact of people dying is the phrase "common enemy" being repeated. Sometimes a voice calls the future. Don't cry wolf, or enemy, or evil, when you should cry fear wolf, fear enemy, fear evil. It's a fine point. As I realised what we should learn about herd immunity, well that's more important right now so I must have deleted all the stuff about the list before I posted, sorry. ~ R.T.G 11:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• But none of that is important right now. What is important is this herd immunity thing. We thought at the outset, that this internet would give us intelligence through access to information, but in some ways we are more dumb than ever. Right here we can see the value in superceding leadership rather than simply challenging it all the time. It's not about choosing the good and the evil at an early age, but enriching the herd, at every stage. Get this herd immunity thing. Catch the thing, isolate, recover, return... act as a go between. Somebody please explain how that works for people... We all know evil in this human world. That's boring old trap talk. What is important today is this herd immunity thing. It's a good word, perhaps. This list of people who caught the disease early... it may prove to be the opposite of a stigma... as they will be the first immune... Herd immunity. A positive attitude is going to serve you much better in this situation, alongside caution, of course. The concern in the OP is understandable. We must cope with that, not simply silence it. ~ R.T.G 12:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nobody to dispute. I think if you lived in Italy right now you'd be warning against what seems like a leap of faith, which is what this herd immunity proposal requires... In France, I read yesterday, gatherings of 100+ people are banned for the time being. Except for protests. If you want to gather for protests well, the virus is for you apparently. And it's funny/strange with how protest is so worshipped in French culture. Similarly, in the USA, politicians are openly talking of opportunity and tying policy leaps into crisis management. Scheming outside the box is only truly appropriate when it is relevant. Here is an echo:- We cannot see the difference when we describe a struggle as a battle in this world. Even the WHO has described this virus as an "enemy". The rhetoric of war in the land of peace is an abomination. And you know that is true. ~ R.T.G 07:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've come back and looked at this statement I wrote almost every day wondering if it is bad advice. Sure if you have strong health you are likely to recover from the virus but as I watch the news each day the death toll rises more and more rapidly, as though the low mortality rates are way too low. "Social distancing" is presented to us today almost as though it is new, without reference. But here for instance is an article published freely today by the National Geographic magazine about social distancing in 1918, How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic. It has graphs of the effects of social distancing in US cities over 24 weeks during the 1918 epidemic. The graph for each city is unique. ~ R.T.G 23:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Create a silver lining

I know I'm taking advantage of spending more time at home by ramping up my editing of Wikipedia articles. I suspect this will be a natural inclination of some experienced editors, but perhaps we should push out some advertising to encourage casual editors or non editors to spend some time editing.

There's literally millions of person hours for people stuck at home struggling to find something to do. Let's give them an option they may not have considered.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Is there anybody who could do a quick budget approval and just get $50,000 worth of internet ads out there? Better yet, get some press releases or have a big shot or two (nudge, Jimmy and Katherine) give an interview. It doesn't have to be a big blitz effort - that might even backfire - but let people know we'd love to have a few more newbies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this idea. Millions of very intelligent people are suddenly looking for new indoor solo hobbies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We are that. Jimbo, send a mail to Tom Hanks or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I love this idea. It might be fun if we (I don't mean the WMF, more casual than that, I mean "we" - whoever joins this discussion) plan a "virtual edit-a-thon"? How many people could we get to an online event? What platform might we use? I heard yesterday that Google hangouts are better for up to 8 people, and zoom is better for a ton of people. I've never used zoom. I'd want something that's free of charge obviously!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to think about gently nudging any such editing in a useful way. For example we don't need 10,000 people hitting the Covid-19 articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC).

I’m not sure that encouraging millions of ip Ed’s with time on their hands is a good idea. I just stopped the camel urine article from telling readers it may treat coronablah. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You say that but I have most of the 200+ coronavirus articles watchlisted and we are getting a lot of new editors and returning editors working on them plus IPs. We need them all, especially for the 150+ country articles which receive updates throughout the day. We need their access to local newspapers and government publications since they are in their native languages. They are contributing a lot and these pages get a lot of views.

Of course, it would help to recruit new editors to work on any number of subjects but we are really benefiting from new & returning editors working on coronavirus articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's the six million other articles that I worry about, rather than the heavily watchlisted coronavirus articles. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you've heard it said that "it pays to advertise"; however, we might not need to pay out a lot of money for it. Everytime I Google something, almost anything, Wikipedia comes up in the first few results, often the very first. IPs with time on their hands will probably search a lot – and there Wikipedia will be! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, Absolutely, but based on my experience talking to quite a few people, many think that Wikipedia “ just exists” and think about how Wikipedia is created about as often as they think about how packaged goods in grocery stores are created i. e. almost never, so the nudge may be helpful.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and there's a special incentive out there. I edited Wikipedia for years before I finally registered. It took me awhile because I didn't have a lot of time on my hands nor the drive to find something to do. I wonder if anyone's keeping track of recent IP edit numbers to find out if there has already been an increase in their edits? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This number, 48,261,399 registered users ({{NUMBEROFUSERS}}), has probably begun to increase. Perhaps we need a magic word like {{NUMBEROFIPUSERS}}, oslt? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Magic word" already is the term for a group of variables in MediaWiki software. Magic words is already taken. In the noughties we'd have said, "There should be an app for this..." ~ R.T.G 07:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The variation in numbers of active IP editors and active registered accounts is already public information. Thus far there's no obvious rise or dip other than the usual sawtooth weekday/weekend cycle (although the figures for the last 10 days aren't up yet). ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The WMF is planning a fuzzy-feelings banner mentioned at WP:MISC and at meta. To preview the banner, they gave this link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how The WMF are claiming credit for editors work there. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is an interesting habit of theirs. -- llywrch (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If my words were proclaimed worldwide in the name of the WMF, I would feel proud and there would be no need to mention my name in order to feel proud. Wikipedia is the product of collective work and often readers have no idea about which person wrote what. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sure if someone from the WMF office accidently wrote, "I made this" when they didn't, they'll be only too happy when you point out the mistake... ~ R.T.G 09:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure Roxypooch is reading the same notice I read. I see our volunteers are working to bring you a trusted source of unbiased information and I want to acknowledge the invaluable work of all the contributors on Wikipedia. and Our coronavirus articles have received tens of thousands of edits by thousands of editors, unless Roxy's referring to We will keep working around the clock to bring you reliable and neutral information. Maybe that's what they meant by "claiming credit"? Sounds like an all-encompassing "we" to me, and who knows how many WMF people actually do edit Wikipedia whenever they get a chance? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about millions (billions?) of bored people with Android smartphones deciding to have a go at WP editing. 220 of ^Borg 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See also: Eternal September. Guy (help!) 17:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, if even a few of them turn out to like editing and stick around, is that so bad? — 🦊 06:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wish I could recruit everybody to participate in my contests! What if I organized a Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Source-athon in May or something and all editors have to do is add sources to unsourced claims in articles. Whoever adds the most sources to articles for the most countries is the winner? Aim for say 10,000 new sources added to Wikipedia covering all 200 odd countries? We could have a page instructing newbies how to add a citation to articles. Something like that would be doable as a big virtual editathon, so newbies would only have to learn how to add a citation not how to write articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Produce something for FB's "go live" feature, or create an entertaining YouTube presentation - something that's short, fun and fast-paced - then alert the media so they can write about it. It's free. Perhaps we could even recruit some of WP's humorists to write scripts, like EEng, Levivich, Martinevans123 and Creffett. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the truth is much more important than Verifiability.

I think the truth is much more important than Verifiability because even if it is a lie, it will be posted just because it exists as a sentence. I think the truth is more important than Verifiability, because the content of the encyclopedia must not be a lie. 126.140.167.213 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

But how can we assure that the truth is correct? The fact we cannot always verify the truth is why we aim for Verifiability over Truth. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability is how we determine the difference between facts and Truth™. If you want to see an encyclopaedia based on Truth™, see Conservapedia. Guy (help!) 16:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Truth™ is overrated.-Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Truth" is a straw-man word because of it's multiple meanings, some of them being the opposite of evidence-based accuracy. A much better word is "accuracy" and in cases where objective WP:Accuracy exists, it should be a primary goal and WP:Verifiability a means to that end.North8000 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

North8000, we still have the problem that in some people's minds accuracy is the opposite of what verifiability says. Homeopaths, for example. Guy (help!) 17:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why wp:verifiability is so important. And it works 99% of the time and backfires 1% of the time. A few tweaks would reduce that 1% North8000 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth is not always so simple, 126+. I walk outside and there's not a cloud in the sky, so my Truth is "the sky is blue"; you live somewhere else, and you walk outside and all you see are clouds, so your Truth is "the sky is gray"; someone on the other side of the world walks outside and all they see are stars and planets, so their Truth is "the sky is black". Truth can be complicated sometimes, and that's why Wikipedia does not try to discern the Truth. Instead, Wikipedia relies on editors who support their Truth with reliable, independent, secondary sources. That is encyclopedic while Truth can sometimes be less than encyclopedic. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth is subjective, as the truth of one entity is often different from that of another. That which is verifiable is far more important - many different cultures hold different truths, for example, and yet all are bound to recognize more verifiable facts (such as geology and mathematics). SamHolt6 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, cannibals think other people taste good! How 'bout ya'll? (could you put in a little chocolate sauce?) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are subjective areas. There are also objective areas. BTW, by precise terminology, "the sky is blue" is ambiguous. "To a person with standard vision, standing on the ground during full daylight, when the air is clear and cloudless, the sky appears to be blue" is not ambiguous and objectively accurate. Or, if you accept "the sky is blue" in commonspeak to mean all of that, then so is "the sky is blue" . North8000 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

People don't taste people, people taste meat. Just like chicken, dinner can go terrible in the wrong hands. I know of at least two cannibals who told police their victim's remains were too unpalatable to finish more than a mouthful. Not fair to paint the whole bunch as happy about it. If you believe in wendigo, hating the flavour like nothing else is the whole point of the curse. Famine survivors historically leave "mixed-to-poor" reviews. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Eating meat is precisely why most people don't taste good. That's why we prefer cow, chicken and pig meat instead of wolf, eagle and the meat of other meat eaters. It's the vegetarians and vegans that taste best! ...apparently. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite so...apparently! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Paine Ellsworth ... Wikipedia don't want editors with good taste, Wikipedia wants editors that taste good! EEng 15:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

heh – you really should be tuna'd for that one! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Truth tends to have little or no value without verification. To gain value without verification, truth requires faith, belief, or understanding. As essential as they are to humanity, these subjects are all generally rejected and/or relegated by society. ~ R.T.G 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not born with a taste for solid food. It is forced (forced is too strong a word, but solid food is gently pressed on us until we realise we like it, whereas with true force, it is more about the success of the force than the acceptance of the food, apologies, 23:30 30/03/2020) upon us. We usually accept it quickly, and therefore understate its origin, but taste is acquired. Further, we acquire taste through the mouth, but hunger and desire are controlled by the gut, the second brain. The gut expresses deficiency, and that which experiences taste wishes for whatever it previously associates with satiating the deficiency in the gut. However, we can only desire the tastes we have already experienced. If you've never tasted an apple, you cannot hunger for one and will be prone to reject its taste. Further, we distance ourselves socially from one another from an early age. This behaviour is instituted in certain forms to promote behaviour, but it becomes a selective attitude as we seek to thrive socially. When we get older and reject things like defining the truth, it is not truth itself which we reject, but the associations we have made as we struggle to cope and thrive in the world around us. If the truth is not at first tasty, try garnishing it with some sugar. Tomato sauces are excellent for giving us sugar without realisation. Douse your sprouts with pasta sauce. Gradually your gut will come to realise that the sprouts are equally as sweet, and will not reject the pasta sauce, but will learn to crave the fuller nutrition. Identify what the prevailing tastes are, and slip some of the truth in where it may seem relevant and interesting. The taste becomes familiar and is craved... It's an age old story, and this much does not even constitute a preface. :)~ ~ R.T.G 16:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everybody know that there is Truth out there and it's published every day, so we can can just quote it for all topics that it covers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not even be discussing "truth". That word has so many different meanings that it is ambiguous at best. The word has also done a lot of damage to Wikipedia. It has been a straw-man substitute for the word "accuracy" in order to mis-state the goals of those who say that we should strive for accuracy, with wp:verifiability being a way to help achieve that. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Truth is dead! We have killed it." Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth! Truth? You can't handle the truth!" Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Trust the Midas touch!" InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Truth isn’t truth. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway... while on the one hand "verifyibility not truth" is (properly) the operative paradim, you can run things into the ground the other way and go down some dark paths... paths that lead to "well, I know its not true, but its verified by this reliable source, so we can use it". Actually, its more likely to be "I neither know nor care if its true. I don't have to worry about that: it's from a reliable source, so it stays in, end of discussion."

Problem with that is, one, sources are mostly a good deal less reliable than you think, and two, "Well it says it in this reliable source" is understandable cos we're busy, but if someone is able and willing to vet more thoroughly, it shouldn't trump "Well but I did such-and-such investigation, here's my sources and methods and results, and it turns out it's not actually true".

But it does, sometimes. =/ Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Esptein meme didn't make sense by itself. So it's s***e, and merely serves to warn paedophiles to be more secretive. Epstein couldn't keep his mouth shut, is about the most significant message from that meme. He wasn't well in the flipping head. He could have paid for any sort of relationship circumstance he could conceive. He didn't choose his desires, but he nurtured them according to his reasonings. He could have seen these things and questioned his reasonings any way he liked. He didn't and became a sad tale. The "meme" doesn't say any of that. Don't create memes in your desire to instigate viral wonder, as it can be so superficial. The person who created the smiley is not even recognised in the modern world, though the symbol crosses all boundaries. Create, or identify, cliches, thus continuing to try and promote viral wonderment in others, but maintaining it in the self at the same time, thereby validating that wonder. ~ R.T.G 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by the comment above about the "Epstein meme" and why it was put under "The Signpost" section. But since it is just 2 lines below a link to my Signpost article "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …", I'll respond about the Signpost article.

It's about how a convicted sex offender can edit (or have edited for him) the Wikipedia article about himself. I hope I'll convince people of that simple proposition even before they get to the first word of the body of the text. The body of the text just gives the context of the Epstein case in case people don't remember it, gives the history of our article about him, and shows how the article was interfered with by editors who appeared to be very biased in his favor. Then I present the evidence that those editors were paid or otherwise associated with Epstein. But does it matter? The next section gives one example where our article helped alert a university that they should not allow Epstein to whitewash his reputation through them, but the warning from Wikipedia was not quite enough. Thus he was allowed to continue his sexual predations for another few years.

In truth, it's hard to blame the Wikipedia community for this. We did a pretty good job. But the pro-Epstein editors were just successful enough.

Does it really matter? Damn right it does. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No it's great, Smallbones, thanks. You're right I made very little sense at all and was pretty rude. I was trying to reason with something that I don't truly understand. Sorry Jimbo, and Smallbones, ~ R.T.G 08:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: I'm sorry if it looked like I was complaining about your post. I think this page is a good place to put up some exploratory thought-provoking stuff. I was just a bit nervous about the article and probably thought - "somebody must be attacking it". But on a rereading it's not at all that way. My bad. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

S'all good. My only little problem is why do it to Epstein and others, and then let Trump get away with it? He's gotten away with so much, and many of us just look the other way. Whassup wi' dat? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you realize what a sacrifice that would be. Just in time spent it would be a huge challenge. And to be fair a similar investigation would have to be done for the articles on Biden. So let's say somebody came to me with "proof" that one of the above was messing with their articles to the same extent the Epstein appears to have done. I just don't think that Wikipedia or The Signpost would be ready for that. So what I'd likely do is is check out the story and double the investigation, double the "proof". Then I'd chicken out and just send it to another journalist who would do their own investigation and print it if it fully checks out. There are places that would print that. So everybody has limits on what they can accomplish - go check out your own. Happy April Fools Day! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

WP-wear

I like the Illusion page shirt, but I won't pay €300 for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sock

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jimmy Wales" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)