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 108.60.145.58 (talk) at 17:29, 16 September 2012 (→‎Image filter (yet again)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

Racist and abusive remarks by User:Radiopathy

Please look here for a most disturbing incident of abusive and racist actions by a wikipedia editor. 128.127.107.243 (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already dealt with at ANI - blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite Andy, Radiopothay is not in the clear yet. I encourage any Asian users to tell us how they feel about letting a few "gook" comments go with no big deal. What if they had used the N-word? I support ZERO tolerance for racism and encourage others to do the same. 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd have blocked for longer, if it was my decision. As for supporting zero tolerance for racism on Wikipedia, I'd do that too - but we have a heck of a way to go, and it isn't just confined to edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I think users who call others any derogatory names, such as, oh how about "retard", should get something more than a light rebuke from Jimbo and then swept under the rug after apologizing "to the community" through email to Jimbo. We shouldnt limit our zero-tolerance to being just about race.Camelbinky (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has been blocked. Not sure why a second discussion is needed at Jimbo's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Camelbinky, at the risk of provoking another of your outbursts, I feel the need to remind you of this edit summary of yours from a couple of days ago: "seriously insulting and retarded. please dont ever put something so immature, ridiculous, and childish on my page again. Are you 5?". We all need to be careful not to use hurtful terms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect a Wikipedian to hold himself to the standards he demands of others. MastCell Talk 05:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here should be aware that this AN/I thread has been incited by sockpuppets, most likely in connection with the notorious capitalisation dispute. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but apparently the consensus is that racist slurs only warrant a one week block. Disgusting. AniMate 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the consensus at all. It's whether to site ban that particular editor for making racist slurs. Big difference. Doc talk 06:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like Radiopathy, but I like sockpuppetry less. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries are inexcusable, and a strong message needs to be sent. There's always WP:GAB and always the option of an admin extending the block to indefinite until it is certain that Radiopathy understands the gravity of what he did (several times). But a site ban without going to indef first seems like overkill to me. Doc talk 06:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support "zero tolerance" for anything. Zero tolerance is the practical equivalent of "zero reason". Let's use our noggins to treat each issue on a case by case basis. Whether the general mood is to treat these situations harshly or not, that part of the discussion doesn't interest me. But if you want to go by zero tolerance, that is only going to lead to blocks because someone says "I like crackers" and someone get's upset over a racial slur. Besides, in my experience, this always leads to reverse racism.--v/r - TP 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Zero" is an inapt description here, as there are multiple "unacceptable" and "inexcusable" edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your sentence doesn't really make sense to me, but my point is, let's not kick kids out of school for wearing the American flag on Cinco De Mayo. Zero tolerance is a free license to put zero effort and thought into dispute resolution. It's a lazy way of dealing with these issues. Each should be handled on it's own merits.--v/r - TP 13:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that Zero Tolerance policies, tolerate no act (zero) that contravene the policy, whereas action taken against multiple acts are not the operation of zero tolerance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should obviously stick to using Geek, Nagger, Chunk and Yed (except don't use "yed mae" with Thai editors... ) can we use "mutha" with female editotrs, or is that a gender stereotype? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this whole thing has me scratching my head and wanting to leave the project. Wikipedia has a problem with editor retention, and we have multiple editors *and administrators* saying using racial slurs is "sort of" okay if you have a lot of edits. Let's be honest. If an IP had called another editor a "gook" they would have been blocked indefinitely. If an editor with twenty edits had called another editor a "gook" we would have blocked them indefinitely. Because editors and administrators have heard of this editor he or she has basically gotten a slap on the wrist, despite an extensive block log. I really don't understand this at all. AniMate 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it more or less objectionable to racially slur an unknown ip? Do multiculural geolocates present less risk? I guess there are no degrees of zero tolerance, unless we go into the minus region. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AniMate, I'm going to look at the glass as half-full and pretend you're just not a careful reader. Otherwise your sarcasm, and the suggestion that I think racist epithets are OK, and the claim that I just set precedent, are really inappropriate. That you'd follow the open proxies to Jimbo's talk page to find another forum, then, I will take as a sign of immaturity, not of bad faith. Oh, IPs are rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely, and the block log for Radiopathy shows a big gap between 2010 and yesterday, but perhaps you don't believe in redemption either. There's no place for racism on Wikipedia, hence the block; if he does it again, no doubt he would be indeffed. Finally, if you really, REALLY, feel so strongly, you could have put your money where your mouth is (and it was in many places) and overruled me, with an extension to indefinite. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) AniMate - what your proposing might seem well and dandy in a local region like where you live. However, in a multi-national project like Wikipedia it is just not realistic. I, personally, have never heard of gook and while I get the picture it's a racial slur, I have no idea yet who it's a slur too (someone feel free to educate me). The point is, there are going to be racial slurs from the other side of the globe that even you are not aware of and new ones get created every day. What happens if I use the word "gook" and I think it's a word I made up to mean 'icky' and I get slammed for something I wasn't even aware of. I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance (hehe). Condemning zero tolerance doesn't make it "'sort of' okay", it is forcing us to actually think through our problems instead of taking short cuts. Besides, if your going to combat incivility, then combat the whole thing. Giving priority to racism is sexist, ageist, ect ect. If you want to take all of them seriously, then do so. But take them seriously based on each cases merits alone.--v/r - TP 14:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Gook. I still think of it as an enemy soldier (Viet Cong or NVA) and not going beyond that but others do.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, what you think and how reliable sources define the word and how it is used are at odds. AniMate is correct to be discouraged when admins refuse to use a dictionary and instead fall back on their personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and clearly what you think is at odds with how it is handled in WP policy but then that is you falling back on your personal beliefs. Two way street.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your belief about the word is not supported. Instead of changing your beliefs to reflect reality, you've attempted to promote your erroneous belief. That's the opposite of rational discourse. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article and the sources? It doesn't sound like it. My belief is fully supported and that is the way many folks think of it. I'm not encouraging its use but the politically correct police have been overreacting to this. You will have to change the vandalism policy because that word and the N-word and all sorts of other foul racial slurs & epithets get introduced into articles every day and we simply revert and warn a few times and if they persist then we block. We do it with far less drama than being generated here. IPs don't get blocked on first use so why would a regular user?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your position on this matter is totally untenable. Only somebody living in an alternative reality would claim that the word "gook" was used in this context (and in a contemporary context) to refer to "enemy soldiers" devoid of racist connotations ("not going beyond that"). The Wikipedia article (not a reliable source, btw) clearly states the term is both derogatory and a racial slur, and that's exactly how it was used by the editor in question. Apologies, but I don't inhabit your alternative reality, so I'm unable to see your position on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed how it was used in this context; that was your mistake. I said "I still think of it as an enemy soldier" which comes from my personal experiences and hearing others use it in that context. I'm happy to not occupy your "reality" and will continue with my beliefs. And you still have that big plank in your eye because you don't think one should be insulted for race but don't mind insulting others by suggesting they live in an alternate reality? Please. You didn't respond to my point that IPs aren't blocked on a one-off for slurs so why should a regular account be blocked?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you don't believe that the word "gook" is a racist term and that the user in question did not use it in a derogatory manner? Are you saying he was referring to the IP as a soldier? Remind me how you became an admin? Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, I was answering TParis' "I have no idea yet who it's a slur too (someone feel free to educate me)" with a reference to the article and then went on to state a truthful statement about how I have heard this used in life but acknowledged that others do see it differently. Check the indents to see that I was responding to TParis and not commenting on this particular incident (5 indents behind his 3 so that the comment would nest as an aside).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm playing "devils advocate" here, but suppose Radiopothay used "gook" thinking it was acceptable, and a short form of "Gobbledygook"? Would we then be forced to call him a liar? Or would we AGF and say he is terribly misinformed? Perhaps we might concede that using gobbledygook is pejorative nonetheless because it was directed against a Hong Kong ip user? My concern predominately regards the rush to assume we know the facts without an inkling to desire a reply from Radiopothay. My initial thoughts after reviewing contributions was that this is more characteristic of a compromised account than what the court of popular opinion has already ruled upon. And it is scary. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not think about this too hard. He used the term he used, and it wasn't about "gobbledygook". It doesn't mean we need to burn him at the stake for it, either. Doc talk 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally never heard of the editor and I'm still against an indefinite block. If someone called me a paddy, mick (or much worse that exists that I won't mention) in the same way I still wouldn't think they should be indefinitely blocked. I think assuming good faith is important here and that it was some sort of mistake or a moment of stupidity. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, racism is hardwired into the human brain so everyone is potentially a racist. The trick is in recognizing our bias when it comes up and making an active effort to move beyond primitive xenophobia for the purposes of survival and group cohesion and into the realm of knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, societies and institutions will manipulate the human propensity towards racism for political expediency. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My main question regarding this is, at what point does Radiopathy run out of chances at "redemption"? Just because this is the first case of him using a racial slur doesn't mean it should be treated as if it were entirely separate from everything he's done in the past, and the fact that he's earned himself another block shows that a pattern of disruptive editing has been established, despite protests to the contrary at AN/I. That is the dictionary definition of a pattern.
I feel I should point that he's never apologized for anything he's been blocked over, and he makes a point of only going to AN/I when the discussion is about other people. For what it's worth, I am very much in favor of extending the block to indefinite and forcing him to apologize for what he did. Maybe that's because I have a grudge; maybe it's because I know him better than most of the people who have been part of this. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you block someone indefinitely and then 'force' them to apologise?--andreasegde (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A forced apology is no apology. And how does an apology protect Wikipedia?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in relation to appealing the block. Regardless of whether or not he has legitimate contrition for what he did, I think it would have a longer-lasting impact on his future behavior if he had to acknowledge what he did wrong, rather than just taking a vacation and waiting out the block like he has the past nine times he's been through something like this. He needs to be able to mentally process that disruptive behavior is unacceptable, and that it won't be tolerated again going forward; this is something he seemingly has not done to date. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One week is not enough, but done's done there. A repeat should bring an hasta la vista. A very severe warning followed by a head chopping for recidivism on racist taunting strikes me as the way to go. Zero tolerance is excessive, but not by much. There is really no excuse for this sort of supremacist dogshit. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo What? Really? Are you going to let (Personal attack removed) off with one week block after disgusting and repeated acts of racial taunting? This is bad Jimmy, dont duck and run, one week slap on wrist for this is not very good now do better. 103.246.114.87 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your language is not much better:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extend block please. 128.127.107.10 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order all Wikipedias to discuss enabling of Flagged Revisions

Dear Mr Wales,

Could you order all Wikipedias to discuss enabling Flagged Revisions on all articles in order to combat bad faith edits, at least vandalism and spam? This is one of the best rapid response anti-destructive Wikipedia tools. I'm asking you this as a patroller from the Russian Wikipedia. Николай95 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ordering people to do things is hardly my style and wouldn't likely be very successful. But I am eager to encourage reasoned discussion of the feature. One thing that you could do that would be helpful would be to post here a good NPOV discussion of how it is working in Russian Wikipedia - including a thoughtful discussion of objections and any downsides. I believe that the experiences of other languages can be very helpful in moving people forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cluebot NG is pretty amazing. If the Russian Wikipedia is not using it yet, that is something you should look into Николай95. Here, it's catching a very large percentage of the vandalism. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that a description of the Russia experience would be useful. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I do note that my (quite limited) experience there seems to show obscure articles essentially going static as their backlog of unapproved edits piles up. If this is the situation generally, it'd be troubling, I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the discussion is desirable, and that the experiences of other languages should inform discussion here. Many of the vandalisms that have made the news these past weeks and months would probably never have been seen by the public if the English Wikipedia had flagged revisions (which could quite happily co-exist with ClueBot). In addition, flagged revisions might catch many of the more subtle BLP violations that sail past ClueBot. JN466 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) (I've dropped a note on the German Kurier talk page asking if anyone in de:WP feels like sharing their experiences. JN466 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The discussions of PC are going to kill me; that they haven't already is something of a miracle. And I still honestly can't understand why it matters so much to people; I can say, after all the discussions from this year, that I still Just Don't Care one way or another (I'm merely disinterested, not uninterested). But hey, someone has to do it, and it's at least somewhat more interesting than all the crap at Talk:Prem Rawat. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll open a "Russian section" in the WP:WikiProject Flagged Revisions. There will be the translation of the Russian reviewing policy, reviewing statistics & discussions of Russian experience. --Николай95 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've started translating the Russian patrolling policy. --Николай95 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia keeps having BLP problems on a scale that these other Wikipedias which have flagged revisions implemented across the entire article space don't have. They don't get media reports like this or these or this or this, because those kinds of edits would not normally go beyond the draft stage; in other words, the public would never see them, and the BLP subjects wouldn't be going through the ordeal that the English Wikipedia puts them through, with their names plastered all over the papers because some idiot vandalised their BLP. JN466 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JN466, Why don't you join the WP:WikiProject Flagged Revisions if you support them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Николай95 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree that some system needs to be in place for the sake of avoiding these kinds of fiascos. It's bad publicity both for the article's subject and for Wikipedia, and worse, it means that blatant libel still can be inserted into articles without an effective system of catching it beyond existing simple vandalism patrolling (which, as evidenced above, doesn't always work). I've found discussions by the community regarding it frustrating, as many editors seem not to care about the immense problems this can pose for the project, not to mention the opposed editors who seem to think that any form of flagged revisions is a fundamentally bad idea. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something to consider is that 1. en.wiki is a lot more visible than other wikis, and 2. just because we don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Frankly, the dogmatic comments from all sides of PC obfuscate any consensus and make it that much harder to deal with these discussions. Draw another goblet from the cask of 43... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged Revisions is one of the most organized Wikipedia quality control systems. --Николай95 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep encouraging better software or gadgets

This is just a reminder that there are numerous people who can create extremely powerful tools for Wikipedia, and many already have, but perhaps some tools need more polishing for primetime use. I think, again, your hunch is right that the current status of our wiki-technology is backward, compared to what it could become soon. Remember how quickly I was able to "fix" the slow-citation problem, with lightning-fast templates, even though disliked by some negative users. The technology is ready, but the resistance is contrived. Now, with the apparent success of Lua scripts, planned for early 2013, then many computer people, with formal training in languages similar to Lua could create very powerful Lua "modules" for use in articles, or used just during edit-preview, by using the #invoke template interface. Note well: Lua scripting will likely be difficult writing for the lay users, as a very "computer-language" system of macro scripting, but due to formal training, many computer people already think in complex procedures with loops, arrays and function calls. Meanwhile, after working to simplify some complex templates, I am ready to write a "wp:Template technology" essay to foster creation of smarter, faster templates, along with new modules in Lua script. The competition, and cooperation, of new gadget ideas is likely to create a positive synergism for better tools in both systems, to put wrappers in articles and have these template/module tools transform or analyze articles for better quality using very quick methods. However, there is still the growing problem of "wp:Data hoarding" in articles which are overrun with infospam beyond the basic facts about a subject. This goes back to your idea to have a simple version of each major article, such as "United States" as a basic article, linked to "United States (detailed)" to be the data-hoarder version, and similar for other major articles overrun with factoid tables and 9 tangent-topic navboxes. However, the era of smart wiki-tools is emerging. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:00, 13 Sep., revised 20:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your templates were "disliked" because they broke articles. The idea may have been good, but you were (apparently) unable to implement it correctly, or the technology was not ready. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been misled by the hype, where actually, the templates worked well, linking both titles and footnotes to text, but lacked the author-name backlinks later added within 6 days (see history of Template:Fcite). The exaggerated complaints were as if a person had edited an article, swapped a few words and removed some rare wikilinks, while making the article display 3x times faster, but accused then of "breaking" the article. Few other people who notice 10% of rare wikilinks removed, would declare an article as "broken" and for that reason, the templates remained in major articles for days, with no other concerns. In fact, in several of those major articles, there were no wikilinks affected at all (no Harvard citations), yet some rampant cries of totally "broken" persisted for weeks. This is another example to "beware complaints" as not representative of what most users think. Seek to have broader samples of data. For that reason, always beware over-the-top complaints that "the world will end tomorrow" because of some minor changes. I mean, really, a "broken article" means what, how ever will life continue. Anyway, it is amusing to review these antics. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Rich's template changes actually did break articles (made them undisplayable), but they were later fixed. Yours just reformatted the information, lost some, and lost some links (Harvard citations) to the actual information required to verify the sources. Those who pay attention to the citation templates could justifiably have said that the reformating "broke the articles".
If someone systematically swapped a few words (philosphy game?) and removed rare wikilinks, they would be justly accused of vandalism. Why should doing it by editing the template be different, except that the template editor may well remain unaware that the articles were vandalized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything which breaks Harvard citations is an improvement in my book. Name one thing other than wikitext itself which makes editing less accessible to novice editors of articles where they are used. It's absurd to pile on to people who break a few obscure things, and accuse them of vandalism no less, when they are simply trying to make things faster for everyone who needs to log in. The Cite templates have always been difficult to port and needlessly verbose ("|accessdate=", really, with no shorter synonym?) and the fact that they spike rendering time for people who log in so much might have something to do with why editing isn't as much fun as it used to be. 31.170.166.17 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I've been here long enough to remember when adding inline citations was something special. Yes, there's much more "friction" (in the Clausewitzian sense) when editing nowadays, but that has much more to do with higher standards on sourcing and citation, not the templates being used. {{sfn}} is a sight easier than scrambling around trying to remember what name you gave that ref tag and where inline you actually hid the text of the citation. For people making long, thoughtful edits, the page rendering time is a trivial factor by comparison; and I suspect the effect is largely masked by people editing articles by section rather than all at once. Choess (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fcite blamed for prior errors in Harvard citations: The whole situation is a complex set of problems, where people are confused by the slow-cite templates and too many parameters. Yes section-based edit-preview is faster, as typically 1-second reformat. However, ironically, when Template:Fcite was accused of "broken" articles during the first week, I discovered how some broken author backlinks were due to prior improper parameters for Harvard citations (author2 coded as "coauthors="). So, Fcite handled Harvard citations 7 days later, but some citations in article "India" had to be fixed to set "last2=" rather than coauthors. People broke article "India" long before Fcite. Meanwhile, the speed is only an issue for major articles with >50 citations, so people who edit pop-culture articles get the slow-down for every edit. However, readers with Special:Preferences image size higher/lower than 220px (or other options) also get the slow-down for simple viewing, which is 10x-25x slower than simple-text citations, compounded by some other large templates running very slowly (Template:Weather_box). I cannot emphasize enough that a huge article, with no templates but 25 images, will reformat within 2 seconds, or 3 with top infobox, rather than 24-45 seconds with large templates. Plus there are other concerns, as people have been confused by the 230 cite-template parameters which they "break" when using, as many times, people have set both "author2" and "last2" or "surname2" where some think surname2 is first name for last2, but last2 hides surname2. Here's the best part: when cite templates run faster, then there is more time to tell users do not set both last2 and surname2 or other illogical choices. Hence, Template:Fcite_journal is not "breaking" articles but rather speeding edit-preview to deter users from "breaking" article text themselves or slowing reformat time 4x slower in major articles. There are multiple improvements with the Fcite templates, and users "break" many articles with the old {Citation} template. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename reftags to subst cite templates: The reftags "<ref>" should be renamed, temporarily, such as "<xxref name=zz>" to allow wp:subst'ing of cite templates into simple wiki-text for porting to other systems, such as Simple English Wikipedia or also translating dates to German or another language. It can be a frustrating barrier to moving several citations to another wiki because "<ref>" prevents the "subst:" prefix from working on the templates inside each reftag. Currently, the plain visible text of citations must be copied, and then retro-fit with italics and wikilinks re-added even if already valid wikilinks for the other wiki. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other templates which slow reformat time: Although {cite_web}, {cite_book} or {citation} can cause articles to reformat, or edit-preview, 10x times slower, there are also other slow templates, which could be encouraged for improvement. For example, Template:Weather_box, which provides numerous options, could be changed to be faster than 4-5 seconds in every article. Meanwhile, I have advised people to use Template:Cite_quick (fully documented to match {cite_web} or {cite_book} ), which runs 10x-12x times faster, in major articles which reformat in over 10 seconds (such as pop-culture articles). Plus, Template:Cite_web/smart (Cite_web/sandbox4) is intended to replace {cite_web} as 4x faster for all remaining articles among the 1.2 million using {cite_web}. Result: almost all large, cite-related articles on Wikipedia will reformat almost 2x faster, and those with {cite_quick} can edit-preview 3x-4x faster. Although large infoboxes run only 1 second, other templates need improvement, and so people should be encouraged, not accused of "broken articles" or accused of "vandalism" because they write templates which run 6x-12x faster than older templates, with more features, and can warn users when an option is misspelled, or allow "acc" as an alias for "accessdate". -Wikid77 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little article to note

A bit late to the party, but Andrew Lih, a member of CREWE, has written an article about the Philip Roth thing and I think it's one of the best, most evenhanded portrayals of the incident and situation thus far. I just wanted to let everyone read it.

You can find it here. Thanks to Jayen for pointing it out in the first place. SilverserenC 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best article? Not likely. The article mentions that Roth was told he needed a secondary source and then goes on to imply that that's a defensible policy. In fact, Wikipedia does accept primary sources for claims like this, and the claim that he needs a secondary source was simply Wikipedia screwing up, followed by other Wikipedians compounding the screwup by refusing to speak up against it even after it became publicly known.
The article also comes perilously close to the "we include verifiable information even if it's false" fallacy. As soon as Roth told us that the information was false (at least after it became obvious that it was really him), we should have made the editorial decision to exclude the false material. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need more essays... to explain how articles are written. I started with "WP:Beware mindreader text" to avoid the whole "what-the-author-was-thinking-but-has-not-said" imagined inspiration, in this case. Last year, there was "WP:Acceptability" to help explain what gets excluded from articles. We need more essays. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning behind Lin's statement is that secondary sources are, almost always, the best source to use, because primary sources are too close to the topic. This leads to things like exaggeration, misremembering, or just plain human error.
While in this case, the primary source is really the only place to go for information on inspiration for a book, it doesn't change the fact that secondary sources are preferred in almost every other case.
Furthermore, the main point in regard to Roth is that what he was trying to do was not properly presenting himself as a primary source. Writing an article in The New Yorker or on his personal website is a primary source, commenting in a Wikipedia article or even an email are not primary sources. This is quite obvious. So what Roth was doing before he published his New Yorker article was not presenting a source at all. SilverserenC 07:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if the "main point" is that primary sources were okay but Roth wasn't being a proper one, because that "main point" is not what Wikipedia said; it's what you would like Wikipedia to have said. I'm going by what Wikipedia actually said. You (and the article writer) are ignoring the problem if you claim that Wikipedia didn't do anything wrong just because what Wikipedia was trying to say was fine, when what Wikipedia actually said is not. Telling an outsider the wrong thing isn't a technicality that is fine because Wikipedia's actual policy is okay. It's a Wikipedia failure. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Wikipedia didn't do anything wrong. Whomever the admin was in question, they were most definitely wrong for telling Roth that thing about secondary sources. What they should have told him was that he should write the information on his personal website or organize a newspaper interview where he could state the info. Then we would have had a source to use. Though that doesn't change the fact that 1) he should have never tried to remove the information about Broyard, as it is relevant that so many critics compared his character to Broyard and 2) he really should have explained the inspiration for Silk a long, long time ago, rather than saying there was no inspiration in interviews past. It is absolutely not our fault that we didn't include that info, when it had never been published anywhere.
The only part that was our fault was that erroneous statement by the admin, but nothing else. SilverserenC 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questionable views by Lin: Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but Lin referring to Wikipedia as "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO) made me cringe in horror, after years of cross-checking facts, for logical consistency (and avoiding repeated rumors), plus expanding the scope, so that articles are encyclopedic (all-encompassing: 6 W's), rather than merely regurgitating the input garbage. Then, get this, Lin concludes that Wikipedia is "being quick by nature, yet slow by design" and I am thinking the exact opposite: because sources state that Wikipedia was designed to be quick ("wiki" means "fast"), not require pre-approval by 7-level expert committees. Plus, by nature, WP has become S-L-O-W: as I tried 2 months ago to promote fast-cite templates, and they stayed in wp:TfD for weeks/months, when a typical template is usually discussed for keep/delete within 7 days. But in reality, that is the current "nature" of Wikipedia: templates designed to make Wikipedia articles reformat, or edit-preview, 3x faster, are kept in wp:TfD 3x slower than 98%(?) of all templates. Finally, I was amused by Lin's end remark about the "mercurial volunteer community in need of a decorum upgrade". However, the whole situation indicates that Wikipedia does not, adequately, explain how articles are written, nor how editorial judgment affects the results. Yet, on balance, even when properly explained, many people are still misled by false impressions, so this seems yet another case. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Garbage in, garbage out" is really not a good term to use in regard to what he was trying to explain, but his actual explanation still holds perfectly true, besides the cringing terminology. His point is that Wikipedia is indebted to its sources and references. It relies on those completely because to do anything else would be to violate our OR rules. Therefore, we can only include information that has a reference to attach.
In this case with Roth, before his New Yorker article was published, there was no reference to use. Therefore, the information should not have been tried to be changed, because it was a direct violation of original research, regardless of Roth being the author. We require a reference to use directly, per our verification policy. Without that, no changes should be made. In any dispute between someone who's presenting sources and someone who's not, the person presenting sources should always win on Wikipedia, because references are the only thing that matter. SilverserenC 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOR was meant to keep out crankery, unfortunately, as demonstrated here it has failed, as given the choice WP preferred crankery over correctness. John lilburne (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly pointed out in prior discussions about the book article, there was nothing incorrect in it. It stated that certain critics alleged that Broyard was in the inspiration and that Roth said he wasn't. There is nothing incorrect about that statement at all. SilverserenC 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-blink- It stated original research and opinion, and when told by the author that the OR and opinion was incorrect, WP prefered the OR and opinion rather than the correction of the author. In a nutshell you have crankery on the part of WP editors. John lilburne (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is OR about saying that literary critics stated that Broyard was allegedly the inspiration and that Roth stated that Broyard wasn't? Both of those things were sourced and everything. Of course they're opinion, they're the critics' opinion. How is any of that "crankery"? SilverserenC 08:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-sigh- The critics are engaging in OR and the insertion of their research in to WP article of the book, is akin to inserting David Icke's opinion that the royals are space lizards into the bio of Queen Betty, and preferring that description over that of her doctor. Crankery is in believing that made up rules should always override common sense. John lilburne (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John lilburne, WP:OR refers only to Wikipedia editors expounding their own unpublished views. Secondary sources are all, always original research - the author is presenting their own view, based on anything from academic research to personal gnosis cobbled together with stuff they read in Titbits. Which is why WP:RS recommends that secondary sources have some kind of editorial oversight or peer review process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I NOT make myself clear? When C identifies a character in a book by A as being based on X then C is giving an opinion which may or may not be based on some research of their own. When A turns up and says C is mistaken and the character is based not on X but on Y then common sense ought to prevail and C's opinion consigned to history. Instead obsessive adherence to a rule overthrew common sense and made the project look like it was inhabited by cranks. John lilburne (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works at all. If an opinion is found to be later wrong, you still note that the opinion existed and that it turned out to be wrong. You don't just erase it. Otherwise no one will know that it was wrong. SilverserenC 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again YOU are wrong. There are far more things published that "just ain't so" than are so. The editorial process discards the former in favour of the later. If that wasn't the case articles wouldn't be based on modern scholarship but would retain al the previous beliefs that "ain't so" too. You would have, in say the articles of historical battles, the opinions of historians from the 18th and 19th centuries as to the location, the numbers on each side, how they were arrayed and how the battle progressed sitting, cheek by jowl, alongside modern scholarship based on archaeological evidence and examination of archival documents made available in modern times. John lilburne (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The critics' statements are OR...what?! Do you even know what OR means? It only applies to us, not to any of the sources. Furthermore, please stop using erroneous metaphors. A better one would be akin to inserting...that long statement of yours into the article after a huge amount of notable newspapers writers wrote about it seriously. Then it would be proper to include, though it should always be included as "This person said" or "This person believes". Not to mention that the doctor's view would then be included as well. SilverserenC 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seren stop being tiresome. Blind adherence to a rule is a form of disruption. John lilburne (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, you have no counterargument, so you fall back on your normal tactics of accusations. SilverserenC 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silver seren: I keep hearing that there was "nothing incorrect" abut the article. Claiming that there was "nothing incorrect" because someone said something incorrect, but it's correct that someone said something incorrect, is Wikilawyering. A person who read the article would have believed incorrect things, regardless of any Wiki-technicalities. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they have believed incorrect things when the article says that te critics believe this thing and then the author stated that, no, that thing is not correct. Unless the readers are skipping the line about the author, then they shouldn't be believing anything incorrect. Instead, they should be more informed that a number of critics thought this for this reason for the longest time, but Roth explained that, no, that couldn't be true because he didn't know that info about that person until after he wrote the book. SilverserenC 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During the time period that "was not correct" refers to, there was no such statement by the author. The article just gave the critics' views. At that point in time the article was incorrect. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What time period was that? As far as I know, it stated Roth's view (from earlier, at least) along with the critics' views even before all of this. Besides, wouldn't it have been better than to add more to Roth's views and not try to remove all of the informationa bout the critics, as the biographer tried to do? SilverserenC 08:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A demurral -- "references are the only thing that matter" is absurd -- the idea is to write a long-term encyclopedia article based on fact. Our acceptance of speculation and opinion with regard to BLPs is a major long-term problem, and one which has been shown to cause far more friction than light. IMO, contentious "opinions" ought almost never be attached to BLPs, allegations and rumours should almost never be attached to BLPs, and in those rare cases where we do put opinions in such, they should be absolutely clearly marked as "opinion" and sourced to the specific person or group holding that opinion. It is not the proper task of Wikipedia to do anything else, and most especially not categorise people in any contentious or non-factual manner. Thus I would have opposed the initial opinions once any sign of them being contentious was shown, and I would not have told Mr. Roth that his statements "are not a source at all." Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified about the references statement, but you know I didn't mean it in that regard anyways. And, of course, these were all opinions, reviews by critics are always included as their opinion. That's how book articles work. And this wasn't a BLP or anything, so no issue there, unless you'd say the fictional character Silk falls under the BLP heading. And you should know full well, Collect, that we are meant to show both sides. The fact that a huge amount of the literary world that existed around Roth's book thought the character was based on a certain thing is of course notable and should be included. It's acknowledged everywhere. And, of course, Roth's statement that this viewpoint was wrong should be included, as it was. And Roth is a great source for his opinion, but only if he has published it, even if only on a personal website. His editing it into the article (or his biographer doing it for him) is not a source of anything. There is nothing to cite as a reference there, nothing to fulfill the requirements of WP:V. SilverserenC 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


We don't know the full e-mail exchange but one thing that appears to be getting lost in the rather dry (but oddly emotional) primary/secondary source issue is that with respect to Bailey -- when a reliable publisher, publishes his work on Roth, that work will be a reliable secondary source (using, in part, primary sources). So, saying to Bailey (not Roth) he should produce a reliable secondary source is correct, even if it is based on primary information. (And, if he could not do so, no one could). Whether, there is a way for Wikipedia to ever publish the writings of people (e-mail) and thus take on the position of reliable publisher of the (secondary or primary) sources themselves is doubtful or at the least COI (for a tertiary source) and resource problematic. But it certainly was not set-up to do so in this matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of that regarding Bailey. Yeah, he would be a secondary source if he published something in regards to this. A pretty darn good one too, since he's a biographer and all. Too bad he didn't do that. :/ SilverserenC 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also have a hard time thinking this could be a thing that would be 'no problem' merely if the Admin had said "primary/secondary." Although mayhap, it could have "looked better." What Roth seems to be complaining about is control, and not that Bailey was somehow grossly misled by the use of the rather broad term 'secondary.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed phishing activity and hacker activity

wp:deny -db
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

there could be certain troublesome users in those who had been communicating with me

absolutely it occured as always before.Innocent users can be compromised. there is slowing of the pages, difficult in accessing my account ,wikipedia user tools not loading and working and server error messages which can be witnessed and list of hacker ip addresses on my computer screen possibly trying to hack.my user tools doesnot load and lot of slowing .and i deleted the messages on my user talkpages to easily view new messages as i feel it difficult to locate them between increasing number of messages because tools and wikipedia pages doesnot work properly.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]


mr jimbo wales you may be an expert, but i dont now whether u like what i said.because it is normal that people gets angry when they hear the worst truth.

i indeed invited some users for discussion but i dont believe them.i dont think that u can suggest a reason to believe them.i always try to put my pc security at high.

wikipedia tools to avoid phishing looks like helpful.

if u doesnt like my comments ignore me. or give your opinion on how to increase user security. i believe it may help future users and contributors.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Another thing i dont trust any user/admin explanation or advice regarding avoiding phishing--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIOGRAPHIES

wp:deny -db
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

note:i am writing this after lot of enough discussion with users --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I AM HAVING PROBLEMS REGARDING BIOGRAPHY contributions HAVING SIMILARITIES WITH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. the user sphilbrick is deleting my contribution and he is telling me to write my own story about the same person.LOOK at what is happening in wiki.another story!!!!!! and another thing one of my picture contribution is deleted because it has the same person on another picture saying i have modified it. i cant put another persons picture! and user sphilbrick had already threatened me a block. he is upset for bringing attention of other users to his behavior.

i guess a large probability of a block on my account for trying to bring your attention on him. i do suspect sockpuppets of same user deleting things.

But i only suspect him, i am not blaming him for your notice--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have a doubt that if things go on like this ,my only contribution to wikipedia would be keep on explaining to other users why they should not delete my contributions. --Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can emphasize the positives. Johnyjohny, you do not know me, and it is quite understandable that you would be concerned about me, given that I have removed material you have added, and told you that I will block you if you continue. You are new to Wikipedia, and do not know if I am respected, or a problem editor.
You started with some sensible steps. You posted to the Teahouse, and you posted to some other editors to let them know what I was doing. This is good, and I wish other new editors would follow your lead. Rather than over-react to a possibly over-zealous editor, you asked other editors to look into it.
Now I urge you to take the next sensible step. Read what those editors are telling you and follow the advice.
Wikipedia does not permit copyright violations. Your edits have added material from sites subject to copyright. Jimbo doesn't respond to every editor who posts here, but I guarantee he will not be supportive of your copyright violations. If you have a legitimate reason (for example, if you are copying material you wrote) you can explain and we will help you with the next steps. You have been told this on your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image filter (yet again)

Any thoughts on these claims that WMF has ignored an offer of free or discounted image filtering software? It smells like PR, but nonetheless, a readymade solution that actually works would change the terms of the debate at least a little.... And while I'm at it, you never did comment on the KISS image filter I mentioned here (now at Wikipedia:VPR#KISS_image_filter). Rd232 talk 18:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_114#Yet_another_bad_publicity, although Jimbo did not comment. There is no real need to use proprietary software for an image filter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need, no. But having something that works to hand is different than saying "we should develop something that works". Particularly because this software has some kind of learning/analysis algorithms, which AFAIK hasn't been seriously suggested as something WMF could/should develop. Rd232 talk 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody looking for free publicity for their software tries to make Wikipedia look bad by implying that we are aiding and abetting pornographers by not buying their product at a "discounted rate"; and of course the Wikipedia-bashers and FAUX News are eager to give them aid and comfort. This is news how? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is non-news. Why is this being dragged up again? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because Jimbo has repeatedly said he really really wants to get something done, but fails to engage with possibilities like this software ((for which donation was mentioned as a possibility, BTW, but in any case WMF has enough money) or the KISS image filter?? Rd232 talk 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this question should be addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is the Wikimedia Foundation that demonstrates no interest in the installation of the filter. The Wikimedia Foundation has some good reasons for this indifference. Installing this filter will reduce the traffic to Wikipedia's most viewed content . Less traffic = less donations; less donations = less benefits for the Wikimedia Foundation's employees. Unsuspecting donors as well as most Wikipedia volunteers don't even realize that 54 cents of every dollar they contribute will be wasted on ledger items that are not the program services that the Wikimedia 501(c)(3) is obligated to uphold. And then the WMF will have no compunction about washing their hands of their volunteers just like [they did with Fae.--108.60.145.58 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax/fake article

Asylum (2012 video game)

A parody of batman's videogame R e minho pizzere (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not a WP:HOAX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Dear Jimmy,

I would like to thank you for all your contribution to this amazing encyclopedia called Wikipedia!

I would just like to bring your attention to what is happening on the page that I have created called Tony Samara. It would be wonderful to know your point of view in the matter and be able to address the situation in the most appropriate way. Here are the links to the referred article and its discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Samara and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Samara_%283rd_nomination%29

Thank you for your consideration and I wish you a wonderful day!

Kindest regards,

Pedro Bestler Pedro Bestler (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vent

I like to come here at times to vent, but it seems pretty senseless in the long run really, but I will say this, I am almost certain Wikipedia is getting more difficult for everyone. I used to love working here, but all my efforts seem to really mean very little. The rules, policies and guidelines are not the problem. Its the fact that there is absolutely no place to turn when you need assistance, real assistance. You almost...no....you absolutley need to be connected to someone with "power" to get any real attention that isn't a threat to "Boomarang" back at you or just get a smack in the face with ridicule by those intrusted in these official locations. I am taking a Wikibreak. I am sure I will edit again, but I will no longer use the Admin Boards. They have great uses for some situations but for the most part...not a place to actually look for help. Just a place to turn someone in to get kicked off the site. That seems what they are only used for.

So here, let me leave this with you Mr. Wales....I won't be needing it anymore.

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I certainly don't want to see you leave, Amadscientist, and hope that if you need a break, that you take it and come back. For what it is worth, I think there is no question that you are an asset to Wikipedia, the key is finding a way that Wikipedia can be an asset to you. There is no question that ANI is an ugly place. I know because I worked for a long time before becoming an admin, and the ugliness a was huge factor in my decision to run the gauntlet at RfA, to try to make it a little less ugly. But by its nature, it will always be a little ugly, kind of like the emergency room of a hospital isn't representative of the entire organization. It is designed for quick action, quick decisions, and quick action. We put out fires, which means sometimes things get broken or stepped on. It isn't on purpose, however. You are correct that the rules can be frustrating and the list often seems to grow by the day, but that was part of the reason I started WP:WER, and why you joined us, to try to address some of these challenges. As for venting, you are welcome to vent on my talk page or via email any time you like and if you do take a break, I hope it isn't longer than what is needed to clear your head. If you remember back, you and I first met at ANI and you didn't like what I had to say at the time, yet now get along very well. Take a few days off, and I will be glad to lend my ear when you come back, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not leaving Wikipedia, the WER project or my volunteer work with Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or other boards I assist on. I simply have no further interest in being that helping hand reaching out to others, when my reaching out is almost always slapped back down. Dennis, from the beginning I could tell you were cut from a different cloth. This was solidified when the two other admin I have the greatest respect for...tore into each other and became a personal war. I have several Admin who watch my user page and no doubt more to now follow, but it is clear that few steps are being taken at the one place that needs it the most. The Admin noticeboards are almost out of control and I cannot accept that it will always be that way. I honestly believe that these two boards are doing more harm then good and I would fully support their simply being torn down and completely rebuilt from the ground up. Look at the work of DR. The changes there are amazing to me, but more help is needed. If AN and AN/I were more like the other boards and less like they are now there would be no excuse for the sarcastic and uncivil tone slapped at good faith editors. It is exactly like being told you are worthless and "Go away boy, your bothering me".--Amadscientist (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=512938328"