User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example brick chart

  one - 42 %

  two - 32 %

  three - 12 %

  Other - 14 %

• Template:Brick_chart for example: Although we were distracted, above, by people still trying to defend slow-cite templates (while {cite_quick} is ready for use), one of the "gadgets" or "tools" I found is Template:Brick_chart, which was begun in August 2009, but had a severe bug (for these past 3 years) which caused the brick-bars to overlap due to incompatible div-tags inside. Today, I fixed the 3-year bug, and now brick charts can be quickly displayed on any page in 1/6 second, on any browser, from live data, without needing to create and upload a diagram image. The original author of that template had noted that Template:Pie_chart does not work for most MSIE browsers, whereas {Brick_chart} provides a similar graph but portable to all browsers, yet did not work in 2009-2011. Over the past 3 years, lost interest as a 1-edit-per-month editor, so we were very close to having quick brick charts, all these years, and finally we do. There has been similar progress (see: wp:Graphs and charts), but in general, more gadgets can be created, or improved, for current use. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think {convert} is a good place to start. Any template with hundreds of subpages is, IMO, not very efficient. It might run quickly but its a real nightmare to try and sort out what goes were and how. Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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. Silverseren^C 05:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 07:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 17:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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. Silverseren^C 08:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 08:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

-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)

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"? Silverseren^C 08:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

-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)

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Seren stop being tiresome. Blind adherence to a rule is a form of disruption. John lilburne (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So, basically, you have no counterargument, so you fall back on your normal tactics of accusations. Silverseren^C 21:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Timing is everything. Accusations occur before conviction. John lilburne (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 17:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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? Silverseren^C 08:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. :/ Silverseren^C 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Control as in, Roth wants to be in control of the content in the article? Silverseren^C 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh ye gods. "Control the article" is one of the most annoying cool-ades we drink around here. I mean, probably he read it and thought "that wasn't my inspiration". We overthink it to justify our position, and then accuse him of trying to control the article content... no, sure, that is our job! Absolutely all it needed was for Roth to publish somewhere that he disputes this being his motivation - due to a miscommunication he was told something slightly different, which upset him. And after that we've circle the wagon and whined and whined. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My reference to "control" was in regard to the question of "who is in control?," which is a conundrum, and a central facet of the Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Better article by Okeyes

Sorry, Andrew, but Okeyes' blog post here is now my favorite article on the topic. It cuts right to the point and explains everything perfectly and exactly on how Roth was completely in the wrong here. And I mean completely. Silverseren^C 07:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it merely shows how obnoxious and superior Wikipedians can be. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thing? If so, you should start a motion to change BLP to WP:Slavishly kowtow to anyone who demands their way, even if that person is completely wrong or lying and we know it; it'd lead to less accurate information, but I suppose it would make my life easier not having to watch over articles like Fiona Graham and Liza Dalby. Aside from the fact that Philip Roth really has better things to be doing with his life, I'm not seeing how Wikipedia editors are being obnoxious for wanting to verify Roth's claims; in fact, that's what we're supposed to be doing instead of listening to some random person on the internet claiming to be someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Wikipedia editors are being obnoxious for wanting to verify Roth's claims; that's not what I was referring to. In general Wikipedians tend to exhibit this sort of elitest mentality where we hold some important role... it makes us obnoxious to people who don't speak the same language (i.e. 99% of the rest of the world). We should be much more humble. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing that Oliver missed is that the wording Roth quoted when he said, My novel “The Human Stain” was described in the entry as “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” (The precise language has since been altered by Wikipedia’s collaborative editing, but this falsity still stands.), was actually in his biography, not the article on The Human Stain. In the bio, it was not qualified beyond the "allegedly". Wikipedia just said, Allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard, The Human Stain examines identity politics in 1990s America. That's the wording Roth objected to. The discussion that brought this to light was initiated by Andrew Lih, and is located here. The Devil's Advocate was the editor who located the quote. And of course the section on Broyard in The Human Stain was hugely expanded after the initial attempt by his biographer to remove the erroneous speculation, which is likely to have added fuel to Roth's resentment. On the whole, I also do not like the tone of this piece, and it will confirm people's judgment of Wikipedians. Andrew's post, while also spotlighting some debatable issues (verifiability, not truth/garbage in, garbage out), was more circumspect in this regard. (And note that "verifiability, not truth" is no longer the current policy wording, beyond a mention in a footnote.) JN466 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yep, this is non-news. Why is this being dragged up again? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Somehow I doubt that reducing traffic to those pages would impact donations very much! In any case it's not clear that a filter would actually do that. Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That link isn't even Wikipedia's most viewed content, or Wikimedia's most viewed content, it's Commons most viewed content. Few people actually visit Commons directly, given its main role as a service site. Compare to English Wikipedia's most viewed content and "Commons:Category:Shaved genitalia (female)" wouldn't even make the top 1000. the wub "?!" 12:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. The heading at the top of that page is very misleading, and it would be a very good idea to change it (and to update the figures, as those shown are from Dec. 2010.). JN466 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a good point! Though even the Wikipedia stats are kind of weird - why is ball-jointed doll in the top 61, right beside YouTube? Wnt (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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 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)

• 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)
  • I am going to spend some time outside in the fresh air. Visit a forest, climb a rock...and maybe a primal scream or two. Thanks Dennis.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • While I am set with how I feel right now.....

Whack!

I'm slapping myself with a trout and moving on.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's not like he hasn't doled out his own doses of frustration. The most obvious Fair Use candidate I can possibly think of and it's like, well, we could not have it in the article, so take it out. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia, Wikimedia UK and concerns about paid editing and conflicts of interest within Wikimedia UK

Jimbo, do you have a view on the developing discussion here? JN466 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case. However, I can make a couple of observations based on general principles.

1. Panyd is, as usual, speaking good sense.

2. It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. This is just one very narrow example of a much broader principle that it's wrong to work in any capacity whatsoever editing content as a paid advocate within Wikipedia. This applies to articles and the front page, but of course I leave open the very valid option of someone with a conflict of interest doing the ethical thing and identifying fully and proposing things to the community.

As I mentioned at the start, I don't know enough of the facts in this particular case to be able to comment specifically. However, if the facts turn out to be as stated, then the honorable thing for anyone with a conflict of interest driving them to act on behalf of a client in the manner I discussed above is resign from the board of Wikimedia UK, or resign from the job with the client. Anything else raises the appearance of impropriety at a minimum.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is now further discussion of this on the Wikimedia UK mailing list, in a thread started by Thomas Dalton under the title "Paid editing by Roger Bamkin": [1] JN466 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, in all honesty, if you're "not aware of the specific facts" then why are you commenting at all? It's not advisable for anyone to make sweeping comments about a situation like this without looking into it in detail. Given your position as co-founder of Wikipedia and the weight that your words carry, I would think it especially inadvisable, to the point of irresponsibility, for you to intervene in such a way. Find out what the facts are, then comment, if you have to, or preferably sort things out behind the scenes with a minimum of controversy. This is not the first time you've made questionable interventions but publicly calling on people to resign while admittedly not knowing what the facts are is simply unacceptable. It's not the way that any responsible organisational leader should behave. Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I just became aware of all this myself, but several facts are immediately apparent:

• Roger is acting as a paid consultant at the same time as he is on the Board of WMUK. That's their problem but I share Jimbo's feelings on the matter, he needs to resign one post or the other
• Looking at his contribs it does look like he may be slanting information in a fairly subtle way in some Gibraltar-related article
• He is violating the username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME as he identifies as running a company called "Victuallers LTD". Couldn't find any web presence of said company, but he has spelled it right out on his userpage and in the WMUK declarations page that it is his company

Troubling to say the least. and WMUK really doesn't need any more scandal involving their higher-ups. The decent thing for Roger to do would be to step aside, to change his username, and to suggest edits rather than making them himself on any topic related to Gigraltar. Beeblebrox (talk)

Three points: First, Gibraltarpedia isn't a WMUK project so why is Roger's status with WMUK relevant to it? Second, how and where is Roger "slanting information in a fairly subtle way"? If you're going to make this charge, you should provide some substantiation. Third, I don't believe WP:ORGNAME is really applicable in this instance. The registration for Victuallers Ltd shows that it was only registered on 9 March 2012; the Victuallers account was registered on 27 October 2006, five and a half years earlier. It seems that the company was named after the account, not the other way round - WP:ORGNAME was written with accounts named after companies in mind. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Board members have influence over how the chapter expends its resources. It is my understanding that WMUK is lending material support (although not financial support) to this project, which is in turn paying a member of its Board. In such situations it is best to avoid even the appearence of impropriety. I don't think ORGNAME ever foresaw that a user would name a company after his account and then get paid to edit Wikipedia with that same account, but the underlying principle applies. Something simple like "Roger (Victuallers LTD)" would do it. As to the slanting, I did say " may be" I haven't had time yet to look deeply, I only became aware of all this about an hour ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The only material connection that I know of between WMUK and Gibraltarpedia is that WMUK has printed up a few dozen "how to edit" leaflets at a cost of less than £10 for distribution in Gibraltar. The notion that there's some kind of impropriety about providing a few leaflets at pocket money prices is ludicrous, to say the least. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The order doesn't matter. The problem is the connection between the user name and the company. Even that is not a problem if the user avoids doing anything on Wikipedia relating to the company, but that exception doesn't apply here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Untrikiwiki

And what about this graphic by untrikiwiki, entitled "Wikipedia Editing as a PR Service", apparently produced by Maximilian Klein, a Wikipedian in residence with excellent community connections?

Quote: "A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services. untrikiwiki

I mean, the good chap is even quoting you in his graphic! How is that different from what Gregory Kohs and MyWikiBiz wanted to do openly five or six years ago (and has been doing surreptitiously ever since)? JN466 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it. It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Both of your responses are admirably clear, and sum up my feelings pretty exactly. Thank you very much. --JN466 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic

Wow, just ... wow, it appears like Roger Bamkina, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant, using Wikipedia's main page and the resources of GLAM to pimp his client's project. Go look where http://gibraltarpedia.org/ redirects to. Kohs got banned for less. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. was everyone here aware that someone was being paid for their work? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. Someone deal with it, please? Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, it seems honesty and openness is the quickest way to get banned around here. Also, Prioryman, get a life. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That Wikipediocracy thread appears to be two days old, not six months. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry, you're right. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the Foundation has a duty to notify all the contributors that someone was being paid for their work, and to investigate whether they were misled about that fact. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is possible that what Roger is doing may be legal in the most narrow of senses, it is totally unethical: it is clear that he should step down NOW from any position of trust or responsibility in any Wikimedia operation, AND should cease to edit any article where he is operating as a paid agent of the subject, be it Gibraltar or Bashar al-Assad or Microsoft or the National Front. Contributors to any project where he has a fiduciary conflict of interest, including Wikimedia UK, should also be offered a refund of their monies. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Chris Keating, the chair of Wikimedia UK, has just posted a statement on the Wikimedia UK mailing list: [2] JN466 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's quite a helpful statement, which confirms that this whole controversy is just a storm in a teacup, based on nothing more than misunderstandings and misrepresentations. People, would it be so hard to try to find out the facts before rushing to judgement? Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He is profiting as a direct result of his involvement with the charity. That is a conflict of interest. There is also serious potential for this to damage the reputation of the charity. What if he was blocked or banned? Then you would be in the situation of a WMUK being blocked from editing Wikipedia, the project it is meant to support? How could a trustee possibly be in that position? Hestiaea (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia isn't a WMUK project. He is profiting, apparently, because of his involvement in developing QRpedia - which also isn't a WMUK project. Nobody is paying him to write articles. How is his involvement with WMUK relevant if WMUK is not a party in the Gibraltarpedia project? Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you privy to the contract between Bamkin and the tourist ministry? Hestiaea (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement changes little for me about the basic fact: that a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client. At the very least, his position as a paid consultant is incompatible with his directorship, not least because his position as a Wikimedia director could be seen as giving him an unfair advantage on the PR consultancy market. Editing for a paying client might be similarly incompatible, especially as the customer has apparently been reassured that there won't be any "nasty" content about Gibraltar ('As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; "The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds."') I had occasion to mediate a bitter content dispute related to Gibraltar once, and I am aware that the subject area is quite as fraught with POV issues as Northern Ireland, or Palestine, with Spain and Britain taking very different positions. However, my primary concern, before we come to anything else, is that no one should be able to use his directorship to market himself. And let's be realistic: anyone else doing such a project on behalf of a client, using a company account, would be blocked in no time at all. Think of Gregory Kohs wanting to write articles about a hotel chain, or tourist attractions in Abu Dhabi, and organising an on-wiki competition, complete with a first prize of an all-expenses-paid VIP trip to a five-star hotel in Abu Dhabi, advertised on a Wikipedia page. I thought Monmouthpedia was well-intentioned and educational, and I praised the project at the time, but the wider implications really need thinking over. Most of all, whatever is okay for Roger must be okay for everyone else too. If it isn't okay for everyone else, it's not okay for Roger either. Cheers. --JN466 20:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayden. This 'statement' definitely belongs in the 'Pathetic' section here. It fails to say who was paid for what, whether or not a team of Wikipedia volunteers were being directed by someone making money off their work, and if they were aware of it. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to outsiders what the distinction is between this arrangement and, say, paying an intern at the British Museum to post pictures of stuff in the British Museum? Apparently Bamkin is being paid by the people of Gibraltar, which remains part of the UK which WMUK strives to cover. Is taking payment for a neutral mission to put all the notable stuff in Gibraltar on Wikipedia really a bad thing? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar isn't part of the UK. It's a British overseas territory. Not that that should stop WMUK from doing stuff there if they want to. 92.39.201.50 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble to edit on page "Disputed status of Gibraltar" and now I begin to understand why.Juanmatorres75 22:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Illegal?

If Bamkin's paid editing was exploiting his involvement in the charity as a means to profit personally, that may well be illegal. Particularly as his activity may harm the charity, by damaging its reputation. Hestiaea (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Geovation

According to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." There is a reference to it on this page:

• http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports_26Jul12

Under the heading RB, this says, "Geovation bid for 17.5 K for Coast Path Wales - more to come. Need to find 100K ext funding to get 100K more". What is this Geovation bid? What involvement, if any, does Wikimedia UK have in the project? What is this 100K funding? Does this too involve paid consultancy work? JN466 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Roger? Seriously. If you're interested in actually getting answers rather than just provoking drama, why aren't you asking him directly? Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked this question on the Wikimedia UK mailing list, and I have not received an answer to date. I would like to ask this question in public, and I would like to be given an answer in public. Roger is well aware of discussions on this page. --JN466 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So because you've not yet received an answer, you've escalated it to Jimbo's talk page. In what way is this not drama whoring? Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way is calling another user a whore, or (as you did below) invoking the term "witch hunt" intended to help? Such terminology invariably makes things worse. Let's all calm down please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

gibraltarpedia.org

This may be a more complex question than it first appears, but if Gibraltarpedia is for-profit project of Victuallers Ltd and the government of Gibraltar, why is the project's home page here on Wikipedia? Gibraltarpedia.org redirects to Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA‎. Surely that gives the impression to a reader that this is a project sponsored and endorsed by Wikimedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

At the absolute minimum it's a direct contravention of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's a Wikipedia project like any other. The domain name serves an obvious and trivial purpose: http://www.gibraltarpedia.org is a damn sight more memorable and easier to communicate than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA . There's absolutely nothing to stop, for instance, Jimbo registering http://www.jimbowales.com and redirecting it to his profile. If an editor wants to register a domain name and point it to a particular page there's nothing to stop him from doing so, and no reason why he shouldn't. WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't come into it because it's a mainstream, bona fide Wikiproject, with the involvement of many editors, not a personal website or web page. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think silliness became a factor here until 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC). Prioryman, I think you are on the wrong side of consensus here; as well as policy. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing WP:NOTWEBHOST against a mainstream, well-supported WikiProject is silly. Frankly, I get the feeling that this has degenerated into a witch-hunt. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it either frankly. If the WMF has no hand in this project, there are paid consultants working on it, and the government of Gibraltar is bankrolling it does kind of seem out of place to host the whole thing here. Like I've said elsewhere, it is a really cool project and I do support it, but if it's being run by non-WMF entities and paid consultants surely they can host it. Seems odd to just have it crammed in a GLAM subpage, Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's get something straight: it's not being run or "bankrolled" by the government of Gibraltar. Nor are "paid consultants working on it". It's purely a volunteer project, run by Wikipedians as part of a normal process of outreach. The idea for it came from a local Wikipedian and it's being supported by the local museum. It's no different in that respect to any other GLAM project. The WMF hasn't had any involvement than I'm aware of in the existing GLAM projects relating to the UK. The Gibraltar government's ministry of tourism has said that it supports the project and it's offering some fairly modest prizes for contributions (see [3]). Again this is no different from what, say, the British Museum has done. I'm not aware of the government having had any involvement with the content. The only "consultancy" that seems to have been involved relates to QRpedia, which is a software product, not content. It's not even essential for the project, which would continue quite happily if nobody was using QRpedia. As far as I can see this is really no different to Monmouthpedia, which has been a big success, so why the witch-hunt? Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"witch-hunt" !!! Really, Prioryman? Speaking as a dedicated Wikipedian myself, I'd like to know if the people pulling strings and directing various projects here are making money off my efforts, and at their direction. Don't you think that is fair? We still need to hear from all the parties about who exactly is getting paid for what, and if the volunteers were aware of it. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A "dedicated Wikipedian" who's supposedly been an editor only since 15 August 2012? Sure. Perhaps you could disclose your previous account so that we can identify which banned editor you are. Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear God, now your behavior is starting to make sense. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jim, we need 2 talk.

I have an idea for wikipedia. Its calld a comments section. It would be placed below articles. The differents between comments and talk is that at talk pages, we only talk about edits to the article. On comments, wed get to talk about anything we want. Also, i have a question. Who got the idea for wikipedias logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.66.126 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You might find WP:NOTAFORUM to be an interesting read. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As for your second question, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. Graham87 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Being cynical, I could see it as a wonderful vehicle for spammers, concealed spammers and point-of-view pushers. And a load of extra work for those who take out the garbage. Who would be the moderators, or would it be free comment with no restrictions? Yes, it's a good suggestion and an interesting idea - but I could see it going the way of so many internet and usenet forums - a mass of advertising and shouting. A bit like ANI or RfA - no, there's no advertising there... Peridon (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I imagine it would be more like most comment sections on news media sites, loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling... Anyhoo, this is an encyclopedia, there are plenty of places to have broad, open discussions without regard for facts or civility on the interwebs, this just is not one of them and was never intended to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think such a section would be a highly useful historical resource for future readers. It would also be a pleasure, and believe it or not, your editors are not employees to have policies brandished at them for your convenience, but free agents you should be trying to keep interested. Best of all, such a section would suck this crap away from the legitimate Talk pages, and give the POV pushers something besides Wikilawyering to do with their time. Wnt (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe that multiple people have commented on this without trashtalking the Article Feedback Tool yet. I'll boldly volunteer. </silly>, but not really Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There may be a less useful feature somewhere on the planet to add to a reference work, but I can't envision one (with the obvious exception of a "Like" button). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The new Article Feedback feature already encapsulates this idea, and it is a huge waste of bandwidth, with rarely (if ever) anything sensible being added to the pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for Wikipedia and therefore you deserve the tastiest cookies in the world. Pajee27 (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pajee27 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Pajee27

Expert third opinion

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I found out today that Wikipedia does not have in place a system whereby someone can ask for a third opinion from an expert in a certain field. If there is a dispute over content between two people and a third opinion is desired, it would be very useful to have the capability of asking an expert to answer the question. The internet is amazing because we can have direct access to the e-mails of experts. Of course, asking the question of the expert will not guarantee their response, but at the very least it seems like it would be an easy kludge to make a simple form that would allow you to post a question to an expert at, say, an academic institution through Wikipedia and have them answer the e-mail so that people could read their responses.

What I envision is a system administered like third opinion where someone writes the expert asking a specific question and gets permission from the expert to post their response. This might be a very beneficial thing to have here and, frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't exist already. I could, of course, e-mail the expert myself, but I think it would be much better if the developers could incorporate this functionality into the wiki software.

What do you think of my idea? I ask this to get your third opinion as a subject matter expert on Wikipedia!

Sincerely, Junjunone (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your [[WP:TO|third opinion]] link points to wikiproject toronto. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you would run into a significant problem there, namely that many academics treat Wikipedia with scorn and would probably not want to be involved with it. Their ivory tower perspective does not allow for the possibilty of "normal" people, unpaid volunteers no less, forming any sort of reference work of value. That this view is behind the times and will ultimately reflect very poorly on them has yet to penetrate the veil of academia for the most part, but there are a few notable exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that many academics wouldn't mind to offer a quick opinion if the question was worded carefully and wasn't too difficult to understand. Sure, Wikipedia is looked down upon, but if I e-mail an expert a question I have on a subject that is associated with their research I have found that nine times out of ten they respond with a thoughtful reply to my query. What's the harm in asking? Junjunone (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

While I feel that Beeble's statement is overbroad and generalizing (I've had great cooperation from academics at UW-Milwaukee, for example), I would point out that this leaves Wikipedia in the awkward position of annointing certian persons as The Experts in a given field. Imagine a query about the American Civil War: do we send it to a progressive historian such as Eric Foner, or to a Confederate apologist such as several I won't name? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How is your objection not a standing one for third opinion as is? If one asks for a third opinion and it is rejected by the editors writing the article, then that's just another data point. Is we "assume good faith" as many of the policy pages exhort us to, we would look for only the most high-quality academics and experts and ask them for their opinion. We are, of course, empowered to reject their opinion, but when it comes to interpreting sources where else do we have to turn? Junjunone (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Best way to avoid disputed content is by providing a Verifiable and Reliable Source, expert not required..Just saying.--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When someone misinterprets a source as greatly as I have seen, it is absolutely required to get a neutral party to determine which person has the comprehension problem. Sometimes, the sources are too difficult to understand for the layperson, as is the case in my dispute. Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We turn to consensus. I think you're misunderstanding 3O. As a wise man once said, 3O is like 'having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn[ing] to a passer-by to ask "hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?"' 3O's purpose is only to get the two sides to agree, it has no authority to overrule or enforce a particular decision. If the two parties don't agree after a 3O, then the 3O has failed and that's all it can do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking a passerby may not be the best way of resolving a dispute when it is academic. In that case, it's best to ask the professor down the hall. If third opinion is not equipped to handle this basic sort of request, then maybe we should have Wikipedia:Ask an expert. I guess I could put together a basic form there, but I'm not well-enough versed in wiki programming to do so. Junjunone (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Junjunone--Might I suggest that you go get yourself a cup of tea or something? Everyone that edits at Wikipedia and virtually all of the administrators are volunteers. You are having way to high of expectations as to the timeframe for your problem to be worked out. You asked your initial question at Teahouse at 17:27 and by 18:35 you are at Jimbo's talk page complaining about it? As I said, everyone here is a volunteer and has real life issues and other things that they do at Wikipedia. What you have going on is an edit dispute. I am personally involved in working on three others besides yours at the moment and I am sure that the same is true for anyone else you may have contact with. There are over 4 million articles on Wikipedia, and the are ALL edited by volunteers. Wikipedia editors, by design, are NOT experts. Wikipedia articles are written so that the average high school student can understand them. The person you are in dispute suggested to you that very fact. Take some time to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. After you have done that, go back and look through your communications with the person you are in dispute with. Then maybe you should take a look at WP:BOOMARANG. Please calm down. You are not helping yourself at all. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel fairly calm. I was pretty appalled at having errors continually reintroduced into an article, but I understand that Wikipedia doesn't hold a very high priority for fixing errors in a timely fashion unless there are mitigating circumstances. One takes pride in ones' work and it is difficult at times to not invest some effort in figuring out the solution to the problem. It looked to me like there was one particular user who was a problem. I tried to approach the situation as to get the user removed from the situation, but now I realize that Wikipedia doesn't work that way in spite of certain indications of the banning policy to that effect. Instead, what I have learned is that Wikipedia prefers to have disputes resolved in a mediated way, but in this case it would require someone who was versed in the material to help. That's why I think we need the ability to ask an expert. Junjunone (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note the proposal here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Ask_an_expert. The two main problems as I see are the two Beeblebrox and OrangeMike pointed out; you have to annoy random people, not even that, you need to ask them to give their sources! Further, how do you decide who counts as an expert in a particular topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was also some discussion at WT:3O#Expert third opinion, which is where I gave the suggestion to take it to VPR. It seems like it could be a useful thing if we (somehow) got it to work, so I don't see the problems with having a discussion, even if it will probably get shot down quickly. While Junjunone definitely was way overheated when he posted to the Teahouse, he seems to have cooled a bit with this proposal, so I'm not sure we need to be throwing boomerangs around quite yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding, IRWolfie. The idea is not to get the expert to add content with cited sources. The idea is to get the expert to weigh in on a dispute over content. In the case of the dispute referenced above, I was upset that a user could not seem to comprehend a very simple argument given a very straightforward text on the subject. Instead, the user twisted the source to say something way beyond and even contradictory to the point the authors were trying to make. In this case, it requires a subject matter expert to weigh in to decide which person has the correct interpretation of the source. There is no citing of sources required. A simple question such as, "Do numerical simulations of galaxy formation and large scale structure show that baryonic matter follows dark matter?" would suffice for example. Having given two sources that the other editor seemed to have read and then regurgitated in a way that is contrary to fundamental understanding in this subject, I was feeling quite frustrated, but I am fairly confident that if I e-mailed any one of a number of numerical simulation experts they would probably say something similar to me. Or maybe not. Maybe they'd agree with my opponent. The point is that it would be nice to get an expert to help out in these cases. Junjunone (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Expert-subject.—Wavelength (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if this template actually looked for an expert or had the capability of asking one directly. Junjunone (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It does and I think one has started to look over the article you are concerned about already. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Can you show me where in the code it does that? Is it possible to get it to e-mail the experts directly by adding a flag for an e-mail address perhaps? Junjunone (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This almost always works:

The reason that this isn't annoying is that experts who are corresponding authors on literature reviews have basically made a promise to their editors that they will accept just exactly these kinds of questions in return for having their article published (so that the editor isn't bothered with them) so in fact it's actually their obligation, which assures a speedy reply unless they are on vacation or dead. —Cupco 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's simply untrue. However, many experts are happy to answer questions as long as they are clearly stated and can be answered concisely. If a question shows promise of turning into a massive time-sink, most will duck it. Looie496 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been the tacit agreement ever since journals started publishing corresponding author addresses. It's absolutely true prior to the article being accepted for publication, and with retraction rates being what they are these days it remains implicitly true. —Cupco 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From Russia

Hello! In 2011-2012, I wrote 30 articles for Wikipedia. Almost all of them were related to article Соседов, Пётр Иванович. This article was deleted by the administrator. I ask to restore the article.

kalash1111 (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no article of that name on this encyclopedia. Was it on the Russian wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see a deleted article by that title - and when whatever it was was up for deletion I couldn't see any of the 30 articles. Are you using different accounts each time? I can see no other edits for this account - and no deleted ones. Anyway, you ought to take this to WP:DRV Deletion Review - but make sure you're using the exact title or we won't be able to find it. I would remind you that you should stick to one account when editing. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The title translates to 'A neighbour, Peter Ivanovich" - this suggests a book or play whose English title may not be the same. If it is a notable work, there will be an article here already. The page on the Russian Wikipedia has been deleted twice - in 2011 and 2012. Is it there you are talking about? Peridon (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was there. I've found your account there. I'm an administrator here, but not there - so I can't see what things you wrote there that were deleted. I would suggest going to ru:Википедия:К восстановлению and asking there. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also a Russian basketball player named Peter Sosedov, if you take this to be a proper name. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The joys of translation.... Think you're very likely right. I think literary before I think sport. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)