Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wnt (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 13 August 2011 (→‎Anti-gay paranoia or legitimate BLP application?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(Manual archive list)

People wonder why wikipedia is biased...

This random sample of users speaks for itself. we need to be doing more to recruit conservative and centrist editors. Jimjones4521 (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just how do we attract "conservative" editors when our website insists on keeping articles on lists of Pokemon and Z-grade Youtube videos?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How was this 'random sample' found? And why should we accept that the result of this particular test is a valid measure of political orientations, or that it's 'centre' is meaningful? What Wikipedia actually needs is less POV-pushing of Western (particularly US-oriented) political and cultural perspectives in articles where they have no particular relevance, and more input from a wider range of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably just be checking transclusions of the PolCompass userbox and entering some users' self-reported orientation. It could be argued the authoritarian right are less prone to displaying such userboxes Jebus989✰
Probably a case of reality's "well-known liberal bias" [1] Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatives have Conservapedia where they are editing the Bible to remove liberal influences, I assume that takes up alot of their time and therefore they dont have much time to come to Wikipedia and help us out. As for US-oriented Western POV... for good or for bad when the US has been THE ONLY superpower since 1991, A superpower since 1944, and a world power since 1898, yes the US's view of the world is going to be over-stated IN SECONDARY SOURCES. Being a world power, and a superpower, as the UK was from the late 1700s and then passed by the US makes the world's history and culture heavily reliant on the experiences of those powers. We report how history and culture have been perceived by the world, and history is written by the victors; culture is copied from the strongest; this is going to be especially true in an English version of an encyclopedia. And in conclusion I'd like to point out that US culture isnt so dominate as we'd like to say- Transformers, Pokemon, Michael J. Fox, Pamela Anderson, William Shatner, SONY, Nintendo, Toyota, all those things were not made in the US and yet are part of our world culture.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I don't know where to start. Other than your first sentence, which probably has a grain of truth in it, everything you have written, Camelbinky, serves as nothing more than an indication of why a US-centric bias is so prevalent on Wikipedia. (And BTW, history isn't finished yet) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes, political compass. Frankly, based on where they put the Canadian political parties, I will say at the start that I consider their results to be compeltely disconnected from the real world. As such, take the chart with a very large grain of salt. That being said, their table shows a rather healthy sampling of "right wing" editors. It seems that what you are really suggesting is that Wikipedia needs more authoritarian editors. Well, Just go to ANI for those. ;o) But really, the entire "we need more conservative editors" thing is crap, because what you are really saying is "we need more AMERICAN Conservative editors." I am a Canadian conservative, but our scale sits considerably to the left of yours. Doesn't mean I'm not conservative, just means I don't fit well into an America-centric view of the matter. Resolute 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "political compass" is self-selected. Libertarians believe there is a third party with its own ideological axis, but those who are not Libertarians might see a two-party conflict or some other scheme not matching this and not find the compass an interesting meme to spread. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how often a discussion quickly falls into claims of American biazzzz (true or not). It's a global project, but it's the English Wikipedia after all and half our editors are American so I'm not sure what'd you expect out of volunteers. RxS (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be a pretty disappointing discussion all around. Camelbinky, you wrote: "Conservatives have Conservapedia where they are editing the Bible to remove liberal influences, I assume that takes up a lot of their time and therefore they dont have much time to come to Wikipedia and help us out." I think that's a disappointing remark. Suppose someone wrote "Liberals are too busy reading Marx and raising taxes, I assume that takes up a lot of their time and therefore they don't have much time to come to Wikipedia and help us out." You'd rightly perceive that as a bigoted and blanket statement.
I also don't think America or Americanism has much to do with the question at all, which is a valid question: are we attracting thoughtful and kind voices from all sides of the political spectrum, to help ensure that all perspectives are presented accurately and fairly? Camelbinky's remark is a good example of a remark that's so aggressive and empirically wrong, that I can easily imagine a thoughtful political conservative might regard as so immature that, frankly, this project isn't worth participating in. So, I'm disappointed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dr. Blofeld - Are you honestly suggesting there are potential editors, with a conservative political viewpoint, who conclude, "I was very interested in contributing to Wikipedia, but I cannot, because it contains lists of Pokemon characters"? Seriously? --SPhilbrickT 16:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps he is suggesting that liberals are attracted to Wikipedia because of all childish things such as Pokemon that we write about. Conservatives are off doing useful things like creating jobs, or something like that.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.91 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, I am sure that the makeup of WP editors, as measured by a number of metrics. does not match society as whole. In a trivial sense, that isn't a goal. We don't need to fret about the under-representation of sub 80 IQ, nor should we be surprised that the irrationally selfish are under-represented. On more serious axes, political spectrum, philosophical spectrum, religious spectrum, science versus arts, etc, modest departures from a mirror of society are fine, but significant departures should be a call to action. That said, I'd urge that all efforts be toward encouraging under-represented groups, not discourage over-represented groups. If there are contributors who want to concentrate on Pokemon, that's fine with me. I don't believe I've ever read such an article, nor do I plan to, but some people do, and if our coverage of Pokemon is "too good" relative to other subjects, let's encourage editors in other subjects, not hamstring the Pokemon editors. Paraphrasing Geno Auriemma, who is occasionally criticized because UConn teams win by large margins, 'It isn't my job to hold back my team, it is your job to make your team better' --SPhilbrickT 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with all of that. One way to bring in under-represented groups is to not issue blanket insults of them, which is what I was concerned about above. (If there really do exist people who are "editing the Bible to remove liberal influences" they certainly are an extreme minority of people who are politically conservative, and so such an insult is not very welcoming to the kind of editor we should want to recruit.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only "bigoted" but also wildly ignorant - liberals do not read Marx, or at least do not subscribe to his theories, since they are not communists or socialists but rather the originators of free market economy theory and the minimisation of state involvement in business affairs (as opposed to the conservative history of endowing the political establishment with the means of "regulating" enterprise). Such a commentator is likely confusing the political liberal heritage with that with the label applied to those who espouse freedom of expression and thought for society (which might include reading Marx, I suppose) - and therefore is quite probably an American Right Winger, whose grasp of history may not extend back much before the Reagan Presidency and might believe that intellectual freedom should only be extended to those who think as they do. It is a terrible thing, to represent a section of society or political conviction with a few comments based on ignorance of the subject - isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the language used in articles might show some sort of consistent problem -- "extreme right wing" is used in 256 places, while "extreme left wing" is found in 68 places. "Right wing extremist" is found in 226 places, and "left wing extremist" is found in 46 places. "Far right" in 4K pages, "Far left" in 2k pages. There appears, on its face, to be a substantial divergence from having the two mirror image terms being used in anywhere equal likelihood. Collect (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misinterpreted that this was an actual political context. Rather I was referring to the (stereotypical) conservatively minded scholarly middle class gentleman who desires a conservative, traditional encyclopedia and finds that wikipedia is full of fictional in-universe cruft obviously written by teenagers/young men and would be put off,. Of course one can ignore that sort of content and try to focus on your own interests but becoming an active editor on wikipedia you will undoubtedly become aware of it. .. There may very well be many individuals from the Conservative Party itself who play with Lego and watch Pokemon. But I seriously doubt you can manipulate the make up of editors on here. Given that we are attempting to produce a neutral encyclopedia politics should be left out of wikipedia anyway and should certainly not influence the editor in their writing. As long as we as an encyclopedia provide as neutral acoverage of all political parties and even by country as possible using reliable sources then this is all that matters. I would have to say that far more important in determining editorial choices, which in turn have a big influence on our proportion of content/bias towards certain topics is gender and age demographics, but as I recall previously we are unlikely to be able to have much sway on which editors we attract unless dramatic changes are made. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Said it before but WP: is bound to have what Americans call a Liberal bias as WP is about following centrally decided rules, community and co-operation all of which are more intune with the left and centre than the right. A WP is critised for being too right wing as well as too left wing it seems to be getting it about right.Bevo74 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is though that political stance should not affect content on wikipedia. WP:NPOV.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an American conservative myself, especially in economic issues, I tend to agree with the idea of a liberal bias. But that may have something to do with age as most WP editors are young (in their 20s or younger). Most conservatives tend to be older and yes, with full time jobs, kids and the like. Almost all of my editing is done on non political and non controversial articles about Mexico, as I live here. But I wouldnt touch politically sensitive topics with a ten foot pole because of the slamming that goes on there similar to that with Jimmy noted above.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of my strong opposition to government censorship, and my support for thoughtful reform of copyright law to ensure the safety of work like ours, and to roll back some of the absurdities that have crept into the system over the years, I think that my personal political beliefs have little relevance for Wikipedia. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be coy, we all know your third favorite website is reason.com. :)--Cerejota (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get back to basics people, we are an encyclopedia. Political viewpoints are irrelevant to neutral encyclopedia writing and it is irrelevant what Jimbo's political or religious viewpoints are as they do not affect wikipedia or his running of it. Sometime I wish to transfer User:Keresaspa/Nazi redlinks from German wikipedia. Doesn't mean I agree with Nazi policies, quite the opposite. It means nothing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - a user says Andhra Pradesh (275,045 km2, 85 mio pop.) cannot be used for dab, but at the same time he has no problem with Rhode Island (3,140 km2, 1 mio pop.) - what is that, an island? There is a lot of more bias regarding India-related topics. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative editors are being put off by the presence of Pokémon articles? Really? Someone call the quarantine department, we have a major outbreak of stupidity here today. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The fault is 'ours', not 'theirs'

It is amusing to consider sheeting home the blame for Wikipedia biases to personal political views. There’s nothing more entertaining than to propose a bias in someone else and then poking the object of ridicule with a stick to evoke precisely the response we think we’re gonna get.

What is really happening here, though, is that many, many people suspend all rationality when they come to Wikipedia and assume alter-egos who, with straight faces, propose the absurd notion that we can derive from Wikipedia guidelines a complete philosophy on life and human knowledge.

Anyone who really thinks that stating two (or more) sides to a debate is a neutral point of view is seriously deluded. Anyone who thinks that opinions expressed in newspapers, blogs or vanity publications are valid perspectives for an encyclopaedia to repeat, in the absence of the kind of critical judgement that rational people exercise every day, is naïve. Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia guidelines are applied and enforced to make individual judgement unnecessary should pause for a second to consider just how bizarre such an assertion sounds. And yet instances of all three examples occur here daily.

Wikipedia is what WE — not an amorphous ‘they’ — make it by our edits, comments and debates. If there’s a flaw, it’s in the consensus decisions we reach. It’s in our failure to consider more carefully the consequences of our self-important, self-righteous interventions.

In 1776, Thomas Paine published a polemic, ‘‘Common Sense’’, that had him branded as a revolutionist and troublemaker. But do we not, today, regard the freedoms he advocated as our birthright? What does that say about consensus in 18th century Britain and her colonies? In the 1930s Americans broadly agreed that ‘niggers’ were less than human, and that ‘kikes’ trying to escape European fascism were undesirables not to be permitted entry to the US. Do we not now recognise these consensus attitudes as a catastrophic mistake?

How do we prevent ourselves from reaching consensus decisions today that appear to satisfy Wikipedia rules, but that may in fact be quite monstrous impositions of prejudices and biases most of us don’t think of as prejudices and biases (yet)? I suggest that can only happen by taking more time to think about the consequences of what we do here, and to consider that guidelines aren’t an excuse to suspend rational judgement, no matter how much a certain fundamentalist, literalist urge in some WP administrators to enforce such a suspension of rationality and judgement is par for the course.

It is good we debate these matters, but occasionally the fault for what we complain of lies within us, not others. The corollary is that it is you and I who must be willing to change our behaviours if we suspect or complain of political bias, new editors being turned off by Wikipedia bureaucracy, etc. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the Andhra Pradesh VS Rhode Island example. It is bias if people from the US/UK think Rhode Island is worth more than Andhra Pradesh. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bias maybe, but understandably so; I would expect Telegu speakers to make the opposite assessment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political stereotypes such as "liberal" and "conservative" mean nothing in practice given the complexity of the issues which these "sides" argue. Political institutions often focus on a handful of "hot" points to operate their organizations of "like-minded individuals", but the opinions soon differ when other topics come up. Everyone has a different opinion on everything. To claim Wikipedia or the media have a "liberal bias" is nothing more than a paranoic political statement. In both cases, the primary objective is to inform the public with the use of reliable sources. The problem is that most media outlets have historically been partisans of yellow journalism (Unrealiability); which range from opinionated "bias" such as nationalism and racism, to such silly (or serious) topic as whether Bugs Bunny is funnier than Mickey Mouse or vice versa. Various Wikipedia articles are also subject to this unreliability, and the ultimate objective of all serious editors should be that of removing (or whatever best fits the rules) such material from Wikipedia. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) That being said, what is truly scary is how some yellow press pretend to be "fair and balanced", when they are just as bad or worse than other "news" channels.[reply]

Why is Wikipedia losing contributors? Thinking about remedies...

Hi. As a matter of fact there's a lot of people that when invited to join wikipedia immediately declines because of interaction-related problems:

  • Editing it's too much stressing...
  • There's too much flaming people around...
  • I want to be free to call someone X when he deserves it!
  • There's too much to learn and guidelines to read!

I think that wikipedia could evolve, aiming to simplify and automate some user interaction and avoid most common stress sources. This should be adherent with WP main goal since we're not here to act as a social forum. Is there such an already opened discussion page? By now I'll post here some starting suggestions:

  • slow down & promote sandboxes: Most edit warring take place in a short time and worst behaviours emerge due to very short editing life cycle. Users being able to commit only once an hour/a day/X same article would be encouraged towards first-think-then-post. An intermediate sandbox tool could be very helpful. For example: linux operating systems provide full 'per-user-system-vision'. Similarly everybody could be able to commit whenever he wants to the intermediate sandbox (and view it as user-X immediately). Once an hour/a day/... system will merge the intermediate sandbox with a simple algorithm: edits related to distinc sections immediately merged; edits related to a common section with a X policy (First In First Out/Last In First Out/...).
  • avoid tempting problematic users: There are a lot of people who feel themselves as powerful being able to open accusation against other users. RfC - a simple and polite invite to other editors to join talk page discussion and review - should be everything that users should refer to. Administrative tools should be posted and performed by admin only. Somebody could feel this like an authoritative evolution but it could the chance to dramatically simplify interaction and attract a lot of new users - now shifting towards social networks. Blackvisionit (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think another possibly overlooked reason is the way the Wiki software works. I have a friend who is a very experienced UI designer and Web developer, and when I try to get him to look at a Talk page discussion, he pretty much gives up and walks away. The interface isn't designed for creating clear threaded discussions, and the text really just runs together. Most of us here are used to it, but I can see his points. Also on the page editing side, people have to remember strange codes and templates in order to do certain things. Common styles ought to just be readily accessible from the interface. Finally, process-oriented tasks, like nominating for deletion, or reporting user behavior shouldn't require so many steps or odd templated processes. It reminds me when I tried to buy a domain name in 1998. You had to find a text-based template from Network Solutions, fill in the proper sections, and email it to them. It wasn't really that hard, but it also wasn't that easy, and if you had any questions, it wasn't something you could immediately get help with. (Also domains were $50/year, which was annoyingly high) I realize that implementing technical fixes for these things will take time and money, and so I understand why it isn't yet done, but it would be nice. -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP recognized by UNESCO tenwiki:World Heritage could be a great chance to invest in required innovation! Blackvisionit (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • automatic user restrictions handling: Using an adaptive user access system could handle article protection in a very effective way - like linux. Article is given protection level 7, you've just joined WP at PL 0 and you can only read. You partecipate in WP X times without rising any filter and after a week/a month/... you got an extra point... Basic articles are PL 0 and disputed articles PL 10 so to be edited only by cool editors that didn't raise accusation/wikilove/... filters (= getting a -1 PL). Human interaction could still be granted by an admin that reviews the filter report and decides wheter to assign -1 PL. For example: you name somebody 'nazi' -> filter report -> admin applies -1 PL and extra -10 PL (= you're suspended from editing anything). Blackvisionit (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have already done studies showing how many new editors leave when their first article gets deleted, or even prodded or nominated for deletion. Wikipedia has also lost a lot of articles. A lot of content people formerly edited and read was deemed trivia and fancruft and eliminated from remaining articles, so less people going to the Wikipedia for that. They have now determined that the secondary guidelines for notability are meaningless, and that all articles must meet the GNG of having two references found in reliable sources that count as notable coverage. This means another vast number of articles will be deleted which were previously kept, and more people driven away. Dream Focus 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OR/RS and common sense intersect and conflict a lot of times. It should be allowed to split articles: first part has to be completely referenced and readable by any user, second part can be experts-oriented and reference to usually-taken-for-granted advanced topics. Blackvisionit (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give new articles that aren't attacks or copyright violations a brief safe harbour. We talk about not tearing the house down while it's being built, but how can we actually do this? When I go to new pages I find myself franticly rushing to fix articles that are getting tagged for deletion minutes after creation. They aren't even articles I created and it still makes me miserable to see them abandoned after the first big scary speedy tag.
    • Automaticly assign all new articles to a no-search-engine category when first started (to give us and them a little breathing time).
    • Have the default New Pages link start at 15 minutes in (with the ability to then go to 0 minutes if one chooses). Right now the New Pages link goes straight to 0 seconds, with patrollers having to make a conscious choice to click to a later page. Cloveapple (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The funny thing is that there's some kind of "new article" template you can put on a new article to stave off the vultures for 24 hours, but not even I can remember what it is, so new contributors don't have a chance. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality vs. Quantity

Oh, I see, deletionists ruined wikipedia, according to Dreamfocus. Cool. I disagree. :)

I think the crisis, while real, has more to do with a simple thing, too much focus on the bureaucratic tasks of the wiki - which are entirely necessary, don't get me wrong - and not enough focus on article quality.

This was not much of a problem during the period when the wiki was being filled with new articles, with stuff from Britannica public domain, with the basic articles any encyclopedia should have. During that period, bureaucratic tasks often had a direct effect on quality - creating templates and categories, reverting vandalism, deleting cruft, etc. Once those articles were basically in place, and new editors came to add material that was not core encyclopedic stuff, when the project started to deliver on its promise, it was then that bureaucracy stopped having an effect on quality. One of the reasons was that the bureaucracy was spread thin, another was that in desperation, people were being made admins after 3 months and a thousand edits, people who stayed around for two years and left. The project didn't build a quality oriented criteria for its bureaucracy, but a quantity oriented criteria. And this permeates then the content, as its bound to happen. So the focus, for many years has been unwittingly in quantity not quality. Jimbo has, in all justice, always fought this battle (even when we have disagreed on specific content - I can see the common thread), and there have been attempts (such as the reviewing system), to establish quality control tools beyond what we have.

I do not claim to have solutions, but I do have a few ideas - but what is important, in my view, that the fundamental, primary, problem today, at least in en-wiki, is not what we do, how we do it, or with which tools we do it, but that we have, as a community, mostly lost focus that quality is everything. To me, the biggest worry is not that we are losing editors and admins, is that a significant amount of FAs (some very long-standing FAs) are going down to GA and even B or worse quality, and that we hit our FA peak somewhere between early 2007 and early 2008, and have been downhill since. Yes the general number of FAs has climbed in a net sense, but this is misleading, because by definition an FA tends to be so solid that demotion is rarer than in a GA - however, if no FA had ever been demoted (which should be our goal) we would have 4,351 FAs, and not the 3,344 FAs as we do today. We have 1,007 less FAs than what we should have, which means that 1,007 former FA articles lost its rating. This is a 25% decrease in expected quality, using the current incentive structure, tools, etc. We are doing less FA reviews that what we did 3-4 years ago, which means less article quality in general.

I am not arguing we lower the standards for FA, if anything, we should set the bar even higher, I am arguing we need to make quality development a prestigious thing, much more than we do today, much more prestigious than being a crat, a stew, or an ArbCombie & Fitch. It is a problem of the incentives being on the quantity side (the glory of adminship, the sea of DYKs/ITNs/Barnstars etc), rather than the quality side (FARs, GARs, Peer-Reviews etc). Until we do not incentivize the creation of quality, rather than the protection and increasing of quantity, we will not solve this problem. The what, how, and with which tools we do this will emerge if we have a serious discussion on this topic, framed in this way, because we are some of the smartest bunch on the planet - but such creative power will not be unleashed until we frame the question in these terms, and put our energy into it. At least I think so.--Cerejota (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreed with User:Cerejota in starting an article about this topic. You're invited in joining Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better social and collaborative platforms: PIVOTAL for recruitment and retention

Wondering why Wikipedia isn't gaining contributors, Jimbo? Look no further than the intense "I'm shouting into the wind, no one cares and no one will help me" Factor. That is what I hear from new users I try and mentor, again and again. The lack of community is what is slowly killing Wikipedia. The MediaWiki platform, at present, is fair to poor at supporting collaboration, and moribund WikiProject corpses are increasingly blocking the path forward toward a new paradigm for a more collaborative Wikipedia. WikiProject History’s collaboration of the month is listed as October…October 2007, from the previous decade. Because I have been working on writing and improving Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Latin America, recently creating an article on Cuban revolutionary and close José Martí collaborator Juan Gualberto Gómez and working on several new Latin America-related articles in my userspace, I really wanted to resuscitate collaboration to aid my endeavors. My target: WikiProject Cuba. I spent over a month, with all the enthusiasm I could muster, posting on the Project discussion pages, posting to talk pages of past contributors to WikiProject Cuba, doing everything I possibly could. Then I waited another additional month and not one person showed interest; despite my best efforts have been unable to revive WikiProject Cuba. It turns out I had wasted time just shouting pointlessly into the void. It is a lonely, sinking sensation, very disappointing and defeating and we can't expect me or anyone else to devote much energy to unfun drudgery of this sort, calling out into the wind. It is time to face reality that a lot of the old pillars of the community that created and sustained the most important WikiProjects in 2006-2008 have left Wikipedia, and the old pathways for collaboration sadly collapsed behind them in many cases. This is why I have proposed no-muss, no-fuss, informal collaboration pages replace some of the most rigomortis-ed WikiProjects.

All of my efforts vis a vis improvements, and proposing changes, to Wikipedia, come from a deep love—an almost evangelical fervor for—Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects as a force for good. I will never leave Wikipedia no matter what. But we must put ourselves in the shoes of a brand new, yet talented, editor approaching en.wikipedia for collaboration on an article rewrite. Among editors, especially the newer editors, WikiProjects create the impression that collaboration is ongoing when it often isn’t. Thus, it helps prevent new blood from launching new collaborations, stifling the collaborative environment that improves articles, fosters peace and understanding, and retains talented writers. The absence of a cordial, supportive, collaborative platform hurts retention and I think it’s fair to say this absence often leaves behind a caustic “lone wolf” culture that can repel women from the project as well as spurning a lot of non-autistic males .

The Wikimedia team has understood for years that in order to close the startling gender gap on the one hand and the general retention rate on the other, editing must be a much more social experience. The potential “whittling down” each year of our pool of talented writers is the greatest threat to Wikipedia, as we must increase the number of editors, especially expert editors, to be able to fix the sprawling hellscape of weak, inaccurate and incomplete articles that drag down the project (especially in the area of the social sciences and humanities, which Sue Gardner correctly pointed out at the 2011 Wikipedia in Higher Education summit). Retaining good people is the greatest danger to en.wikipedia’s success; though edit warring gets more attention, WP:DONTBEADICK and dispute resolution is crucial to the extent it effects retention of editors. We really need to keep good editors around, and I believe a more social, collaborative platform would go a long way toward that goal. I would like to see a transition to what the Wikimedia Strategic Plan to 2015 foresees as “topical groups” based on editing interests; just the newness of it would draw people in to give Wikipedia a second chance. A more social platform that fosters (and not repels) collaboration is essential, PIVOTAL, to recruitment and retention, and getting there (a better MediaWiki platform) will require a ton of commitment and resources from the Wikimedia Foundation; this isn't something fixed by the typical Wikipedia volunteerism {{sofixit}} response, it is a room and stem issue. I can only hope the Wikimedia Foundation hears us and acts. NickDupree (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above for the most part, but there is another way to tackle this that I have almost never seen discussed on this, the most visible page in Wikipedia. I agree that people (male or female) need to be part of a community in order to have a long term commitment to it. What community there is, is fragmented at best. New and existing editors should not only have ways to interact online (making Wikimedia more socially interactive technologically speaking) but I have not seen serious promotion online to the 35+ Wikimedia chapters that exist around the world. I, for one, would have never found Wikimedia México if I had not happened to come across a photo of a meeting in Commons. These chapters, student clubs, programs such as GLAM, will not immediately fix interaction problems, nor do they substitute some kind of online interaction within the Wikipedia domain. However, it does not help that pages related to these organizations, which offer promise for a long-term stable community of supportive volunteers, are "banished" to domains outside wikipedia.org in the outreach.wikimedia.org and meta.wikimedia.org with no easy way to find information about any of these programs. One simple quick way to address this would be to put links to chapters and student clubs on the welcome message for newbies and perhaps a message about these on all userpages once in a while (yes, I know it is spam, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks IMHO).Thelmadatter (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Thelmadatter. Your reply reminds me of a related point, that readers of Wikipedia often don't realize that Wikipedia is volunteer-written, and may not even know there is a community there to involve themselves in. Countless times, new readers have come into the en.wikipedia IRC Help channel looking for "the management," having no clue that me and the other helpers are random volunteers and part of a community. In short, Adrien Chen had a point in his recent piece: "new editors aren't showing up at the same rate. After years at the top result on practically every Google search, Wikipedia has lost its urgency. Kids who were in 8th grade in 2004 have gone through their entire high school and college careers consulting (i.e. plagiarizing) Wikipedia; to them, Wikipedia is a dull black box—editing it seems just a bit more possible than making revisions to Pride and Prejudice."
The MediaWiki platform should engage people in the community, or at least make it apparent that a community exists, with links that go straight to active collaborations, and perhaps even consider something big, like listing major authors of an article via some sort of template, like the "Maintained by" Template, but on the article itself. It is clear to me that big changes are needed to keep Wikipedia fresh, and tinkering along the edges or fiddling endlessly with WP:THISALLCAPSPOLICY vs. WP:THATALLCAPSPOLICY while Rome burns is inadequate. Wikipedia faces a formidable challenge to stay relevant, and clinging to our own variations on the rigid Encyclopedia Britannica model, we risk, as User:Aprabhala noted in the NYT: “it is quite possible that for the 18-year-old of today that Wikipedia looks like his father’s project. Or the kind of thing his father might be interested in.” I would like to see Wikipedia trying bold experiments with social and collaborative tools, acknowledging that WE ARE A SCHOLARLY, ENCYCLOPAEDIC FORM OF A SOCIAL NETWORK in competition for eyes with other social media sites.
NickDupree (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the intention or purpose of Wikipedia to be "a scholarly, encyclopaedic form of a social network," or any form of social network. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, as an end unto itself. Since it is a collaborative product, it does require some social interaction to produce it (though sometimes the interaction instead interferes with producing it.) If someone is looking for a "social network" instead of an encyclopedia, maybe this is not really their project. I think the goal needs to be to attract new editors to Wikipedia without losing sight of the purpose of the project. I do think it would help to make what an editor (especially a non-technical person like me) sees when he/she opens up an editing window a little less daunting than it sometimes is -- but I don't know if that's the most serious issue. Neutron (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a Secret Plan to which I am not privy to somehow turn for-profit and do an IPO, Wikimedia projects are not "in competition with" social media sites, and I find any effort to make us into such things repugnant in the extreme. This resembles the more bogus efforts of my youth to make each and every university class and subject matter "relevant" at all costs; a pathetic failure, by and large, however noble the intention. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While Im not against recruiting youngsters... after all, I am overseeing the organizational meeting of Club Wikipedia at Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, Mexico City today (wish me luck!). However, there is nothing wrong with having the "father's generation" working with Wikipedia. After all, its the old folks like me (47 years young) that often have the patience and ability to do good research and not just copy/paste.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NickDupree, this is likely the worst, most inaccurate description of what Wikipedia is, or should be, that I have ever read: ... WE ARE A SCHOLARLY, ENCYCLOPAEDIC FORM OF A SOCIAL NETWORK in competition for eyes with other social media sites. You may wish this to be true, but I know of no evidence that it is true. The 'ratings' boxes, the 'wikilove' buttons, the 'like' tabs are all backward steps away from encyclopedic reliability and towards facile, juvenile (which is not necessarily related to chronological age) and superficial popularity contests. The contributors you gain by these methods will be at the cost of anyone with anything serious to add to the project. Bielle (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing only a single word from a recent issue of The Onion: "[Wikipedian]s need to tailor their products to a younger audience—for example, by misspelling words, omitting or abusing punctuation, and keeping articles to a manageable 140-character length." --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
two cents: I think that it's dangerous to assume that the kinds of contributors who might be introduced to/enticed to stick around the Wikipedia community through new tools like rate this article or wikilove are somehow inferior, malicious, or unserious. I'm currently working with the Foundation's Summer of Research, and have been spending a lot of time looking over contribution histories of recent newbies. We all know that the number of account creators who go on to become Wikipedians is an almost vanishingly small percentage of the total accounts created to begin with, and those who soldier on face some serious hurdles: user talk pages full of warning templates, getting reverted, struggling with markup complexity, trying to find help resources, grokking policy, finding "active" collaborations or even just someone to talk to... and that's not counting IPs who make good-faith contributions, or avid readers who have NO CLUE that there's a whole community living 'behind' the encyclopedia (even today, I have to explain this to people all the time when they ask me about my research). From what I've seen, most of the people who make a few edits and then give up are NOT vandals: many of them are smart, interested, geeky people who could be productive contributors and valued community members. But, for whatever reasons, most of them don't stay. I believe the right design interventions, rolled out at the right time WITH community input and buy-in, can help with these issues: can make it easier to edit, easier to interact, easier to find who and what you're looking for and easier to BECOME a full-fledged Wikipedian. The kind of features and tools that are being considered by the Foundation (which I do NOT speak for) aren't IMHO intended to dumb things down, or Facebook-ify Wikipedia, or make it trendy and sexy: they're intended to simplify certain things that are probably harder than they need to be, and to potentially bring in the kind of people that WOULD edit productively, but are stymied, bored or frustrated by the (bureaucratic and technical) complexity of editing. A lot of online collaboration platforms include "social media"-like features that make it easier to communicate, navigate and work together without turning into Facebook. A Wikilove button need not be a slippery slope to a Farmville plugin :) Jtmorgan (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My position is closer to what Jtmorgan is saying than the unhelpful caricatures of my position above his post. Please note that nowhere in my suggestions have I mentioned Facebook or Facebookifying Wikipedia. The "social and collaborative tools" we need, are not "WikiLove" or anything of the sort; a "WikiLove button" or other "buttons" ≠ collaboration.
What I am trying to get at is: 1) Wikipedians are at their best when collaborating, pooling their abilities and knowledge to maximize the strengths of each while editing away the weaknesses of each, all for a goal greater than one person. By far, the most productive writing I've seen has emerged from collaborative editing experiences.
2) Wikipedia is at its worst when collaborative editing has become more a rarity than an every day avenue for building an encyclopedia, and things break down into an increasingly isolated and "lone wolf"-type environment, most of us alone shouting into the vacuum, no community as simultaneously internet culture moves toward social experiences.
Unless we can bring back 1 and minimize 2, retention will continue to be a problem, especially among women, or men who don't see their writing going into the sterile void of loneliness as their idea of fun. Look no further than the piece at the bottom of this Signpost In the news... "I believe that more women would be involved in editing Wikipedia if it were a social activity, rather than an insular one, so I hosted a WikiWomen party at my house to make the experience collaborative." Wake up and realize, Wikipedia should be a collaborative, social experience from the get-go without heroic measures required. Making it naturally collaborative is pivotal for recruitment and retention! Simply, I believe that updating the MediaWiki platform to encourage community and collaboration in certain small but powerful ways could go a LONG way to making editing Wikipedia a more collaborative experience, and that experience has nothing to do with "WikiLove," "buttons" or "Facebook." —NickDupree (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you feel we are caricaturing your position, Nick; but for a lot of us, "social experience" smells like a euphemism for Facebookification, and the introduction of the loathsomely smarmy Wikilove was pitched in a manner which sounded a lot like what you have been saying. (Full disclosure: I've been a paid writer since 1984, married to another writer, and there is no less social experience than writing. I think of much of what I do here other than my admin duties as writing and re-writing.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't mind Wikilove, I don't see it as a constructive step toward fixing any of the various root problems with the MediaWiki platform supporting collaboration. —NickDupree (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLove is neither a problem nor a solution. The problem is that those who harshly criticize someone who's acting in a good faith can't be bothered to start out with an acknowledgement and thanks (when warranted) for previous contributions. It's the immediate, nonstop nastiness of these attacks that's appalling and turns people off. The people who make these attacks also seem to have a problem with admitting their own mistakes, with apologizing, and with other social skills most of us take for granted. Even that is tolerable if they aren't in some perceived position of power, responsibility and/or esteem. iow, call them Janitors instead of Admins, and don't put them in charge of deletions (other than the obvious "Joey Siefert goes to Middleton Middle School and he's a jerk because he stole my lunch money." new articles). Let them tag articles with "stub" and perhaps practice writing (or copying) helpful, encouraging notes on the author's Talk page suggesting possible reliable sources. There are no wrong people, just the right people in the wrong jobs. For example, someone compulsive and competitive could usefully work on adding and filling out infoboxes, but letting them 'review' new articles for notability for deletions is always going to end in tears. And here we are. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrift in a sea of knowledge: a personal narrative

I have gone through various periods of activity and inactivity on WP. The two most active and enjoyable periods for me were fairly different. The first was editing the article Günther Blumentritt in order to bring it up to B-class. I had in fact created the stub a few years before and then abandoned it. I came back to it out of renewed curiosity and began to improve it. I have no formal training or special knowledge on the subject, but for completely random reasons it caught my interest and I saw that WP needed an article, so I made one. My work was done mostly in isolation and without any kind of communication with others.

We are all familiar with the "low hanging fruit" hypothesis about the decline in contributions to WP. As time passes there are fewer and fewer opportunities for the average person to contribute a new article on a subject that is easy to research and understand. So, opportunities like my experience with my first article become less and less common over time.

The second major period of activity centered around the Hoxne Hoard article and the drive to get it to FA status as part of the Hoxne challenge. In truth, my contributions were fairly minor, partly because I did not have access to the main sources used in the article, but my entire experience of editing WP was transformed by this event. The feeling of teamwork and collaboration was invigorating, and unlike anything I have taken part in before or since. The editors involved talked to each other extensively, but it was about the project.

Right now I make 10 edits on a good day. Mainly reverting vandalism and leaving welcome messages on new user pages. I have almost zero contact with anyone here outside of that. I have many interests, but I feel overwhelmed with the amount of work that needs to be done on literally MILLIONS of articles. I have searched for other opportunities for focused collaboration in a group, but I have not found any.

I am not a particularly social person, and I am fine with that. I don't need or want "like" buttons or small talk with people on WP. However, I do believe that creating and nurturing a more collaborative approach to editing would be a huge boon to WP. It would energize the contributors we have now, and make it far more likely that new editors would stick around. And it would be NOTHING like facebook in any significant way. If anyone reads "facebook" into this post they have missed the point.

Anyway, what do I know? *shrug* Revcasy (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Novel Idea: Respect Facts and Follow Your Own Rules

You wonder why authorities on various subjects flee Wikipedia. You wonder why no respectable academic institution anywhere in the world will permit a student or faculty member to cite you as a source. You wonder why, in popular culture, "Wikipedia" is the punchline to a joke. I can tell you this much: Yes, your software is ridiculously hard to use, but your critical problems lie elsewhere.

We can start with the organizing principle of this pseudo "encyclopedia": that fact is whatever one of your child flashmobs says it is. Yes, child. One-third of your editors are high school students, and another one-third are college kids. Yes, flashmobs. Controversies are routinely dominated by a few editors with administrative privileges, most of them having no prior familiarity with the topic. A fact-free environment administered by roving gangs of children can be expected to end badly, as Wikipedia has done. You are routinely manipulated by governments, corporations, political ax-grinders, and p.r. flacks, the combination of which have turned much of Wikipedia into a wasteland.

From there, we can move to your "standards." When controversy erupts -- typically because someone with an interest wants to exclude one or more facts -- the very first thing you can expect at Wikipedia is wholesale flouting of your "standards." When standards are routinely ignored, they don't exist. The result is that Wikipedia's articles, to the extent that any material is a matter of controversy, are a political mishmash. It is only to be expected from an enterprise where, from the beginning, there is no such thing as "fact," but only "consensus."

The only way to rescue Wikipedia would be to make a fundamental change at the core: To put fact at the center of everything here, recognizing that it has independent validity and trumps everything else. Once you do that, you can go to work on your other critical flaw, i.e., the substitution of flashmob tactics for real process here. Until and unless you do those things, Wikipedia will quite appropriately be scorned, derided, and marginalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying - ban the div tag?

Ok, I don't mean 'ban' in the sense of a project-wide ban, but here is what I am thinking about.

I just went to edit my own user page User:Jimbo Wales because I noticed someone had placed a photo on there that had nothing to do with me at all. (Lovely photo, but I thought I would just remove it.) And as I was editing, I thought about my keynote speech at Wikimania this year and how I think I should take a leadership role in coaching all of us to make editing easier for relative newcomers. (Think of a wonderful, smart person who would be a good writer, who has just made 2-3 edits and is thinking of getting more involved... but who doesn't know a lot about programming / coding / markup languages.)

My user page is quite pretty, but it is chock full of div tags (and much worse). Please go click on edit and see. Here's a sample of markup: {{#ifexpr: {{CURRENTMONTH}}=8 and {{CURRENTDAY}}=7 |{{!}}- {{!}} style="text-align: center; {{gradient|#ddddff|#eeeeff|vertical}} border: 1px solid #88a; {{box-shadow|1px|1px|6px|#445}} {{border-radius|1em}}" colspan="2" {{!}} [[File:Birthday cake (fun).png|left|200px]] [[File:Birthday cake (fun).png|right|200px]] <span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 16pt">{{Break|5}}Happy {{Ordinal|{{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-1966}}|sup=yes}} Birthday Jimbo, from everyone here at Wikipedia!!</span> }}

So, like, I'm a programmer and I can at least read the general gist of this. Once a year, on my birthday, this will magically change part of my userpage to give me a sweet birthday message. Great, I mean, that really is actually quite cool.

But what isn't cool is some of this markup. Ok, many people can probably roughly guess at what things like "text-align: center" might mean. But what the heck is "{{!}}"??? I know that the curly braces denote a template. Do we really have a template out there named as exclamation point? (The sad answer is yes, yes we do.) What does it do? Why? Why do I need to know this? If the benefit is some minor degree of flexibility/beauty in my userpage, but the cost is that a relatively new user such as myself (haha) feels intimidated from editing, not because I'm dumb and can't figure things out if I try (I am a programmer, after all), but because, jeez, I have a life, and I want to write an encyclopedia not get a diploma in wiki markup.

So here is what I am thinking about. I'm thinking about going through my user page with a chain saw and return it to a 'good old days' style... and to encourage others to do the same... and eventually to encourage the Foundation to develop the visual editing tools to allow a certain amount of beauty but without forcing people to learn this horrifying way of doing things.

But this is my own userpage, so of course within rational bounds I can do what I want. Slightly more controversially, I may start to go through articles on my watchlist that I edit for content (generally, UK peers and BLPs that I help monitor) with a general bias against including div tags and other such monstrosities. Not "with a chainsaw" mind you (that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point), but rather with a gentle eye towards making Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most of the really bad markup is outside of article space (like on your userpage) but we need it for places like portals or the main page. The worst markup in article space is usually in the references, unfortunately. —Kusma (t·c) 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things in life many of us enjoy using without understanding exactly how they work, and certainly without feeling any necessity to create them from scratch. That's most people, not techies. Techies love to code from scratch and have a visceral dislike for anything anyone else has coded. Whatever it is, they feel an immediate name to 'improve' it. Some write their own word processors and spreadsheets. It's who they are. Go ahead and embrace your Inner Geek, but don't assume everyone has one. If I wanted to use that Birthday thing myself, I would copy and paste it. Why would I want to recreate it myself? The obvious fields to change are CURRENTDAY, CURRENTMONTH, CURRENTYEAR and the message. I can do that, no diploma required. So can everyone else. I can't create an infobox or a table either, but I can copy and modify ones that others have done. Which is a good thing, as it helps with consistency. Do you honestly want each UK Peer article to be 'creative and unique' in its formatting, or do you want the focus to be on the contents? I just don't buy the assumption that there are vast legions of potential Wikipedia contributors who are violently allergic to any and all code. They just want to use it, not write it. Most people have used Word and Excel in school or work and understand the concept of highlight and click an option. That implies knowing what the options are. What they need is to be able to mouse-over the more cryptic Wikipedia symbols and see an explanation of what they'll do. Unfortunately, Wikipedia steadfastly refuses to provide this in the editing box, so people are understandably frustrated trying to figure out what the various 'Wiki markup' symbols mean. They're not stupid, they just don't enjoy being jerked around by people who enjoy discouraging non-techies. Ten years, and no one has yet found the time to write a useful mouse-over for these? Really? They can find all sorts of time to create birthday cakes et al, yet a few minutes for the mouse-overs is simply not possible? Jimmy, it's insulting to see Click on the character or tag to insert it into the edit window for every single example of code. We know that. We get it. What we want is to know what the codes do, and we know very well that shouldn't require a video tutorial, endless reading, less-than-useful 'wizards', a personal mentor - or a diploma, as you put it. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the articles you maintain are different from the ones I do, I don't think you'll actually find much of that stuff. What would really be most valuable to new editors, I believe, would be to provide a simpler way of constructing references. For medical journal articles there is an excellent tool to do it automatically given a Pubmed index number, but for other types of references it is usually a huge pain in the ass, even for experienced editors. Looie496 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the aim but not the priority. We have a team of people developing a WYSIWYG interface - I'd be inclined to wait until they announce they can't do it or they are doing all but templates x, y and z - then go round and see if the bits they can't do are really needed in articles. If you want to push the simplification agenda I'd suggest revisiting the maintenance templates. I suggested a while back that we work out which ones are needed to warn readers, and which others succeed in recruiting readers and newbies to fix things and replace all the rest with hidden categories. The only thing hindering such a move is that some people like these templates, but if we used a bot to replace all orphan templates with a hidden category of orphan it would be an easy and painless simplification of the pedia.
Oh and I love the idea of the diploma for wiki markup - how do I apply for mine? Wait, this could be sensible, how do we get an academic institution to start assessing editors and awarding diplomas? I'm thinking this could apply on a very broad range from badges in the scouts to points towards Open University courses. When I was in the scouts I got a badge for growing a bunch of vegetables, I'm sure we could agree criteria for a scout badge. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The orphan tag issue does need fixing... discussions at Wikiproject Orphanage seem to fizzle out but moving the tags to a talk page / hidden category / end-of-article template should be a priority. No reader or inexperienced editor needs to see them at the head of so many pages.
@Jimbo I would definitely sort your userpage out if you want to. It's become extremely bloated and has an outdated 'web 1.0' feeling. Userpages that work well often just have a single nice image from commons and a small amount of text Jebus989✰ 11:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-gay paranoia or legitimate BLP application?

There are several discussions on BLP/N where even sources like ABC [2] are wikiunreliable to some because they choose to quote an interview done by a gay "activist" (as labeled by the wikidetractors) source instead of doing their own. What is your opinion on this? FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERPARENT much?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your going to Jimbo is certainly acceptable, I suggest Jimbo also look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Off2riorob_topic_ban_proposal and see precisly how much support your position has in the community. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I accept we know by wp:consensus that The Advocate is not re liable (and they practically think the same of Wikidpedia, duh [3], and OMG they getting parroted by E! Online [4]). The real question is whether ABC churnalism is any better. And by the way, that's a different article and different actor. It didn't involve the consensus decider Off2riorob yet, but I can presume what his AN-powered action will be given that his buddy Collect already weighed in. I guess Deep Throat would have had to wait for his name to be published before anything based on him could be included in Wikipedia, regardless where published. Shit, that took 30 years. Long live Nixon. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FuFoFuEd, you seem to be grouping a couple of things that are not related except that both deal with the reporting of the sexual preferences of actors. The Luke Evans situation was mishandled from the start (there was no reason for that page to be fully protected, for one thing) but seems to be working itself out now. The thread I started on the BLP noticeboard about David Ogden Stiers (which uses the ABC source) is unrelated and no one has used the word "activist" (with any qualifier) in the discussion. The suggestion is not that ABC News is unreliable, but that ABC quoting an unreliable source does not magically make the original source into a reliable. That discussion is here if you would like to express an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one mixing them, Collect was, on purpose I suspect. By the way, for those not getting what Nixon might have to do with this, here's a small history lesson [5]. I'm out of this madhouse for a while. Cheers, FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was you. You did it in the first sentence of this thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page is one of the worst examples I've heard of where Wikipedia has actually maligned someone with notable effect - but this is not be covering sources about someone being gay, but rather, by someone's awkward effort to downplay the issue. In particular this Wikipedia edit led to this gossipy news article, where the reporter seems to take this edit, deleted a little over a day later, as if it were serious. Now while Off2riorob didn't make that particular edit, his suppression of good, sourced material on the topic on several occasions immediately preceding this, including two days before this edit [6], led directly to the information-starved quality of the article and the poisonous editing environment which allowed such a blurb to get through posing as Wikipedia's view of the issue. Whenever he's deleting things Off2riorob poses as the defender of all things BLP, but I've commented before, at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Responses from those mentioned:section, that his deleting things from articles can also create BLP problems. The problem with the tiny but remarkably disruptive cabal of deletionists we're encountering here is that they don't recognize that editors need to be responsible about deletions - that deletions can be original research when you remove what you personally don't find plausible, they can violate NPOV when they remove one side's opinion, and that they can violate NOR when you remove the basic known facts about a person. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a "news article" is a blog post on a entertainment blog, which means "gossip column." Your comments here are not helpful Wnt, especially when you say things like "[w]henever he's deleting things Off2riorob poses as the defender of all things BLP." You're implying that he just likes to "delete things" and the BLP claims are just his cover. You go on to talk about a "remarkably disruptive cabal of delitionists," as if, again deletion is their prime objective as opposed to protecting or even to take a critical view, obsessing over BLP. Just because the end result has been the deletion of a few strings of text doesn't meant hat the objective is "deletion." Basically you're using this issue to further your own WP:BATTLEGROUND - fighting all the dirty rotten delitionists on Wikipedia at every turn - and like I said it's not helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, the dispute started somewhat before the edit you linked. The AfterElton piece suggests that Evans' PR people are manipulating the article and it appears to me that they are correct. That aspect of this case has yet to be addressed. When stories of this type come out, Wikipedia tends to do their best to kill the messenger instead of looking at the message to see if there is any merit. We can benefit from looking at the perspective of outsiders, even if we do not agree with them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the question of whether to include someone's sexuality in an article is a complex matter requiring sophisticated and thoughtful judgment. Gossipy reporting of the sheer fact (or, often, claimed fact) is generally not enough - we need to know why it is noteworthy for someone's career. In this case, arguments have been put forward on both sides, and the discussion is both interesting, useful, and heading towards thoughtful consensus.
What isn't ok is what has also happened here, up to and including an angry email to me and the ridiculous headline of this section. And that is: the personal attack on other editors in the form of a claim that their position is based on anti-gay paranoia. The argument has been sometimes put in such a way that any argument against including information about someone being gay in an article must be grounded in anti-gay bias. That's as absurd as saying that any argument for including information about someone being gay in an article must be grounded in pro-gay bias.
Those who might argue in that fashion should consider that at least some of us might be so far beyond prejudice and bias on this issue, that we regard someone's sexual preference to be a pretty routine biographical fact like any other, about which we can make editorial judgment in the same way that we always do. Sometimes the fact is relevant to someone's life, career, etc., and other times it isn't. Activist magazines and blogs engaged in "outing" (or making a big deal out of it generally, even if it isn't technically "outing") only move the needle on that by a very tiny bit, if at all.
And finally, I'd like to recommend to Wnt that he strike his unfair comments about Off2riorob above. As someone else said, it could of course be possible to criticize Off2riorob for being overzealous or overcautious on BLP issues - he does take a strong stand, after all, and reasonable people may differ in specific cases - something I'm sure he is completely prepared to graciously acknowledge of reasonable opponents in particular debates.
But to characterize him as a "deletionist" as if his primary motive is to delete things from the encyclopedia really totally misses the point of his work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little issues can serve as good windows into bigger ones, because there's less peripheral clutter. The article about the actor was good for that purpose. It illustrates the two critical flaws inherent in the Wikipedia pseudo reference source. The first is that, for Wikipedia, facts have no independent validity but are dictated by the Wikipedia flashmob of the moment. This means that, at the core, you have no standards and cannot have any. Which leads to the second point: What passes for editorial "standards" at Wikipedia are routinely ignored by your flashmobs. This is why, on any controversial issue, Wikipedia is unreliable. Which is why no respected academic institution will permit its use as a source; why Wikipedia is losing serious contributors; and why Wikipedia is commonly satirized and derided in popular culture.
In the article about the actor, the fact is that he gave three interviews discussing his sexual orientation. One in 2001, and two in 2004. It is also a fact that the motion picture industry has always encouraged public interest in the private and public romantic lives of its actors, and it's a fact that there has indeed always been considerable public interest in such things. Yet, Wikipedia allowed the censorship of the fact of the actor's interviews. In doing so, the one editor cited here used Wikipedia's so-called "NOTABILITY" rule to justify the censorship, even though that rule clearly states that "NOTABILITY" is not to be applied to the contents of an article. In the end, what this boils down to is that fact is just another piece of the mix here, and that Wikipedia's "editors" can ignore your rules whenever they want to. These are routine happenings at Wikipedia, and over time they have driven serious people to throw up their hands and leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exercising good editorial judgment is not censorship. It is not Wikipedia's role to amplify ephemeral gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it Wikipedia's role to even follow its own "standards." The editors and administrators of this pseudo "encyclopedia" continually ignore their own rules. It's a common, everyday feature here. Any real authority on a subject would need to have a screw loose to give Wikipedia his or her time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really got nothing better to do with your life than to post endless repetitive negative comments about Wikipedia? If you don't like it, and don't think anyone else does, then stop whining, and find something else to occupy your time. Your attendance here isn't compulsory... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I've looked over my comment above and I really don't think I was being all that unfair - not even with what I admit is a rather harshly worded remark about a deletionist cabal. That's because those three editors above, Off2riorob, Griswaldo, and Collect, are all parties to a current Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, and I've found myself in opposition to several of the parties on their side of that case on quite a few occasions (even on an issue with no explicit connection to BLP). And in the Breivik article, I felt like keeping the strong disavowals of people like Fjordman was a nice BLP consideration to give them. So my feeling here (barring some details) remains similar to that of 71.227.x.x. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- there are 21 "parties" to the ArbCom case. Yet you manage to single out 3? If you want to plead some sort of Cabal note the discussion about topicbanning Off2riorob -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Off2riorob_topic_ban_proposal which had a WP:SNOW result. Sorry -- I keep thinking about your earlier threads on this page [7] where you argue that WP:NOTNEWS should be deleted. [8] has you showing a clear POV about a BLP issue. [9] is an interesting colloquy about BLP as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) appending: You aver that "several" of us were involved in the Classified Documents discussion. That claim is errant. Exceedingly errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Half the 21 ArbCom parties on the that side (plus one whose case was separated but is running concurrently).[10] You're right that "three" was wrong - Griswaldo, Delicious carbuncle, and Collect commented directly above; Off2riorob makes four. Viriditas, JN466, ResidentAnthropologist were involved in the Wikileaks discussion. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- Which of the 3 was involved in any way with the "Classified Documents" discussion? Try "none" as the answer instead of making the side claim that "half of the 21" is meaningful in any way. What you have is that there was ZERO intersection between the group you named and the group of 4 out of the 21 editors whom you aver were in the mini-cabal of some sort. In short - no connection whatsoever, and your imputations to the contrary do your case here no favour at all, but smell greatly of personal attacks. At least try to find some actual connection between editors whome you choose to categorize as being in the antiWnt group. Jimbo's page is not a great place to aver that some sort of group is involved in something you disagree with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goal there was to respond to Jimbo Wales about my comment, but I've strayed off topic. You're right that you weren't in there, but that wasn't the point I was making. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User 71, it may be permissible per policy to include the subject's sexual orientation in this instance. But that by no means makes inclusion compulsory. Inclusion of permitted content will be determined by consensus, based on considerations of relevance, noteworthiness, impact on living persons, and any other factors unique to the case. As for citing Wikipedia articles, I don't think anyone argues for citing a document that changes from one day to the next. Wikipedia is more an annotated bibliography than a source itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More typical Wikiweaseling. Fact (something you wouldn't recognize, because you don't believe in fact) is that Wikipedia has no rules. Not in practice, because whatever rules you do have can be, and routinely are, ignored by consensus. That is what makes your efforts worthless. It's why contributions are down by two-thirds from four years ago. It's why no one in academia takes you seriously, and why you're a joke in popular culture. The only thing that gives Wikipedia as many hits as it gets is its agreement with Google to put Wikipedia at or near the top of any search. Absent that, Wikipedia would be swept down the drain where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the trolling. This IP hasn't had a new idea in ages at this point. Just ignore him.Griswaldo (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Nay, things aren't that bad - the consensus model can work as long as people's priorities are on getting the article together. The problem is that those looking to remove sourced content, even for "ethical" reasons, have had an unwarranted advantage in conflict resolution. I wasn't a part of this debate, but it looks like Off2riorob was opposed by consensus on the Luke Evans talk page, then things were taken to a noticeboard, where he was generally opposed,[11]; the overall consensus was 16 to 7 for including the information [12] though he claimed some were "SPAs" (without noticing Acerroad on his own side). He called for an RSN discussion but the RSN previously favored the 'blog post on a entertainment blog, which means "gossip column."' he just mentioned above. [13] Consensus itself isn't the problem here, only its failure to actually protect editors when they're working to build good articles. Wnt (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt you're like a broken record. Getting our articles to top form will usually require adding and removing information. To decide that no information should ever be deleted, for any reason gets us nowhere fast. It's a position not unlike that taken by the Tea Party Republicans in the US Congress regarding the deficit. While they gum up the works by refusing to accept any compromise that raises even a penny of revenue you gum up the works by refusing to delete even a byte of information. Good luck with that.Griswaldo (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Carrotkit (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20 million all-language articles by November 2011

13-Aug-2011: I know you have encouraged a focus on quality, over quantity, but the growth of new articles, in all languages combined, is proceeding at over 6,000 new articles each day (currently: 63,305,741), beyond the thousands of non-notable pages also being deleted. At this rate, we will see another major milestone soon:

  • 20,000,000 articles (all languages) by early November 2011.

That means people can type in 20 million topic names and get some kind of structured information about their subject, in their language(s). Of course, with redirects, there are already more than 20 million logged phrases, but the "official count" of 20 million separate articles will be a count that will be widely viewed, by many experienced readers.

With all the other busy activities, it is easy to get distracted and miss the history in the making, then look back as the moment has passed. So, instead, we can take some time, during the next 3 months, to appreciate the impact of having 20 million formatted articles, in all these hundreds of languages, by November of this year (probably 8 November 2011). As various complications continue to limit the rate of growth, it will probably be another 5 years to pass, before seeing a similar milestone, of 30 million all-language articles, perhaps in 2016. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually bet we will see 30 million much sooner than that as growth accelerates in the languages of the developing world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=444611216"