User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

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) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

I think it does. I run a personal company with Gigs in the name, but I never for a second thought that I might be violating orgname, since it was never my intent to promote that company here (and my user name does predate my company name as well). I'm sure a lot of people here have small consulting companies that happen to coincide with their username. It's not what the policy was designed to prevent. Gigs (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

But are you being paid for your work on Wikipedia in association with that name? That seems to be the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia isn't "on Wikipedia". It's a program that generates QR codes that links to Wikipedia articles. See QRpedia. You don't even need to be a Wikipedian to develop such a product - it's entirely external to the wiki. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. You said over on the DYK talk page, "According to Roger, he's being paid for the use of QRpedia, which as I understand it is software that he developed." But QRpedia says it is free software (MIT License), so where does the payment come in ...? So I thought you meant the two sites, qrpedia.org and qrwp.org, whose ownership is currently being transferred from Roger to Wikimedia UK. But according to Rexx (Doug Taylor), no money is being made off the qrpedia sites either: "There is no mechanism in place for generating income from the domains qrpedia.org and qrwp.org. Commentators also need to differentiate between the site (which physically hosts the servers) and the domain names. WMUK's interest in QRpedia is in finding ways to ensure that the service provided remains secure and free in perpetuity." On the other hand, on his LinkedIn page, Roger says, "I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment." In principle it is nobody's business how much money Roger's project makes for him and his colleagues – but it becomes a matter of interest to this community if he makes this money as a Wikimedia UK director, an editor here editing articles for his clients, and a project manager here getting volunteer editors to work for his project for free. There just needs to be more transparency, clarity, something. --JN466 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not conflate two unrelated issues. I understand why there are overall questions about getting paid, but those questions are not the main concern with the propriety of the username. If someone adopted the name "Mother Teresas Orphanages" then was associated with an organization of the same name, we would have concerns about the name if there are any edits relating to the organization, even if it is a purely charitable organization. The ORGNAME concern isn't paid editing per se, it is concerned with actual or perceived COI and the concern that this editor would be viewed differently than other editors of the article. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't pursue whether any payments are occurring, but that is a different issue than the name issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find the "> £2m payback on £50K investment" refers to the benefit of extra tourists to Monmouth and Wales which is predicted to arise - effectively the equivalent value of publicity against the investment Monmouth CC made. The launch of Monmouthpedia generated over 100 news articles and more than 1,000 tweets worldwide. It's difficult to be precise about money equivalence in these cases, but I'd guess that's not far off the mark. It's pure nonsense to think that Roger is talking about receiving £2M himself, and it's quite disingenuous to make that sort of implication as Andreas does above. If Jimmy wants to become "aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case", then my email is enabled - or a quick call to the WMUK office will get him my phone number and I'd be glad to chat at any time and fill in any details he wants. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Now, how much of the £17,500 that Roger and Robin were awarded for the Wikimedia UK Geovation project goes into their personal pockets? I am asking because this is part of Roger's Declaration of interest ("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."), and because he and Robin (rather than Wikimedia UK) are named as winners on the Geovation website. Yet, as shown below, the project plan involves Wikimedia UK being asked to run the project. Could you or Roger explain? And what about the remaining £100,000 they are hoping to raise? Who will receive this money, if it is raised? What do you say to people like Orangemike below, who seem concerned about mixed roles and the conflicts of interest between Roger's paid consultancy role and his role as a trustee? JN466 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to be offered to highest bidders as a marketing tool? Roger, Steve Virgin and others are basically telling interested towns and cities that for an investment of £50k in Roger's Wikipedia project, they can get £2m worth of free publicity. For reference, see [2], or see Steve Virgin's blog ("277 news stories across 36 countries and created immense value to the town of Monmouth and to the technological innovation-driven notion of hyper-localism using multi-lingual Wikipedia pages") or business website ("Monmouthpedia – managed press campaign for the launch of the World’s first ever Wikipedia Town in Wales..300 media stories across 40 countries..worth millions to Monmouth"). The Gibraltarpedia project is widely perceived and reported as a cost-effective project to market Gibraltar as a tourism destination ("Gibraltarpedia: A new Way to Market the Rock", "... the idea of marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon, leaves one without a doubt that the venture will truly be a success.")

Now, given that the project offers such good value for money, it is to be expected that people will continue to queue up at Roger's door to be picked as the next Wikipedia town, as they have been; and in the process, Roger makes the selection, and is paid. How is that compatible with the Nolan principles quoted on Wikimedia UK's site? In particular, Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.? Or Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.? These are just the first two. How can Roger act personally as a paid consultant for projects involving Wikimedia UK, advertising WMUK involvement to his private clients, and be a director of Wikimedia UK at the same time, and comply with the Nolan principles? JN466 23:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the £17,500 that Roger and Robin have raised so far for the Geovation project will be part of £50,000 which will in turn attract matched funding to make the £100,000 project budget for Geovation. You seem to have mistaken income generation for expenditure, as the project has not begun to incur expenditure yet. I am unaware of any WMUK commitment to running the project. The investment made by Monmouth Council consisted of engaging an ISP to provide wifi access across the whole town, staff time to work on the project, and provision of facilities within the town. Roger has taken no part in any of the decisions made by the WMUK Board concerning either Monmouth or Gibraltar, so it is difficult to see how he could be accused of placing himself under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK. I believe that all of the WMUK Board who have been involved in such decisions have no financial interest those projects. I remain convinced that Monmouthpedia was a very successful and worthwhile project, benefiting both Monmouth and Wikipedia. I hope that Gibraltarpedia is equally successful. It deserves support, even though WMUK is not providing finance for the project. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. Could you clarify: in whose bank account are the £17,500 raised so far? Where will the other £32,500 come from, and in whose account will they end up? And likewise, where will the matching £50,000 come from, and where will they end up? And are you saying there has been income generation without expenditure? As for your being unaware of there being any WMUK commitment, surely you are aware that the description of Roger's and Robin's proposal at https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422 includes the passage Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. If there is no such commitment from WMUK, is it appropriate for Roger to imply that there is, in order to be awarded funding? Either way, there is a problem. As for the next point, can you not imagine that Roger's business partners in Gibraltar might seek to influence [Roger] in the performance of [his] role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK? And is he not under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations in Gibraltar? He is a paid contractor: that means he has obligations, and his contacts in Gibraltar might very well seek to influence him, or ask him for help, if some difficulty should arise. You really need to face the facts here, Doug.

You have not addressed other points I asked about at all, such as the fact that Roger has people queuing up to be selected for another local Wikipedia project, and that he is taking a consultancy payment from whatever candidate he selects. If he and his company, Victuallers Ltd., profit, then how does that fit with the selflessness principle? Look at it from the perspective of an outsider, like Violet Blue. She may well imagine that Roger is swayed by the size of the consultancy fee he is offered, because that is a common way for people everywhere to behave. Even if that is not a consideration for Roger at all, this is the appearance that is created, and which according to the Nolan principles he has a duty to avoid. On top of that, the pitch is clearly that the tourist industry and local businesses in places like Monmouth and Gibraltar will profit from their Wikipedia exposure, and the resulting publicity. There is a considerable monetary value attached to this publicity (said to be worth £2m), and the PR materials of Roger and his colleagues stress this monetary value. And it is up to Roger to decide who shall be the next beneficiary of this £2m worth of free exposure, and it is Roger who will receive a private payment from the successful candidate, in part because of the standing he enjoys in the customer's eyes as a WMUK director. Uncharitable observers may construe the entire transaction as a bribe: you have to pay x amount (undisclosed to date) in Mr Bamkin's private account to get £2m worth of free publicity for your town, with the blessing of WMUK. WMUK trustees are required to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety, and several people have told you that this looks absolutely terrible. JN466 04:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only comment on facts, Andreas, as I have no brief to speculate. The Board are hopefully discussing the Geovation bid tonight as stated on the WMUK wiki, so we may be able to update the present position then. I understand that the bid will seek matched funding from one of the Welsh agencies and will include the employment (via an open advertisement) of a manager to run the project, so I think that it is a mistaken reading of the bid to conclude that WMUK will be running it. One fact that I am certain of is that Roger is an honourable man, and I would expect him to be perfectly capable of giving paid advice to Gibraltar without taking on any of the editing obligations that you seem to imagine. I find the Gibraltarpedia project to be an exciting opportunity for collaboration with Wikimedians in Spain and Morrocco as well as Gibraltar, and I've been happy to receive reports from Roger on its progress. It is a pity that you should think so little of me and the other uninvolved Trustees that you should imply that Roger would be able to influence our decision-making about the project. Our in-person Board meetings are open to the membership to attend: perhaps you should avail yourself of that transparency to see for yourself the propriety of our decision-making processes. --RexxS (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what he will or will not be doing, the fact remains that he appears to be exploiting his position with Wikimedia (UK) for personal gain. Grover cleveland (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This article on Gibraltarpedia has just gone up on the BBC website describing Bamkin as a representative of Wikimedia. How would the BBC know of Bamkins connection with WMUK unless he has cross the line that blurs his own commercial work and his responsibilities as a trustee and former chair of Wikimedia UK?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems, from the Gibraltar Chronicle that the Gibraltar Museum "...made the first contact with Wikimedia UK to start the ball rolling". In that article, Roger Bamkin is identified as Wikimedia UK director. TheOverflow (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody have any idea how much Roger is being paid? I must say that my personal experiences of him are very positive and I think what he is doing in regards to wikipedia cities should be replicated everywhere on the planet. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 22 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)

untrikiwiki seems in part directed at PR agencies. The graphic includes the following e.g.: "Being able to offer Wikipedia-based services will differentiate your offerings from your competitors and will allow you to present an unusually strong and valuable proposition to your clients. [...] Our experience and connections will allow you to offer Wikipedia services but without the need to spend years developing expertise in-house." I've dropped User:Maximilianklein a link to this discussion. --JN466 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken down now. See [[3]] Thegreatgrabber (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. They've posted a statement:

UntrikiWiki has recently received some public attention from Wikipedians who disagree strongly with our belief that COI consultants can serve in a mutually beneficial liaison that is good for both Wikipedia and organizations that contract us. We’d like to explain in more detail what it is that Untriki has been doing, and what our future plans are to try to ameliorate some of the confusion around us.

We’ve never made a single edit for which we had a conflict of interest on Wikipedia – ever. Although we have advertised such a service, we’ve not aggressively pursued it – and we have not accepted any clients interested in on-Wikipedia work. [...] We believe – strongly – that there’s nothing inherently wrong with accepting for-profit engagements that involve contributing to Wikipedia, as long as it’s approached in a transparent and ethical fashion. We understand why it’s a controversial issue, but we believe that it’s a necessary and emerging field and believe that it’s important that people with knowledge of Wikipedia’s ecosystem move in to it and establish standards that protect Wikipedia’s integrity.

Starting now, and lasting indefinitely, we will not accept any paid conflict of interest Wikipedia editing work. To support this statement, we have removed mentions of the services from our website. This isn’t because we think it’s wrong, but because we think it would serve as an unfortunate distraction to our current work and because we recognize that if we ever pursued paid editing as a service, we need to first publicly develop and declare a process that will be acceptable to Wikipedia’s community. We think our currently intended process would have been ethical and more than meets the ethical standards of an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s community, but we made the error of not publicly talking about our process before posting a graphic about it in public. [...]

The advertisements for PR Editing on Wikipedia have now indeed been removed from the site. --JN466 14:03, 18 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: [4] 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)

WMUK has established that blocking or banning doesn't affect one's position as a trustee. TheOverflow (talk) 00:26, 18 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

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)

It's better than that - he came here first - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I first asked about it here, around lunch time, well before the statement Chris Keating posted in the evening to address the various questions raised in the mailing list thread. JN466 12:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've located some more information about Geovation now by myself, as no reply has been forthcoming, including that £17,500 funding (with another £100,000, apparently, still sought):

https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422

Wales Coast Path only: What theme of the challenge does your idea address?: 3. Community engagement What problem are you trying to solve? : Green tourism: what's around me? What makes it different?

How will your idea work? : There are two parts, fist we meet local groups and show them how to add information onto a Wikipedia page: and that's really simple! Secondly we show them how their articles can be geotagged. The best part is enjoying a walk down the path with a smart phone, with any AR tagged articles shown through the camera, informing the User (tourist or local) about what's around them: history of that unusual building or where's the nearest Young Farmers Club? What's the name of that mountain, and where's the nearest toilet! Take a look at MonmouthpediA on Wikipedia and multiply it by 10!

How will it provide a solution to the Challenge? : It's the best answer possible! The local WI (or Merched y Wawr) will bring along old photographs, which would be scanned in and uploaded, and their locations geotagged. They would learn new skills on how to edit existing articles and how to create new ones. The local chapel could write about the history of their chapel, and so could the local cafe - including the opening times! Schools could show off their latest Brochure for Parents and even nature clubs could write about the local habitats. This is about: bringing people together in order to inform walkers, cyclists and joggers what's around them.

What is the stage of development? What help and investment you need to build it?: Because Wikipedia is so simple, it's ideal for this project. Communities know about the geography and history, and culture of their area MUCH better than an app writer or web-author sitting in his office in Manchester! Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism. Wikipedia has a proven track record: why re-create the wheel all the time? It's an app which is already installed on most iPads and iPhones! Pure and simple.

Neighbourhood Challenge only: How would you use Ordnance Survey data in your solution? : See below.

Wales Coast Path only: How will you use geographic information in your solution? : Yes! Geotagging on Wikipedia is so easy! One line and the whole article pops up! Through Layar (invisible to the User), we would view through the camera's phone what's around us, and automatically a number of Wikipedian "W"s pop up wherever the article's location is. For example, an User takes a look at a cluster of mountains, and immediately the "W" shows that there is an article written, so the user chooses a mountain with his or her finger and they're straight into the article! And not just Cymraeg and English: there are over 250 languages on Wikipedia. All articles would be geographically and traditionally (OS) tagged.

http://www.geovation.org.uk/teams-win-innovation-funding-wales-coast-path-challenge/

Living Paths – Roger Bamkin and Robin Owain of Monmouthpedia were the pair behind this idea which will allow communities along the path to create a Wikipedia page and post stories about their communities allowing diverse local information to become accessible. Awarded: £17,500.

As I see it, this is a programme whereby Wikimedia UK pays Wikipedians to get members of the public to edit for free. You can see it as an editor recruitment programme, and as a programme to secure unemployed Wikipedian friends paid employment. There has been practically no discussion of this on-wiki to date. --JN466 13:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Roger and Robin had £17,500 awarded to them as individuals – Roger included this item in his Declarations of interest: "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." – for a bid that promised that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians" (and that local cafés would be able to post their opening hours in Wikipedia, if I understand it correctly). This looks like he is deriving personal profit from committing Wikimedia UK services and resources. Jimbo, what do you make of it? --JN466 14:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is now some further discussion of this at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Grants_and_scholarships – it appears that, even though the £17.500 was awarded to Roger and Robin rather than Wikimedia UK, Wikimedia UK paid for Geovation-related expenses. JN466 00:48, 23 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 [5]). 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)

Roger is being paid to work on it as a consultant. His consultancy is far broader than QRpedia, which really doesn't need any consulting (it's just a website that you link to and then it forwards you onto the appropriate Wikipedia article in the appropriate language - anyone can use it very easily). --Tango (talk) 11:23, 19 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)

By the way, this needs to be reported to the UK's charity commission, as this could affect WMUK's charitable status. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Domain name and intellectual property

The domain registration for this "Wikiproject like any other", gibraltarpedia.org (and .com too) is owned by a private entity called Victuallers [6]. Does the WMF have any ownership of anything gibraltarpedia-related in any country, like a trademark or something? If not, this campaign is just increasing the intellectual property value owned by a non-WMF entity. There is nothing preventing gibraltarpedia.org from being redirected to point to just about any other site, now or in the future. Also, the project banner is prominently displaying this domain name and transcluded on at least 100 pages, see below. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Report on CNET

• Violet Blue, "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia", CNET

--JN466 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• That article is a good summary of the situation. WMUK and WMF, anything you can do to correct this problem? Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Are you asking corrupt organizations to correct corruption in their organizations? Sweet. --66.85.128.186 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's merely a blog hosted by CNET written by someone who isn't a CNET employee and who has personal grievances against Wikipedia, and the content is just a regurgitation of nonsense being spewed by the Wikipediocracy bullshit machine. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, I'm not trying to discredit your opinion with an ad hominem approach, but could you please explain the circumstances surrounding your trip to Gibraltar next month? If it's a personal trip, sorry for my presumption. If it is related to the WMUK's involvement in this issue, however, could you please explain how it fits in? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's none of your business and it has nothing to do with WMUK. Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen more attractive photos and video of Gilbraltar all over the internets/twitters/facebooks in the past six hours than I had previously in my middle-aged life. Whatever the PR guy was charging for this, the Gilbraltar tourism folks got the bargain of the century. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get the problem. If every tenth town hires some Wikipedia-person to go around and document the local tourist attractions, why does that have to be a bad thing? Provided that we could uphold something along the lines of my once-suggested WP:Paid editor's bill of rights, at least. Wnt (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If that was all that was taking place, there probably wouldn't be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

They're not hiring a "Wikipedia-person"; they're hiring a "Wikimedia (UK) person". Big difference. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I agree with Panyd and Jimmy that paid for editting that involved a wikpedian being paid to create articles and/or a positive spun position for a client is wrong. The members of WMUK may have made a mistake when they voted for me despite knowing that I was acting as a consultant. However they did make that judgement. I have continued to offer my resignation from the board over COI as it is a tricky situation (and even one where it seems that the choice of a name for my company becomes important - can I thank the more reasoned voices).

When I stood for the board last time I clearly made the point that I would have COI issues but I wouldn't have undeclared COI issues. The difference is important and you will see that my interests are well documented and they overseen by the WMUK board, our Chief Executive and our legal advisors. Gibraltarpedia is not a WMUK project - its enable by an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Government of Gibraltar and the Wikimedia Foundation signed a bilateral agreement during Wikimania. At Wikimania, the Gibraltar Minister for Tourism announced that he was "inviting the whole of the Wikipedia movement to build a bridge to Africa". The video featured me talking about the the world's first Wikipedia city and local people from Gibraltar welcoming you (the community) to help them create articles in lots of languages. I'm helping to make that happen. I'm working with people who are trying to make that happen too. Victuallers (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Roger, the most problematic element here to my mind is that you and your company apply for paid service contracts involving Wikipedia, at least partly on the strength of your being a director of WMUK. In the Geovation case, for example, your bid stated that "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial." Yet the funds that were on offer were awarded to you and your colleague, on the strength of your bid, and not to Wikimedia UK, or any other volunteer editors due to become involved in writing these articles. It is not unreasonable to assume that your WMUK directorship gives you a competitive advantage in applying for jobs like the Geovation project, or consultancy jobs like the one for Gibraltarpedia. This being so, I cannot see that these circumstances are in line with the letter and spirit of the Nolan requirements, notably requirements 1 and 2. I believe you ought to resign, and do your for-profit work as an independent consultant. JN466 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Victuallers: I lost every bit of confidence and respect for WMUK after the Fae-affair; if you can have a banned editor on WMUK, then apparently everything goes. Including having a leader who does openly, and in a big scale, what Gregory Kohs has been doing in a smaller scale for years. Huldra (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Violet Blue has a new story posted; http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57518384-93/wikipedia-honcho-caught-in-scandal-quits-defends-paid-edits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlickitatGlacier (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is CNET generally recognised on Wikipedia as being a reliable source? Looking at that bitter little attack piece, I'd say it shouldn't be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Violet Blue certainly has a history with Wikipedia, and yet her articles are clearly written with more detail than most. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

... including "details" that can't be backed up by any reliable source. Nice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Roger Bamkin?

Given the serious conflicts of interests, breach of trust, and abuse of position for personal gain, if Roger Bamkin doesn't voluntarily resign then it seems time for proceedings to begin to forcibly remove Mr. Bamkin from broad of trustees for being in violation of section 72 of the Charities Act 1993. In that regard, I believe it would be useful to begin compiling the specific allegations and evidence in a single space to bring coherence and civility to a quickly unfolding event. StevenPine (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to get his name right if you are going to file court proceedings... I haven't seen anything that I think goes so far as to violate the Charities Act. Roger's position of the board is, ultimately, a matter for the Wikimedia UK membership - I doubt the courts are going to be interested. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to block Bamkin entirely

I was asked to put a spamuserblock on Bamkin's Victuallers account, since that is the name of his for-profit company; I declined, stating "[s]uch a heavy-handed action would be grossly inappropriate", since apparently his for-profit venture is named after his Wikipedia account, not the other way around. Nonetheless, this whole mess is not going to go away until and unless he steps down from all positions of trust and responsibility within Wikimedia and all related entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with your refusal rationale and your latter comment. It would be a gross misuse of the username policy. Gigs (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused (on my talk page) of insufficiently aggressive enforcement of the spamusername policy. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not insufficient, merely selective. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit silly to go, "I think OrangeMike enforces our spamusername policy poorly. I know what will fix him: trying to talk him into placing a 'spam' block that would be extremely controversial and almost certainly be overturned amongst much drama based on IAR!" Yes, you can squint at the spamusername police and see how a block on Victuallers could be argued for, but if you can't also see that this is not nearly as clear-cut a case as most and that a unilateral block by one admin is likely to inflame, not reduce the drama, then you don't have much business ordering other admins to go place the block. No admin is obligated to place a block on your orders, even if you think that makes them "inconsistent"; if you want Victuallers blocked, well, you have admin bits too, and you can do it without trying to piggyback the issue of OrangeMike's blocking habits onto this case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking for Victuallers to change usernames seems unnecessarily punitive and is a distraction from having a full and frank discussion of the issues. Given the nature and scale of Bamkin's consulting business, the username is not likely to be recognized as a business name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record I considered the same action before my first posting here and decided not to. To just go ahead and block is, as Mike says, punitive. However as I've already mentioned I don't believe when WP:ORGNAME was written that the possibility that someone would name a company after their WP account and then turn around and get paid for their Wikipedia activities ever occurred to anyone. I do believe it violates the spirit of the policy and that Roger should change it a sa gesture of good faith, but that is up to him for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Roger has stated [7] that the company only exists as a tax item and has no advertising or promotion (or employees, evidently). WP:ORGNAME was written to prevent editors promoting a company for which they work ("the following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional", bolding as in original). If there is no promotion involved, I can't see how WP:ORGNAME can be invoked, since the company only exists on paper. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this question, for which I was ridiculed at Wikipediocracy. I think naming a private consultancy after a WP name is bad form, at a minimum, and violates the spirit of the prohibition against user names that promote commercial interests, most would agree. Is it unambiguously commercial? No. Do I think Orange Mike was being inconsistent by not blocking on request? Perhaps a bit, but I don't agree with many of his blocks on commercial entities and I feel there is enough ambiguity here that the name could well slide. Should Mr. Bamkin select a new user name now that he has established Victuallers Inc.? Yes, he should, in my opinion. Should he separate himself from WMUK? Yes, definitely, immediately. Participate there as an independent observer, not as a functionary. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note Roger has filed at WP:RFCN to ask for community input on his name, so any further discussion of it should probably go there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Report in Le Monde

Deux membres de Wikipédia accusés de corruption ("Two members of Wikipedia [sic] accused of corruption"). Grover cleveland (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to give them credit, whoever they are - they've certainly oiled up the media pipeline, and finding these two unrelated cases to publish together and make each look worse than it is was a stroke of genius. I don't know where they did all this planning either - I assume they must have some new forum, apparently one more secure than ArbCom's lists. I don't know what's going on at all, but I wonder ... instead of sitting around, waiting to be publicly humiliated one by one until whoever these people are take it over, would it make more sense for the WMUK trustees to take the initiative, disband their organization entirely and donate its assets to other charities? Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So, Wnt, you think WMUK should take the money that people donated to Wikipedia (and the WMF transferred to WMUK) and give it away to another charity? Do you think that this might be in violation of certain legal agreements, not to mention the expectations of the donors? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps other WMF chapters or related charities, but I'd rather see them pile the money up and burn it than be taken over by someone who spends it on some censorship crusade. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There's more press coverage of the scandal today:

• "Wikipedia contributors decry pay for posts" (Computerworld) [8]
• "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia" (CNET) [9]
• "Governments paying for Wikipedia edits?" (Foreign Policy (blog)) [10]
• "Wikipedia Brand Trust Erodes With PRikpedia, Gibraltarpedia Scandals" (BrandChannel) [11]

--John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Drop the ad hominem crap and the paranoia

Could we drop the ad hominem crap and the paranoia, and simply address the horrific public relations and ethics problems we have here? I don't care if this is being pushed off-wiki by Kohs, or any and all of the rest of the haters (who hate me too): it's a genuine concern for many of us who spend time and energy we don't have to spare, and don't like to see somebody leeching off Wikimedia funds as a consultant, or abusing their powers as an admin, officer, etc. to get free trips, lucrative contracts, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you address a public relations problem without asking what the motivation of those making accusations might be? The ethics of each individual deal of course should be considered carefully, and appropriate policies should be enacted, but I don't think this became news all by itself. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What could it possibly matter, Wnt? I think you will find that it became news when those who have a responsibility to act in specific ways and not act in others, ignored their legal obligations and went straight for the personal gain. Yours is the kind of thinking that says punish those who tell, not those who did the improper deeds. If what the whistleblowers say is true, it does not matter at all what their motivations are. To say otherwise is to think like a politician. I am appalled that you see this as a "public relations" problem and not an ethical and possibly legal one. Bielle (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a shande far di goyim, Wnt; I don't give a darn what the motivations of the whistleblowers are, we need to keep our house clean as an ethical imperative; the public relations aspects are secondary. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I think you're doing an excellent job of distinguishing what should and should not be done here. While we have debated certain blocks in the past, I think in this case, you have made an impeccable call, and I think the very best thing at this point would be for the community as a whole to applaud your discretion and use your rationale as a guide for the future. I know you personally give a lot of time and energy to this specific issue in your role as an Admin, and you've shown a strong willingness to let the wisdom of the community guide you, but I think in this case, the community should allow your wisdom to guide it. -- Avanu (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike, while I totally agree with your comments about the crap and paranoia pushed by the usual suspects, I don't think you're on target with your comments about "somebody leeching off Wikimedia funds" or "abusing their powers". As far as I can see there's absolutely no hard evidence of either having happened, just a lot of uncorroborated accusations, often by individuals with a track record of participation in off-wiki attack sites. Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS Wnt: the Wikipediocracy crowd (the thread in question is here, for the talk page stalkers) is not a monolith intent on destroying Wikipedia, but we are pretty good at investigating bad behavior by cabals (practice makes perfect). The NPOV assessment of this debacle is pretty clear: some people are abusing their positions, some other people probably should have spoken up about it but didn't until it was too late, and still other people (like you, Wnt) are so embarrassed by being caught supporting the wrong people that they're trying to blame the watchdogs.

Having active and intelligent watchdogs around is a good thing for entities like the WMF. Don't kick the watchdog when it's just doing it's job. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Compared to what every American local government gets away with, Bamkin's "crime" doesn't sound like much - he sold Gibraltar some fancy lucite plaques and advice for a few thousand bucks, possibly benefiting from his position on WMUK to close the deal. Did I miss anything? True, it would be worth hearing whether he had permission to use the Wikipedia trademark^[12] and if so whether that is given as readily to potential competitors. So I'm not sure this is right but I don't know why it has to end up in Le Monde. Can't you just make some clear, unambiguous policies and make amends for any past transgression without fire-breathing rhetoric, bans, resignations, etc.? I also agree that the talk about removing negative content from Gibraltar and about SEO benefits from the other guy is all very disturbing, but so far I've heard no link from this to anything Bamkin did. Wnt (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Compared to what every American local government gets away with, Bamkin's "crime" doesn't sound like much - he sold Gibraltar some fancy lucite plaques and advice for a few thousand bucks, possibly benefiting from his position on WMUK to close the deal." — Nope, other than the fact that there's little doubt that he cashed in from the association, you've got it, and that's why Mr. Bamkin must sever his connections with WMUK immediately. "Every American local government" is not Wikipedia. That's what we call an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at AfD and it shouldn't and doesn't cut mustard. My friend Orange Mike correctly notes on this page that we need to keep our house cleaner than clean, and the fact that the "opposition press" includes mortal enemies of The Project should not for one second deter us from a quick housecleaning. Now. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If Wikimedia's/Wikipedia's leadership had its house in order, there wouldn't be anything substantial for Wikipedia's critics to complain about, would there? Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Orange Mike, I will try to calm down. Sorting out what was/was-not appropriate behavior at each point in time and layer (context) will be difficult, but it is doable. A true timeline will have to be made. However the very public damage to Wikipedia's credibility is bad, and was foreseen. We, the paranoid, saw this coming. Some of us, by being paranoid, warned against paid editing period, and warned against any collaboration with PR people/orgs/purposes. Even if every single edit made was in isolation done in the purest good faith (many do appear that way, so far), the aggregation of them appears improper. This damages Wikipedia's credibility - damage so bad that WMF may have to hire a public relations agency to fix it. Gah! Doh! Oy! --Lexein (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not the sort of thing that a public relations agency can fix. PR can can only get you so far, and then you have have something real to back it up. (I don't think that Edward Bernays himself could to much to increase tourism to Syria right now, for instance.) Since it is true that we as a community not only permit but actively encourage paid reputation-management editing (e.g, WP:CO-OP etc.), we would have a hard time convincing people that it's not true and that our articles aren't therefore slanted, sometimes. There's nothing to be done about that, I suppose. It's all a natural and expected result the nature of our governance (which is very hands-off and has to be), the makeup of our community, and the natural tendency of money to abhor a vacuum. Of course many people have predicted this very forseeable turn of events (and worse to come in future, I assume), but probably not much can be done about it, so we'll just have to take these hits, I guess. Whether anything can be done about this particular detail (the corruption of WMUK) I don't know; I hope so, but it probably won't much change the direction on which the Wikipedia evolves anyway. Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think that Foreign Policy] assesses the situation cogently: their article is titled Governments paying for Wikipedia edits?, and they end with "I'm actually surprised we don't hear more stories like this... there are other international disputes in which interested governments would pay good money to promote their version of reality". This is true, and consider how the budget of the Gibraltar Board of Tourism is dwarfed by the propaganda budgets of (let's say) the Russian Federation and Exxon-Mobile and on and on. There's millions to be made here, my hearties -- millions, and all on the up-and-up, provided you jump through the right hoops. How long, really, can we expect that kind of money to be left just lying on the ground? Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you got my joke, thank you, otherwise, I was attempting irony about hiring a PR agency to solve a problem brought about by "collaborative" (as Prioryman insists) PR-related, COI editing and use of DYK as a promotional tool. The damage to Wikipedia's credibility is real, and concrete "Wikipedia Paid Posts Scandal" shows a nice graph of the decline in 2007 donations from 22 Feb to 17 Mar around the Essjay scandal (if the correlation is valid, after correction for normal donation fluctuations). I should reiterate: We, the paranoid, saw this coming. Some of us, by being paranoid, warned against paid editing period, and warned against any collaboration with PR people/orgs/purposes. I glanced at WP:CO-OP; I wonder how that's working out. The way out of this is simple, swift and surgical. Shut, disavow, and salt Gibraltarpedia and any other "collaborations". It's fine that my advice was ignored: I suggested see-threat-and-prevent-and-live, but WP decided to live-suffer-and-maybe-learn. Whatever happens, WMF/WP should at least learn. The clock is running on this scandal. It may already be too late for a strong Wikimedia/Wikipedia response to make a difference to public perception (you know, all those people who might have become editors, except that the stench of corruption has turned them away...). --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well of course Gibraltarpedia should be shut, disavowed, and salted. I'm with you on this and so are a lot of folks and I've also banged the drum on this general subject. The problem is that there's no mechanism to do this. What are you going to do, send Wikipedia:Gibraltarpedia to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? I wouldn't recommend doing that, since to succeed you must meet one of these conditions:

• General consensus to delete it (or some other generally satisfactory solution). This means most everyone coming basically to agree with this, and that's not going to happen.
• Lacking that, a supermajority voting to delete it (supermajorities have a kind of nebulous status here, but if you can get one big enough it carries a certain weight). That would mean at least a 67% vote in your favor, probably more, and based on my reading of this and earlier discussions, that's not going to happen.
• Lacking that, a preponderance of argument such that any reasonable disinterested person cognizant of the matter would clearly agree with your position. Probably this requires you to advance policy-based arguments that can't be well countered with policy-based counterarguments. That's not the case here I don't think. Lacking that, you can try to make non-policy-based arguments such as the overall good of the project, common sense, WP:IAR, even morality-based arguments (though I wouldn't try that with this crowd) and so forth. This is not going to succeed. The other side can is also clever and can write and argue well, so at best a stalemate would be achieved.
• Lacking that, a political solution such as a person closing the WP:MFD as "delete" even in the face of the lack of any of the above. This does happen occasionally, but it's demoralizing and no one likes to see it, is not a good thing to hope for, is not something that many people (including me) would support, and in this case would likely cause sterile drama and warring with little prospect of success.

So there you have it. All we can try to do is keep up the fight and try to shift the general community feeling about this sort of stuff, over time. I'm not too inclined to much energy on this for much the same reason as I'm not inclined to have my neighborhood pickup basketball team challenge the Boston Celtics: they're professionals; we're not. You're welcome to, though. Herostratus (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve Virgin

When I saw this discussion I looked a bit into one of the other parties mentioned in connection with this case. User:Steve Virgin is a former member of the WMUK board and has "business relationship" with Bamkin that covers these matters. Virgin is only clearly noted as having been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia, but his LinkedIn profile describes how about ten years ago, while working for "Corporact", he ran a "UK PR campaign for Gibraltar Tourist Board" (Gibraltar is actually misspelled on the profile). Looking over Virgin's activities on-wiki he has put forward a video of a TED conference on the Monmouthpedia talk page to use as a source. Mr. Virgin describes the meeting as being what lead to Monmouthpedia. It is about 16 minutes long, but it is essentially Virgin and Bamkin talking about the economic impact Wikipedia could have on Bristol and makes frequent mention of QR codes, PR, and SEO via Wikipedia as helping to attract business to communities.

This aspect seems significant as Virgin also created a page in his userspace that appears to be geared towards eventually taking the Monmouthpedia approach to Bristol. There is also mention on his LinkedIn page of a speaking event last year, a month after the TED event, at the Bristol Chamber of Commerce where he discussed "Wikipedia and Bristol". It seems likely this same concept was being put before them, especially since it was listed under his work with the PR agency Media Focus UK. Mind you, Virgin only left WMUK this May and started working at Media Focus months after he joined WMUK in 2009, so his work at a PR agency basically coincided with his work at WMUK until very recently and there is substantial overlap in those two careers. Given that his activities are closely connected to Bamkin's activities and this whole controversy, I feel it is pertinent to mention here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a video of a presentation by Roger and Steve, openly selling the SEO value of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia front page appearances, in the name of Wikimedia UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM

Quotes:

"Can we help put Bristol on the global map longer term, that's why we want to talk to you today." [3.25]

"Roger's going to tell you all about Derby Museum, and what we did for them." [3.40]

"We partnered Derby Museum. [...] We thought we'd pick on one small museum and give it a lot of it, national attention, even international attention, into one museum, just to see what kind of effect we could have on a museum, how we could affect its profile." [6.23]

"We made the front pages of the main Wikipedias [... English, French, Polish, Russian ...] It's giving us more hits to Derby Museum's web page, so it's actually going from our page, clicking through to their web page, it's fulfilling our mission to educate and to share information around the world, and it's raising the interest and status of the city." [12.22]

"It's a phenomenally cheap, and very, very imaginative way to absolutely energize a city and put a city on the map." [17.41]

I am not comfortable with this sales pitch – especially when it is combined with private consultancy contracts for those making it. It is not consistent with the spirit and ideals of the project I signed up to more than six years ago, and with the spirit and ideals of Wikipedia as communicated to the public.

And it is arguably an exploitation of volunteer editors for personal profit. There is a telling passage in the latter part of the presentation about how creating massive amounts of text in multiple languages would have cost a lot of money, and how, just by advertising "prizes of some books and a £50 book voucher" on Wikipedia, 100 articles were created for the project in the space of one week, at no cost.

Today, even after the brouhaha all over the European press, another Gibraltar DYK ran on the Wikipedia main page. JN466 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

From an article in Slate: "Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes." [13]

This is what the public thinks about this sort of thing.

Here is an article in The Register about it. JN466 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Much respect though I have for Orlowski, I don't see him as being the voice of what the public is thinking. Instead, I rather think of him as being the voice of what Orlowski is thinking. He'd be a lot more persuasive if he wrote with a smidgeon more accuracy. "Topics rarely appear more than once" on DYK? Gosh, I wonder what all that fuss about the University of Michigan's basketball team was last year, then? Not to mention battleships and mushrooms and British churches and Olympic/Paralympic athletes and British field fortications of the second world war and and and... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I read the Slate article. It is ill-informed and ill-written. And remember all that fuss two or three years ago about bilateral relations between countries being used for DYK? I am sure that there were any number of topics which had more than 17 DYKs over the course of three months, if you define topic less narrowly than the author did. And I favor paid editing, and feel that it is far less destructive than editing egged on by religious or nationalistic fervor. The I-P editors don't get a shekel (or dinar) for their work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What need is there to pay ideological activists to be advocates on Wikipedia when they're happy to do that for free? Prioryman (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not directly, but some may have material concerns at stake. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the big deal?

It happened before: “Wales was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad, but when it came to handing in receipts, he could be somewhat careless. At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit. Not a bad sum, considering that many of those trips had fat honoraria, which Jimbeau kept for himself.” It will happen again.--108.60.139.130 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, Danny was never able to provide any evidence or anything else to lend credibility to his accusations. --Tango (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If the accusations were not true, Danny would have been banned from wikipedia but he's still editing. The chosen few, the elite of Wikipedia have been using this nonprofit site for their own profit since the beginning. For instance, remember Jehochman, using WP pages to game Google? " More respectable outfits call themselves "search engine optimization" consultancies, and Jehochman runs one of those, Hochman Consultants which is linked from his wikipedia user page. On Hochman Consultants' "Search Engine Optimization" page, the trademark Wikipedia logo is prominently featured. As an admin, Jehochman should know not to do that! ". I could go on and on...--108.60.139.170 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't respond to this, but if we would ban everyone who makes baseless accusations on the web against people on here, we'd sure have a whole lot less people editing this talk page. "He's not banned, so it must be true!" is the most hilarious claim I have read on here in quite a while. :) --Conti|✉ 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If this accusation is baseles, it is a very serious baseles accusation. If my former emploee said about me something like this: "I wonder if the students who gave up their lunch money to donate to Wikipedia would have approved of that expense", I would have demanded this baseles accusation ro be taken off the NET imediatly. After all DailyTech is not a tabloid site and not a gossip site.--108.60.139.170 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how well it works when we demand information to be taken from the net, don't we? --Conti|✉ 17:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Demands would just add fuel to the fire. Better to ignore it if you can. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Did You Know... that there is MORE Gibraltar spam on DYK today?

Time for AN/I to take action with some topic bans, obviously. Template problem tags are also being pulled from the Gibraltarpedia article by WMUK folk, funny how that works. This is starting to reek. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's response

Of note, since nobody seems to have mentioned it here; User:Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, has posted the following on her user talk page:

Hi folks. (Responding to this section, and the one above.) I don't have anything to say about this right now: I'm talking with Jon Davies by e-mail. If I have something to say after he and I have talked, I'll come back and say it here then. It looks like this could have been better handled from a perception standpoint via faster and more complete disclosure, but I have heard and seen nothing that makes me believe anything seriously untoward has happened here. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note the last sentence in particular. Can we put this nontroversy to bed now and get on with more productive things? Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

" could have been better handled from a perception standpoint via faster and more complete disclosure " - Prioryman, can you tell us who's paying for your trip to Gibralter, and why you censored any discussion of it from your userpage? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing an unanswered a question isn't the same as censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But do note that the excellent question remains unanswered. YouReallyCan asked for a declaration of financial connections during the recent Fae/WMUK controversy and Prioryman launched a (successful) RFC that got YRC banned off for unrelated matters within an hour. That's a true fact. That query went unanswered as well, for the record. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Erik Möller's response

Of note, since nobody seems to have mentioned it here; Erik Möller, the Deputy Director and Vice President of Engineering and Product Development of the Wikimedia Foundation, posted his views on the Wikimedia-l mailing list; they are worth reading in full, but included this passage:

The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA is clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit ought to be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives, not to promote separate business goals.

Note the last sentence in particular. Can we please acknowledge that there has been a problem here, and learn from it? Erik's post ends, "if this is not fully and thoroughly addressed there's a risk that it will continue to reflect poorly on Wikimedia." It should be clear that this sort of thing should never happen again. JN466 10:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the ethics here, would you say that no one who manages to get on the board of a WMXX organization should be allowed to use it in a CV? Or should he have to resign first? Or that it's OK to use it on a CV but not in an advertising pitch for your services? Wnt (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. (As a general rule, and using common sense. You can use it, if you wish, to pitch your services as a flower arranger or auto mechanic or book editor etc.. Not as someone who is going to interface with Wikipedia in any way. As with most all human endeavors, there are angels-on-a-pin complexities and hard cases, and reasonable people of good faith can discuss these.) Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the Nolan requirements – they are part of what all WMUK trustees had to sign up to:

---

In addition to the duties and liabilities of the Trustees the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life (1994) identified personal standards of conduct for directors, based on seven principles.

Trustees of Wikimedia UK should act with:

• Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.

• Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.

• Objectivity: In carrying out their role, including making appointments (staff or trustee appointments) awarding contracts, recommending individuals for rewards and benefits or transacting other business the Trustees should ensure that decisions are made solely on merit.

• Accountability: The Trustees have a duty to comply with the law on all occasions, in accordance with the trust placed in them and in such a way as to preserve public confidence in Wikimedia, and are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public, funders and service users. They must submit themselves to what scrutiny is appropriate to their role.

• Openness: The Trustees must ensure that confidential material, including material about individuals is handled in accordance with due care and should be as open as possible about their decisions and action that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands.

• Honesty: The Trustees have a duty to declare any interests relating to their trustee role and to take steps to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Where private interests of a trustee conflict with their trustee duties they must resolve the conflict in favour of their trustee role. They must make relevant declarations of interest in the different circumstances and roles they play both within and outside Wikimedia.

• Leadership: The Trustees should promote and support the principles of leadership by example. They must respect the role of the Chief Executive.

---

You can figure the rest out from there, I hope. You can do what you like, but not while you are a trustee and subject to those requirements. --JN466 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for pre-approval mechanism for projects of this kind

See WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Vaguely related to this

An editor is/was soliciting donations on his user page for past work. See WP:AN#Solicitation of donations. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Paid editors are ensconsed

J.W., FYI, reputation pros have figured it out. I watched how they evolved from early crude attempts to become Wikipedians indistinguishable from any other. This is actually good for the project because, in order to do this, they have to contribute quite a bit. Then, once they have the username(s) ramped up, they move in on their clients articles and smoothly get things done. There is no way you can ever distinguish them from someone who is simply a fan and wants this person they respect to get a fair shake and not have the contents of the available WP:RSes faithfully summarized into their articles according to standard operating procedure, and so long as it's just little ol' me against my neighborhood cult full of powerful, connected people, I quit and go back to editing articles about dogs and such. Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

August edits rise as casual editors drop 5%

The current August 2012 active-editor data shows an increase in the highly active editors at 100, 250 or 1,000 edits per month, while a continued slight decline among the broad-base casual editors making 1, 5, 10 or 25 edits per month. Since the trend is old news, this month I analyzed the shift from light casual editing (down 5% over the past 12 months) towards higher edit activity by the busy editors, up 4-20%.
As noted in the past, Wikipedia is not written by "crowd-sourcing" among 100,000 editors, but rather by a core group of about 9,000 editors, with 3,500 dedicated editors (>100 edits) following policies, plus 1,546 people making >250, with 248 editing >1,000, then 52 editing >2,500, and 5 making >10,000 article-edits per month. See current enwiki data:
                 • http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm - now has August data
The above counts are for article-edits only, while talk-page edits are tabulated elsewhere in the data. The increased activity by the busy editors completely overshadows the modest decline in casual editors, such as 43 more people (248-205), since August 2011 (last year) now making >1,000 edits, as >43,000 more edits by them this month. The impact of the total multiplier effect, of editors × edit-count, means that the fewer total editors are getting more done, as more edits by each remaining person. It appears that over 70% of all edits are made by the small 3% core group, of 3,500 (3%) among the 112,739 editors, with many reverting what the casual editors had done. In fact, it might be said that "78% 80% of Wikipedia was written by 17% only 1% of the editors" (re 80/20 Rule) in 2012. See sub-thread: "#Few editors wrote most of WP edits". More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:18/17:24, 19 Sep., revised 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This data would be more useful if you controlled for AWB-meatbots. Gigs (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Many AWB edits are multiple improvements: It is difficult to discount any AWB-based edits as being unworthy of counting. I have seen numerous AWB-based edits which involved multiple changes to an article, with significant quality improvement. Likewise, I have seen many manual edits which changed only a minor word, and were a questionable use of an edit. As for controlling the influence on counts, I noticed that the automated bot-edits, always counted separately, have declined slightly during the past year. But, still, I am not convinced that removing, or separating, the AWB "meatbot" edits from the other user-edits would matter. Perhaps there should be data which counts 1-word or 2-word edits versus broader edits to articles. In cases such as this, cross-comparisons of typical editing patterns might help, such as analyzing AWB edits among several groups of 5,000 wp:Recent_changes to see if AWB-edit patterns are an unusual problem. Meanwhile, by whatever means people are editing, the total August-2012 edits have risen despite the 5% drop in casual editors during the past 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid77 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Automated bot edits are often improvements as well. It is foolish to ignore the effect of semi-automated and automated edits when analyzing editor activity. Cluebot NG makes about 5-15 edits per minute. If Cluebot NG didn't exist, editors would have to manually revert this vandalism, and that would boost your "core contributor" count by a huge amount. The same is true of AWB-bots. When an AWB user corrects the spelling in 100 articles a day, that's 100 small edits that casual editors won't do. The effect of these processes on editing patterns is profound. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • A couple of things to note. AWB can be used as a bot but mostly its used in semi manual mode. Although it does help to greatly increase the speed and efficiency of ones edits it also is just one of many tools, like twinkle, Hotcat and a variety of others whose edits are counted. I would also note that I question the data somewhat because Rich Farmbrough did a lot of edits himself prior to being banned from automation so I find it hard to believe that there was only a modest drop. I doubt that the remaining editors did enough edits to offset that loss and certainly counting bot edits we are missing out on a lot. With that said, the corps Wikipedia site seems to be operating progressively slower with each new release so that IMO is at least part of the reason for the decline. Also, the tabs tend to jump around a lot on slow connections so editors not familiar with the site get turned off rather quickly by have to play chase the wild button around. I have had multiple potential editors tell me that they got fed up when trying to make an edit because the buttons kept jumping and instead of hitting the talk or edit button they hit something else. A variety of other factors also impacts things but I'll leave it there for now. Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I have been mulling over proposing the idea of changing the autoconfirm rules on a very temporary basis. The sorts of articles on common topics that often wind up semi-protected due to school vandalism are often the same kind of articles a new or casual editor may want to edit. If we dropped the edit number requirement for autoconfirm for non-tor newly registered accounts temporarily (maybe even just 24 hours), we could see what happens in terms of vandalism vs new constructive editors. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Speaking of autoconfirm, I think we should end it. I wanted to pull together a coherent post , but since you brought it up, most of the legitimate requests are so someone can upload a logo, which we offer to do for them. Many of the rest are trying to upload something subject to copyright, and many of the others disappear when a simple question is asked. Too much work goes into the process relative to the gain. Better yet, leave it, just deep-six the request board, and on the rare occasion a legitimate need exists an admin can grant it. Oops, responded too quickly. I'm talking about Confirmed, not auto-confirmed. But if you get your proposal enacted, even more reason to eliminate Confirmed--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Few editors wrote most of WP edits

In re-analyzing the data for active-editors, I see that most article-edits were made by very few people during the past 11 years, where 310,813 people, as 8% of all editors have made 92% of edits, even though over 4.1 million people have made at least 1 edit. In comparison to the 80/20 Rule, about 80% of Wikipedia edits were made by only 1% of all editors. So, Jimbo, this supports your earlier viewpoint that a relatively tiny group has written English Wikipedia, much smaller than I had thought. Of course, we still value the contributions of all the editors combined, as the 4,129,008 Wikipedians have made 201,533,932 article-edits combined. The full table:

Distribution of article edits over registered editors, with bots

Only article edits are counted, not edits on discussion pages, etc

As an exception in this table editors with less than 10 edits overall are included

Edits >=	Wikipedians		Edits	Total
1	4,129,008	100.0%	201,533,932	100.0%
3	1,659,778	40.2%	197,567,645	98.0%
10	797,314	19.3%	192,623,547	95.6%
32	310,813	7.5%	184,436,736	91.5%
100	125,160	3.0%	174,410,495	86.5%
316	53,896	1.3%	162,195,273	80.5%
1000	24,034	0.6%	145,685,934	72.3%
3162	9,868	0.2%	120,888,868	60.0%
10000	3,102	0.1%	83,666,774	41.5%
31623	658	0.0%	42,903,101	21.3%
100000	73	0.0%	13,588,530	6.7%
316228	8	0.0%	4,230,061	2.1%

From the table, the common core of highly active editors (>=100 edits), which is currently about 3,500 monthly (for the past 3 years), has included a total of 125,160 editors, who during their stay have averaged nearly 1,400 article-edits each (174,410,495 / 125,160).

How to create an English Wikipedia: If anyone asks, "How many volunteers did it take to write today's English Wikipedia?" then the typical, every-day editors should be included among those. The typical active editors, about 9,000 monthly >32 edits, have included over 310,813 people+bots, who averaged 593 edits (184,436,736 / 310,813). Those are the people we see everyday, from time to time, who also update talk-pages, templates, categories, or project pages, where their monthly article-edits might number "59" rather than 100+. They have written 91.5% of all WP edits, as 7.5% of registered users. Then, the "80% group" who have written 80.5% of all edits, number 53,896 as 267,000 fewer than the typical editors we see day-to-day. That "80% group" (as 1.3% of all editors) has made over 316 article-edits each month, when contributing the 80.5% of all edits. However, the influence of all other editors includes the remark, "In article X, that should be this instead", and so, if some one asks, "How many volunteers did it take..." then the response should be:

"Start with 4,129,008 registered users who make at least one edit,

and then get 8% of them to average 600 edits each for the 11 years,

plus get 54,000 to average 3,000 edits, then 45% of them to make 6,000 edits,

and then 40% double again as 12,000 edits, and 30% of them make 27,000 edits each...".

Add to that the anonymous IP users:

All together 101,648,680 article edits were made by anonymous users,
out of a total of 334,414,859 article edits (30.4%).

Hence, the influence of the IP-address users is another 30% of all article-edits, while the active usernames have made 70% of the full total of 334.4 million edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:58, 21 Sep. revised 13:20, 22 Sep., 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• This was addressed some time ago in an essay by Aaron Swartz. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, an excellent essay and still I suspect valid today. On Wikid77's methodology I would count as one of the two hundred most active editors here. The reality of course is that my eradication of the same typo across a hundred articles is no more valuable than someone who eradicates a hundred typos from one article, and there could be thousands of editors who have added more content than I have. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It would also be interesting to know how many were made using AWB and how many were made manually. I would suggest that 99% of any edits made using AWB would be minor. Although I do disagree somewhat with the argument above. Just because the edits are minor like typos doesn't mean they are any less important. Even these little edits lead to incremental improvements to the articles and to the overall credibility of the site. Without these improvements to typos and such we would have a lot of them and people would be less inclined to use the site because all the articles would look like crap. Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Imagine a world where articles are written by people who rarely edit: Not Wikipedia, of course, this is reality, but perhaps in "The Twilight Zone". I remember long ago having read that essay ("Who writes Wikipedia"), but I was not in the mood to analyze the implications. Let us consider now:

• What kind of person would write articles, but rarely edit them?
• Would 3,000 highly active Wikipedians really each make 27,000 edits for punctuation, or renaming categories, but have no interest in adding content or new articles?
• Would an IP editor add content during 40 edits over 2 days and never return?

The whole concept of an encyclopedia-written-with-drive-by-content is really bizarre, when thinking about the real-world implications. Of course, reviewing the contributions of many editors will prove that highly active editors have added masses of content, and created thousands of complete articles, rather than waiting, on the sidelines, to reformat the next anonymous paragraph added by a "40-edit" user. Plus, the new content is much easier to add by regular editors who spot a pattern and add similar paragraphs to numerous articles in a set. Perhaps that essay did not cross-compare large enough samples, and imagined that 500 thousand articles could be understood by looking at a few dozen. Also, for people who do not use rotating IP addresses, it might seem like an IP user who made 15 edits never returned, rather than returned 180 times using related IP addresses in the range. The article "Édith Piaf" is the "La Vie en Rosetta Stone of the rotating-IP rosary" to decipher how an IP-address user (209.105.200.54) could create major articles (Piaf, Maria Callas, kings of France), then return multiple times using most of 200 IP addresses during 5 months to make over 2,000 edits (400 per month) as one of the top editors of late 2002. Yes, the evidence shows Wikipedia was written (and expanded) mostly by a small group of editors, but many were repeat, rotating-IP users. Once they changed IP addresses, it gave the impression of content added from a drive-by account, rather than a core editor returning 200 times. Perhaps consider the reverse experiment: only allow each user to edit 50 times to add/adjust content, and then see what a "drive-by" encyclopedia would really look like. How long would it take to cover all the symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven? How many towns in each region would have articles? Would the top 500 rock music albums have articles? Would there be over 1.5 million sports articles, with 71,000 footballers? -Wikid77 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that a large proportion (over 50% I'd guess) of the higher-figure editors never or relatively rarely add basic text or image content (or rewrite it) or new articles, and would love to know how high that proportion is, and how it is moving over time (increasing, I'm pretty sure). This is especially the case in the very highest groups by edit count; once someone is doing over 3-4,000 edits per month you can be pretty sure they are not writing stuff, with the odd exception. On the other hand there are editors who write fairly long new articles off-wiki and only rack up a handful of edits each month as they add them and links to them, and are all but invisible to these statistics. A major constraint on the usefulness of our editing statistics is that it cannot analyse edits by types in this way. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Need new-content statistics from large samples: The relative proportion of new-content edits would be good to know, and I think samples could be taken of many articles. However, Jimbo has warned us to collect very large samples, and moderate-sized samples have shown severe misjudgment, plus Jimbo knows the size problems, due to having been in contact with so many editors' detailed issues over the past 11 years. That is why his opinions can be difficult to follow, because many of us have never talked with so many thousands of editors and their article sets. We look at 500 articles and think we know, but really have no idea, like someone in central Kansas imagining the world's oceans, or mountains. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Must we use a sample at all? The whole lot should be analysed, but just for recent periods. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth and Broyard for the last time (maybe)

It looks like Anatole Broyard's daughter, Bliss Broyard, has made a response to the whole situation, essentially calling Roth out. You can read about that here. I think her point #2 is especially poignant, because it's what a lot of us have been saying for the longest time. Silverseren^C 06:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The poorly worded e-mail correspondence with Roth by "an administrator" has tended to obscure the fact that prior to September 2012, Roth had never commented publicly on this matter, and many reputable critics had assumed that the character was based on Broyard.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also the question that anyone who claims to represent, or be, a noted author should be used to having to prove it, especially by Mr. Roth's age.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with all of this and am as slightly annoyed as anyone that we appear to have been blamed even though our article was accurate and respectful at all times, and Mr. Roth was treated with dignity and respect at all times... it's always in my nature to think about how we might do better in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that an article that accurately reports that someone made an inaccurate statement, in a way which would lead an average person to believe the inaccurate statement, is in common parlance "inaccurate", even if it satisfies Wikipedia definitions of accuracy.

I would accept the argument that we were inaccurate because there was no way we could have known better at the time, and the best information available was inaccurate, but I wouldn't mince words; Wikipedia was inaccurate, based on inaccurate sources. The fact that we didn't state it to be true in our own voice, and only reported that it was said by someone else, is a technicality that doesn't change the basic nature of what happened. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources were never inaccurate, they were stating an opinion that the reviewers held. And we were just stating that it was their opinion here, while noting that the author said that it was otherwise. Silverseren^C 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is how I see it. Mr. Roth took up an issue that he should have taken up with the reviewers with us instead, for reporting accurately what the reviewers said. Unfortunately, we lacked the ability to read his mind, leaving aside the question of whether his mind is a reliable source :) --Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seren: you're basically just repeating the point I was disputing. You seem to have this idea that because we quoted other people and their statements were described as opinions, they weren't inaccurate. This is another example of privileging Wiki-norms over real-world norms. It doesn't matter that the statements weren't inaccurate by Wikipedia rules; someone who read them would come away believing untrue things, and that makes them inaccurate in a real-world sense without regard to technicalities such as "we were just stating it was someone else's opinion". Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No. In the absence of a definitive statement from the author as to his intent, we properly stated people's opinions about what he intended. Mr. Roth has now weighed in as to what he meant, and we report that he has said that. I do not see that we screwed up in any way. Possibly the communication was not all it could be, but that goes on both sides. Why would they make the change here, rather than just talking to scholars who study Roth's works? I think there's more to this than meets the eye, but we will probably never know for sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move article to sister project Rumorpedia: Perhaps we could have an entire sister project in "Category:Wikipedia humor" so that a new Rumorpedia could host articles which play wp:Mindreader and then protest, "Just joking that we know an author's thoughts better than him". The obsession to claim the unstated inspiration of some other author, or any living person's private thoughts, really risks that they might want the article, some day, to be truthful instead. Meanwhile, other people will claim that person is not to be trusted about recalling their own thoughts. Many of us (and you Jimbo) have known these dangers for years, but we need to codify more about "unprovable claims" (or rumors), so that people will know when to exclude what critics speculate was the unstated background about anything. A person cannot prove what they were thinking years ago, only show notes of what they wrote, not thought. Speculative text, about a person's thoughts, needs to be avoided in articles. Apparently, no matter how much advice is given here, it is not having a broad enough impact (although I see the phrase, "verifiability, not truth" has finally become footnoted in WP:V). We need to turn advice into more written guidelines. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

We weren't reporting anyone's alleged thoughts, we were writing about the exact opinions of published reviewers. Silverseren^C 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Including close connections: Yes, I see the clear difference: it was not reporting a rumor, but rather reporting opinions which supported the rumor, so we need to address that case, as well, for people who are confused by the difference. This situation is like concluding that calling a person's opinion "childish" or "infantile" or "cowardly" is not a personal attack, but instead, purely an attack on the opinion only, rather than a case of directly implied argumentum ad hominem. Hence, further explanation is needed to clarify the close connections as in "fruit of the poisonous tree". Thank you for raising that issue. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, no rumor about it. Wikipedia reported what the critics said and then was gracious enough to defer to Roth's rude public protest. I'd like to know the details about the supposed email with an administrator. Yopienso (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Yopienso. There was nothing wrong with the article; it stated the opinions of others with inline attribution. Mr. Roth must have known that the reviewers, learned scholars, were making an interpretation he did not intend, so why is he picking on us? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one, when he asked for that information to be removed, the result was that the section on Broyard was vastly increased. It was undue to begin with, in the lead of what was a short article then, and then became even bigger. And you do not need secondary sources to omit something that the author tells you was erroneous speculation. The whole thing could have been handled a lot more smartly than by quoting Wikipedia rules at the man. For example, a rewording could have been negotiated, putting the information in a less prominent place, and wording it something like "Even though Roth's character was not in fact inspired by Anatole Broyard, many reviewers drew parallels ..." JN466 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, The Devil's Advocate pointed out a while ago that the wording Roth quoted as objectionable, “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard”, actually came from his Wikipedia biography, where it was not counterbalanced by Roth's own statement. It was never in the article on The Human Stain; Roth was mistaken on that point. JN466 21:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some people get upset when many people do not understand that some statement is utterly false: Well, from what has been stated, earlier, then obviously, several people kept telling the author that there was nothing wrong with the article, and that his objections about the information being totally false were of little concern to Wikipedia editors. Such can happen with people who care about truth in writing text. Some people like to drink beer, some people really like to play football for years, and some people really, really want encyclopedias to contain true information. The point in this case, is to quickly realize when someone wants an article about them to contain true information, then try to make them think that the truth is important in Wikipedia as well, even if it seems like there is nothing wrong with repeating tons of false or incorrect information. All that false stuff tends to upset them a lot. There are whole sectors of modern society which place a high value on truth, such as scientists or many celebrities, just as color-blind people might prefer other colors, and so long as we are aware of that, and respond accordingly, then there will be less resentment. The general concept is to try to match what real people state as important (or notable), and if the truth matters to them, then act quickly along those lines, even if the lies were written by famous reviewers. Does that help to clarify the issues? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikid, can you please stop making lies? The reviewers were stating their opinions on the character. An opinion is inherently subjective and, thus, cannot be a lie. Silverseren^C 07:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The article repeated only what reputable literary critics had said. This was not a case where something factually wrong and potentially libellous had been added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Stating that Roth based a character on Broyard when he didn't is factually wrong.

Stating that it's someone's opinion that Roth based a character on Broyard, in a way which makes readers believe that opinion, is still wrong in the way that ultimately matters.

You are trying to say there was nothing factually wrong because the statements came from other people and were reported as opinions. Wikipedia rules do not count such things as being factually wrong. The real world does. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• So long as Wikipedia says that reviewers said that XXXX, our article cannot be wrong no matter what the author says. And as I commented about this the last time, it is conceivable that an author's comments about his character's inspiration could be inaccurate for various plausible reasons. Wnt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bliss Broyard seems to be bringing that up as well, since she explained quite a few things that Roth knew about her father before he ever started writing the book. Roth could have just not realized that at least part of the details he included in the book about his Silk character were being based on past memories of Broyard and not just on Tumin. Silverseren^C 01:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When a primary source says A and a large number of secondary reliable sources say B, Wikipedians will tend to go with B, because of the history of WP:NPOV issues when people edit articles in which they have a direct personal interest. The correspondence with Philip Roth should have been handled better, but this was not the Seigenthaler incident Part 2, because as others have pointed out, literary critics are entitled to their opinions, and Wikipedia is entitled to report them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the media is presenting this as Roth trying to get "wrong information" removed, and being being told his word isn't good enough. Not that we can do much about it, if we objected, he'd write a book about it or something. Of course, what happens on Wikipedia often resembles improbable fiction, so he may have a head start!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems there is also a bit (or more) of topic and discipline unfamiliarity. Does it matter if David Copperfield or Pip are semi-autobiographical; or that little Nell has parallels to Dickens's sister-in-law? Or that Dickens childhood humiliation of working in a bootblack factory to support his father and family while in debtors' prison -- which he told almost no-one (one, maybe two people) about -- may show-up in his characters, themes, and setting? The people who study, write about, and attempt to understand the art, or the artist apparently think so. Put that against editors' random thoughts, and you have the spectacle of editors making bold condemnations of multiple sources, which condemnations seem unsubtle, as well as unusable. Alanscottwae all meelker (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that Charles Dickens sent an e-mail to Wikipedia and denied that Ikey Solomon was the basis of the character Fagin. This has been widely supposed by literary critics, so should Wikipedia remove all mention of it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If Charles Dickens did this, and if there was no serious doubt that it actually was Charles Dickens saying so, then (assuming that the criticism is notable) Wikipedia should mention that critics made the statements, but Wikipedia should avoid presenting the statements in a manner which implies to the reader that they are correct. If there is no published source for Dickens saying so, then the Wikipedia article should refrain from describing what Dickens says, but should continue to use what Dickens says when making editorial decisions.

This is another case of "verifiability, not truth": It is Wikipedia's responsibility to not publish falsehoods. If there is no source for a true statement, the true statement cannot itself be published in Wikipedia, but it can and should be used by Wikipedians as part of the editing process. Once Dickens says that the critics are wrong about Dickens, the critics' statements become verifiable-but-false and Wikipedia must take care that the readers don't think of them as true. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The same problem would occur if William Shakespeare sent an e-mail to Wikipedia and denied that his plays were based on Holinshed's Chronicles. All in all, it is just as well that Shakespeare and Dickens cannot read their Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If Shakespeare had said things that were contradicted by Shakespeare scholars and there were reliable sources, not given undue weight, which explain that critics believe that Shakespeare lied about Shakespeare, then yes, you can prefer the critics. But that's an extreme situation and shouldn't be the default. So far, no critic has said "I'm aware that Roth claims it wasn't Broyard, but I think it's Broyard anyway and here's why." Critics contradict Roth because they don't have the information, not because they looked at the information and decided to reject it. If scholarly consensus develops which says that Roth lied or was mistaken about himself, then we can use it. But we shouldn't use it in any old conflict and there needs to be a strong presumption against it. 208.65.89.254 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, and I doubt any critic will do so, at least in Roth's lifetime. But I'm strongly leaning towards the view that Roth picked this fight, for reasons that we cannot know. Why would the first move the biographer make be to change the Wikipedia article? What good does that do? Unless you are reasonably sure it will be reverted and you can then proceed to object and wind up getting the maximum publicity ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point and a rather concerning one at that. Silverseren^C 23:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I made this section, because, while not being a critic per se, Bliss is now saying that Roth is mis-remembering or not realizing the connections he made in his Silk character to her father and their past interactions. Silverseren^C 23:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Bliss isn't a reliable source, being a non-scholar with a personal stake in the matter but no special insight into Roth's mind.

2) Using Bliss would be undue weight.

We should not have a section in our article calling someone a liar just because the person calling him a liar happens to be in the news at the moment.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is fine as it stands now. All assertions are well sourced. Nobody's calling anybody a liar. If Roth is reliable on his own motives, Bliss is reliable on her own experiences. Roth let many high-brow reviews stand for years without public dispute. (Comment, maybe; dispute, no.) In 2008 he denied Coleman Silk was based on anyone, but now he says the character is based on Tumin. That's fine (allowing for a Clintonesque "It depends what you mean by 'based on'"), and WP can report both assertions. Omitting Bliss would be undue weight, since she has both written about her father's "passing," (note editorial comment on that article wrt Roth) and has publicly responded to Roth's letter. Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of categories

I think it would be fair to let you know about a systematic failure with deletion of categories on History and Politics. The categories are removed on the grounds that they are "POV". This is serious problem because removal of categories leads to inability of people to navigate through Wikipedia, as I argued here yesterday. Two cases I saw negatively affected were subjects related to Category:Victims of political repression and terrorism/terrorist-related categories, but there are probably many more. The consensus model works poorly here for two reasons: (a) few people know and take part in these discussions, and (b) admins who close such discussion tend to ignore the results of vote and opinions of users and decide everything on their own discretion, but ... they actually do not know the subject or look at the subject from a very narrow US-centered perspective, being highly dedicated volunteers who work mostly with technical issues. Yes, one must know the subject to make the proper categorization. For example, I am involved in a real life work with classification/categorization of proteins. Could I do it without knowing the subject? Of course not. But I still have to rely on work by three other research teams who specialize in the area of protein classification. And any judgement errors with removal of categories can not be undone: the removals are irreversible. Yes, I think that even the most "controversial" categories can be properly included, rather than deleted [14]. A lot of damage has been already done, I think. At the very least, I have one suggestion: the closing admins must follow opinions of contributors who created these categories and actually worked with them, simply because these contributors know these subjects better. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Need guidelines for how to wiki-think: Some people have also demanded that every subpage under a user-account contain POV-neutral text, almost to the point if someone makes a list of articles they like, then it would be subject to deletion unless they expand to include an equivalent set of articles they dislike. The deletions are similar to the common term "control freak". When enough people are involved in a discussion, then ideas often drift far from common sense, and so guidelines are needed to focus the thinking of large groups of people. It would not surprise me if someone started rewriting the plot of articles like the tragedy "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" because the way Hamlet was treated was a violation of wp:Civility. The reason separate guidelines are needed to explain wiki-thinking is because many people would be overwhelmed if common sense were explained in every page, and hence some separate pages could be used as a reminder, or revelation, to people who are unaware how to think, perhaps due to unusual cultural mindsets. Even though explaining common sense might seem an extreme bother, it is preferable to direct people to read such pages rather than denounce them as "cowardly, clueless liars" or whatever snarky, rude remarks are tossed to the first person who thinks differently. Perhaps there could be a guideline "wp:Choosing categories" to explain how to select and arrange wiki-categories, plus explain the limits of POV-neutral text in categories and when POV-splits are needed. However, try not to be upset with people who are slow to understand, and remember, there are only 2 categories of people in the world: those who put people into 2 categories, and those who don't (!). Hang in there. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:Categorization and it tells: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Yes, certainly. This is an important technical feature that allows navigation. Removing categories that help in navigation because they describe defining - characteristics of an object (and I do not care if that was a protein, a political prisoner, or a terrorist) does serious disservice to reader. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

One man's freedom fighter: Part of the problem is that POV-neutrality is relative to the preponderance of sources, as a major factor. Meanwhile, many people think that "POV-neutral" means 50-50%, but also is relative to the core values in play, such as the common expression, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". However, the wiki-text should follow the percentage of wp:RS reliable sources, such as 90-10%, which refer to a person as "terrorist" rather than "superhero of the downtrodden" or "the Great Satan". Many categories are limited to entries which are named for the category by the sources, such as "Category:Signature songs" so that not every famous hit which is sung by someone is their "signature song" but only when stated by a source document. Plus sources re-think the categories, such as formerly, dinosaurs were reptiles, then dinosaurs were birds, and now birds are reptiles. If the sources label something with a category, then that justifies the inclusion within that group. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:10/23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I gotta ask; who uses categories? I've never once found them to be particularly useful, and a quick perusal of the self-anointed policemen board would seem to indicate they can create huge fights for such a small part of any given article. I'm open to persuasion on this, though; obviously not everyone browses Wikipedia the same way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I used and created them a lot when I was more active a few years ago. It would be impossible to navigate without them in Biology-related area. This cat, for example includes 10,000+ pages, but this is poor categorization. Fortunately, there is no problems with scientific categories since no one regards them as "POV". However, a lot of cats I created in History-related areas were deleted as alleged "POV". Why "molehill"? Well, nothing creates tensions and discourage people from participation that much as deletion of their work, especially when people know per policy that their work should not be deleted. That's why we have so many heated discussions on AfD and CfD (look here and here for a couple of recent examples]). My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

CfD isn't really what I was getting at; I was making reference to the unbelievably vicious fights that break out over categorization of articles at that board. Sometimes I get that there's debate to be had, but I distinctly remember going to BLPN once with a request for another person to join me in assisting an article subject; I got nothing while about 200,000 KB of text was spent on whether or not some guy belonged in an LGBT category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think if this is a BLP article and there is a dispute, a contentious category (and this is probably one of them) should never be used for this person simply by default per WP:BLP. However, it does not mean that the category should be deleted because there are many other non-controversial cases where it can be used for other people without causing any disputes.My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cats can be very useful, either for maintenance activities, finding related articles or even tracking down spelling or other name variations. Other than Cluebot, they probably are the most obvious way (compared to WikiProjects being hidden in talk pages) that an article has to be found, watched and maintained. Without cats many articles would slip down the cracks and never be checked once they skip past npp. The-Pope (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Long before I started editing, I used categories all the time; however, they weren't very useful for navigation. It might be useful to create some type of web map of all the categories. Ryan Vesey 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to slightly amend my previous question. I do use a couple of maintenance categories, so I get that, but who uses them for content? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

They are the only serious way of finding out what coverage we have in a particlar area, except in some areas with templates, and very powerful & I use them all the time, especially the smaller ones - the bigger ones tend to be not much use. I also create and add to and tidy them. I'm always amazed byt editors who say they don't use them. I think our readers (and many editors) are not as aware of them as they should be though, being stuck down the bottom of the page. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Refer to pageview-stats for each category: Compare the readership numbers, with Category:Films_about_mice, such as stats for June 2012. Because relatively few readers perform maintenance (perhaps only 1 in 27,000 readers would fix a tagged article), then most likely, it is the typical readers who truly view the category 5 times per day, for "Films about mice". As a rule of thumb, perhaps consider 1 in 1,000 pageviews to be maintenance-related. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• What I am trying to tell here is actually very simple: let's follow the policies and the reason. A closing administrator, unless he is really an expert in this particular subject, should never close as "delete" any CfD cases that cased significant objections, such as in this case. I am telling this because a lot of cats were previously deleted in a similar situation. In general, the bar for removal of categories should be kept much higher than for AfD because such deletions are irreversible, unlike deletion of article (an article can be placed in the userspace and reworked if needed, but a category can not). My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WMF involvement with Gibraltarpedia

Jimmy, Roger Bamkin has posted a partial timeline of his involvement in Gibraltarpedia. In it, he states "11th July - Gov. of Gib and WMF sign MOU. WMUK and me/John are not involved or consulted.(I was surprised by this)". Are you aware of the nature of that MOU (memorandum of understanding) or who negotiated it? I believe that WMUK have been negotiating an MOU with the government of Gibraltar for some months now - has anyone from the WMF seen it or been consulted? It seems like it would be useful to have a properly vetted MOU that can serve as a model for future projects (i.e., Tangerpedia, Chepstowpedia).

On 12 July 2012, WMF staffer Tilman Bayer posted an item on the WMF blog entitled "Volunteer’s efforts win Gibraltar the right to be the first Wikipedia ‘city’". The item was authored by "Steve Virgin, Wikimedia UK". Steve Virgin is a former Trustee of WMUK but did not get re-elected at the WMUK AGM some moths earlier. Whether or not the byline misleads people into thinking that Virgin represents the WMUK, it is clear that this byline gives the impression to readers that WMUK is involved in the project. In reality, this was a for-profit project between the Tourism Ministry of Gibraltar and two individuals who had been involved in Monmouthpedia, promoted by the "PR wizard" of Monmouthpedia. According to Roger Bamkin's "declarations of interest" related to Gibraltarpedia on the WMUK site, "Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin". "Knowing what we know now, do you think it was appropriate for this to have appeared on the WMF blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is this Gibraltar - WMF MOU secret? As the project is having quite an impact here, can we discover what it says? I have made a proposal at WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations that, for joint projects between Wikipedia and commercial organizations like the Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism, some sort of pre-authorisation is desirable before we get committed. Your view would be welcome. JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have not seen and had nothing to do with the negotiations of this MOU, I'm unable to comment on specifics. I can offer my own opinions on the general principles, and no one will be surprised by my views. I think chapter boards have a primary duty of loyalty to the charity, and that anything that even hints in any small way at a conflict of interest by a board member of a chapter should be dealt with in an extremely careful and proper way. I know that the WMF and WMUK are talking about the ramifications of this situation and expect and urge that all parties be extremely transparent about what happened here so that we, as a movement, can learn from it.

Paid advocacy is a scourge against which we must all be vigilant. For us in the editing community, one thing I think we should be examining very carefuly is how and why we had such an absurd number of Gibraltar-related DYKs. There's no editorial justification for it and so whatever process allowed it to happen is a broken process. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy Wales

How can I delete my Wikipedia account? I would like to do this, but cannot find an option to delete account... is there a way? Thanks.

-HistoriadorMexica — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriadorMexica (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete user accounts, as all contributions must be assigned to some identifier; either a username or an IP address. Editors seeking privacy per their right to vanish can have their accounts renamed and their user pages and (in some cases) user talk pages deleted. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Jimbo? Come on

You should know our rules better than anyone, at least in a broad sense. And you should certainly know how original research works. Can you please explain what this and this are? I don't care if you heard it directly from the horse's mouth, which you apparently did, it's OR regardless. Seriously, if you were anyone else, this probably would have been at ANI already. Silverseren^C 20:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about the rules of Wikipedia. Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that life will end on 21 December 2012. Articles claiming that this is a fringe tehory are "wrong" and hding this is an error? We should get it right! After all, even though it may be verifiable that mainstream sources don't believe this, it is the truth that it will happen. Will you please change all relevant articles? What you are claiming here is the justification for every POV warrior, fringe advocate, and PR company. Everyone claims to present the truth. We don't accept that at face value, not from you, not from me, not from anyone else. Fram (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a very compelling argument. We can and must use thoughtful editorial judgment. A random bonkers claim like "life will end on 21 December 2012" is something that thoughtful and trustworthy editors will consider and dismiss as... well, random and bonkers. If you have a serious reason for thinking that I am lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) or that she is lying (or randomly bonkers in some way, or... what?) then let's have a thoughtful discussion. Perhaps there is a very standard and widely accepted method for transliteration from Arabic to English, and her preferred version violates the rules in some obvious way, and is therefore unlikely to become standard. (That's false, by the way, but it is at least the sort of objection that we might thoughtfully consider.) But simply chanting the long-discredited mantra that we must continue in error when we know something to be wrong, due to some rules of Wikipedia, is wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But you were not defending this instance, you were making very categorical and broad statements. Any reason why your broad statements suddenly only apply to your actions, but not to other situations? Fram (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the categorical and broad statements. I don't really know what you are asking me, exactly, but I wrote more at the talk page of the Will.i.am article and perhaps that will be helpful? I think that we absolutely do (must, really) have a thoughtful community of trusted editors who make editorial judgment calls up to and including in some cases acknowledging that reliable sources have something wrong. That's not an invitation to crackpots or cranks. We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what the sources say - we are editors. We use our editorial judgment all the time, and when we get to an interesting edge case, we discuss the details. Let's pick a different widely respected editor, because it's not about me. There are many editors who might be contacted by the subject of an article with a correction, and there are better and worse ways of dealing with it. One of the bad ways of dealing with it would be to say "I don't care how you spell your name unless you blog about it." Or "I don't care if it hurts your mother's feeling, a random blog says that's your name." A good way of dealing with it is to adjust the article and have a thoughtful discussion to see if there are any reasonable objections. So far, for both of these changes, there have been none.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one now at Talk:will.i.am. Fram (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We are indeed, and we do indeed. Contradictory sources are a fact of life, especially for older subjects, obviously we weigh a number of issues and decide which reliable source to go with. If I'm questioned, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. That being said, it's best to have a reliable source available to the public to point to, and those of us who do not rub elbows with the elite cannot count on having CNBC write up what someone told us and we're just repeating.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're joking, Silver. This is the Roth question all over again. Yopienso (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and, as with the Roth question, we need something to reference. Referencing that "this person told me so" is not a reliable source. Have the person put the information on their personal website or something, then we have a source we can reference. Silverseren^C 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Silver? Come on. Before posting on Jimbo's page, you should have run a simple Google search of "Tawakkol Karman." Yopienso (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

These edits by Jimbo edits seem reasonable to me. If we have a policy that a living person isn't a reliable source as to the spelling of his or her own name, then either that policy needs to be changed, or that policy needs to be overridden by WP:IAR in situations like these. To take a contrary position, by interpreting a policy such as WP:OR in an extreme fashion, is the sort of thing that leads outsiders to think that sometimes Wikipedia is ridiculous.

To be sure, the living person's word might not be an irrebuttable source as to the spelling of her or her name. If someone marshalled evidence that the vast majority of the written sources use a different spelling, we would certainly need to discuss the situation. Howver, I don't see that either you or anyone else has located any such evidence.

I don't agree that if any other editor than Jimbo were involved, this matter would be at ANI. I think that if any other editor than Jimmy were involved, either this issue would be discussed calmly on the relevant talkpages, if anyone thought to bring it up at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the living person isn't a reliable source, of course they're a reliable source, however, per WP:V, we need something to physically reference, so the living person needs to make the information available in some form or fashion on the internet or in a printed, published work that we can then reference. "He said, she said" information is not a reference and never will be a reference, no matter how reliable the "he" and "she" are. Silverseren^C 21:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I initially wrote the same thing as Brad, but in much less polite terms. My original comment was lost in a slew of edit conflicts, which is fortunate; that's one less diff that will show up in the eventual ArbCom case against me. :P So I'll just say: SilverSeren, it would probably be worthwhile to rethink your approach to minor content disputes. There are actually other options besides a) go to AN/I or b) condescendingly dress down an experienced editor. For example, secret option c) entails using the article talkpage... MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, you go to someone's talk page to discuss something like this. And I wasn't meaning to be condescending, just extremely disappointed, because Jimbo should know better. Silverseren^C 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)News report less than 3 hours ago. Yopienso (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Silver seren, you are degenerating into self-parody. Silver seren, while your point might have merit in other contexts, I think it would be taking things too far to implement it in this instance. Imagine yourself, or any other good-faith editor, in Jimbo's position. "You know, Jimmy, the title of the Wikipedia article about me spells my name wrong." "I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to take your word for it." "What the ... ? " Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The proper response to such a question would be, "Alright, all you have to do is explain the proper version of your name on your website or blog and let me know, then I can go ahead and change it." And, presumably, both of the people had internet access right then too (because who doesn't these days?) and could have added the info to their website or blog and then Jimbo could have changed it right then as well, referencing that website or blog. Silverseren^C 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if I'm told some information directly by an article subject, my posting of it should be accepted...I think not. Are there any other editors whose testimony about directly obtained information from the subject constitutes WP:RS, or is it reserved only for Jimbo? If there are others, who are they and how did they get that status? DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Silverseren^C 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the person's name, not some denial of a controversial incident. See also further discussion on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the significance. It's a very simple point. Is Jimbo the only editor whose word on what a subject says is a reliable source, or are there others in your view? DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're on national TV with the subject at the time, DeCausa, we'll give you a pass. I think any editor who reveals their real name and is known as a reliable source would also be considered one. You and SilverSeren and Resolute are providing examples of the descent of Wikipedia into nonsense. Yopienso (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Then show me where Jimbo used this national TV show as a reference for the change. Otherwise, it is a direct failure of WP:V. Silverseren^C 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there has to be some common sense and common respect here or we have lost our humanity and become wiki-lawyering cyberbots. Do you have to see them on TV to believe Jimbo when he says, "I met her at Clinton Global Initiative in New York. I have moved the article to her preferred spelling"? You want policy to trump common sense. If we follow that to its end, WP will relegate itself to a prim and lonely little corner in Absurdland.

But, wait! We do have a policy for that--it's called the Fifth Pillar:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

Jimbo got it exactly right. Yopienso (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo himself has talked about multiple times before how we shouldn't be making changes before sources write about them, that we are supposed to reflect the news as it is reported and not make the news ourselves, that there is no problem in waiting for a news source to actually be published before making a change, because there is no deadline. Things don't need to be immediate. Silverseren^C 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could something like this not be done through OTRS then? The subject themselves may be a RS, but the editor is not, so I'm going to have to agree with SilverSeren here. There isn't another editor on this project who could get away with "because I was told different" to justify such a change. Resolute 22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're on national TV with the subject at the time, SilverSeren, we'll give you a pass.

Please see my post above of 21:57 that I should have put at the bottom. Too many edits since then to move it now. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The news article Yopienso linked up above is actually pretty hilarious and also sad. The author, John Carney, clearly gets how Wikipedia works and what our rules are and thank goodness someone in the press has finally figured that out. And he discusses our rules on sourcing and everything and states that Jimbo should probably have his two changes reverted, but then also acknowledges, in self sarcasm, that by writing this article, he's providing a secondary source to use for the changes, even though, in my opinion, he doesn't sound like he wants to. Silverseren^C 22:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

JW, you WP:JERK! WP:POINT! Chrisrus (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Will.i.am, I do not see where the article (pre-Jimbo's edit) had a source for the "Jr." in the man's birth name, so what Jimbo did was basically to remove an unsourced fact in a BLP. Generally that is viewed as a good thing. The fact that he did it because Will.i.am told him that was the case does not turn a good thing into a bad thing. If Will.i.am had told Jimbo that at the age of five he wrote seven novels, and Jimbo put that in the article, we would be having a different discussion. For a much closer call, if the article originally did not have the "Jr." and Jimbo put it in because that is what Will.i.am told him, without finding a written source... well, I'm not sure. That might not be so good. But that's not what happened. As for Tawakkol Karman, in skimming quickly through the refs, I spotted at least two sources for that spelling (including the New York Times), and other sources for several other spellings. I actually did not see a source for Tawakel, which is where the article had been, but assuming there was such a source, what Jimbo did was replace one sourced fact with another, conflicting, sourced fact (from a high-quality source, the New York Times), and he did so because the subject told him which one of the sourced facts was correct. That seems okay too. Neutron (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And the removal of Will.I.am's middle name from the article? A middle name which, if you do a search, is used in a ton of news articles? Silverseren^C 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Need essays to explain WP:IAR and common sense: This is a good example of the need to write essays that explain wp:IAR and how an expert (or the person) can alert someone to a fact, and then the sources can be quickly be re-analyzed to see that the fact fits within the overall article. She said the preferred spelling of her name is "Tawakkol Karman" which Google gives 378,000 hits, versus "Tawakel Karman" which Google gives just 90,000 hits, so then look within the wp:RS reliable sources to confirm the major usage. There is also the matter of wp:Civility when speaking with a notable person, and trying to quibble over something like the spelling of their name, and so that prompts the use of editorial judgment, as to whether to debate such a trivial issue. Of course, these cases must be balanced to beware someone punking Wikipedia, but such events would be very rare. We had related problems with "Hurricane Katrina" where people not from the eastern area kept rejecting the notion that waves were 20–30 feet (6.1–9.1 m) high in Mississippi or Alabama, because the French Quarter, Garden District, and downtown New Orleans did not even flood, and few people in their lives have seen continual waves at the shore over 20 feet (6.1 m) high, pushing 5–9 miles (8.0–14.5 km) inland. It seemed impossible. Meanwhile, all the media hype was imagining "Katrina came to New Orleans and parked", whereas the reality was that Hurricane Katrina travelled up the entire U.S. state of Mississippi, flooding coastal areas through 3-storey levels, but never going closer to New Orleans. It took a long time before some people would even believe the documented sources, because they considered everyone else wrong, even though that disregarded common sense. They did not really understand what a major hurricane does, and that downtown New Orleans was not in the heart of the hurricane zone, unlike with Hurricane Isaac or others. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

We've been commenting on the Tawakkol Karman talk page, which is normally where these discussions are carried out. In the article, the most used transliterations of her name have been cited at the very beginning of the article for some time now, including the one now used (see the anglicized as section). It should be noted that the article was created before she had won the Nobel Peace Price and at a time when writers used different forms of her name transliterated to a greater extent than they do now. A year after the award, it much easier to see that this is in fact the common name found in most sources. Furthermore, she has been using this version in her signed editorials, which also appears in a list at the bottom of the article. It only a matter of when her spelling was changed. Crtew (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See, you guys keep focusing on the Karman edit while ignoring the Will.i.am edit. Is that because Karman is an easier explanation, while there is little to no explanation for the Will.i.am one? It's quite interesting to watch. I mean I would think sources like this would be fairly decisive:

"the 37-year-old -- real name William James Adams -- told a student audience." - News.com.au

"At the JPL event, the artist, born William James Adams Jr., also announced..." - Billboard

"When it comes to making hit records, few are as consistent as William James Adams Jr., or Will.I.Am." - NPR

"William James Adams Jr., better known as Will.i.am of the popular music group Black Eyed Peas, was named Intel's new director of creative innovation" - PC World

How exactly do you explain this one away? Silverseren^C 00:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the same Roth/Karman question: the actual subject of a BLP told a real live WP editor who is known by his real name to him and to us that there was a minor error in the BLP. It would be rude (and silly) of Jimbo to say, "Sorry, you'll have to have your birth certificate published and then I might change it." His edit summary was:

Revision as of 16:14, 24 September 2012 (edit) (undo)

Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs)

(He told me just now that this is his name - not "Jr" and no middle name. Will explain further on talk when I get time in a few hours.)

The Fifth Pillar is the basis for this leeway. Now please give Jimbo a chance to explain when he has a minute. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, unlike the Roth situation that was about a book character, it seems quite unlikely that Will.i.am doesn't have a middle name. And since his father is named William Adams Sr, the Jr. would make sense in his name. It might be the sort of situation where he doesn't want that to be associated with his name, but unfortunately, like the Toure situation, that's not how a biography works. We have to mention it at least once in the article. Silverseren^C 01:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to comply with the request of the subject of the BLP. If later investigation turns up conclusive evidence that the subject was wrong or suppressing the truth, the article can be fixed. (The beauty of wiki! No?) Meanwhile, no substantial harm has been done, and a courtesy has been extended to the subject.

You don't say what your basis is for thinking "it seems quite unlikely that Will.i.am doesn't have a middle name." My husband doesn't, even though every one of his five brothers and five sisters do.

You don't say how you know will.i.am's father's full name. The article says the two never met. My father was a junior, but since his father died when Dad was a toddler, he never used the Jr. Official documents do not include it.

Or maybe you just know a whole lot about will.i.am's personal life. I don't. Yopienso (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why, at the very least, we should have a published statement by Will.i.am in order to make the change, at minimum. At this point, the change wasn't made based on anything other than what one heard. Silverseren^C 02:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• IGNOREALLRULES: Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Accuracy trumps a mindless doctrinaire approach. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accuracy is a very imprecise term. We've had to deal with a lot of different situations where, if we just believed what the subject said, we would be actually making the articles inaccurate. Blind rote faith in BLP subjects is not the way to go. Silverseren^C 02:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, accuracy is a very precise term, as is precision. Anyway, I'd like to point out that this is absurd. You are essentially demanding that 1.) a public figure put out a press release to satisfy Wikipedia's content policies so that we may fix something that is not true, and 2.) we demand this in all cases, including their name. Anyway, the people have spoken, and they are very gently trying to tell you that you're completely and totally wrong. You can continue to argue the point, but why? Even if you're not willing to bow to the collective wisdom of others, how about just picking your battles?--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Accuracy is imprecise in this context. And I am not asking them to put out a press release, all they have to do is make a statement on their website, their blog, their facebook, or their twitter. Anywhere where we can actually cite them and provide a link as a reference, per the policy requirements of WP:V. And there are several people in this discussion that agree with me, that Wikipedia needs to have proper referencing, because without it, everything is just original research. Silverseren^C 02:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no difference in principle between what Jimbo did, and say some kid adding what he heard the drummer from his favorite band say about his middle name in conversation at a meet n greet. Now, there is, perhaps, a difference between an emo kid and Jimbo, but that means that we are allowing matter to remain based on the credibility of the contributor, and I find that rather dicey.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think its dicey. Do you think he might be lying? If you don't, what's the problem? He's the founder, can we cut him a little slack? (Also, don't know about the middle name, but FWIW "Junior" is not part of a name but just used to differentiate people, in the same way that "II" is not actually part of Queen Elizabeth's name. Often people drop the "Jr." when their father dies (since differentiation is no longer needed) or for any other reason. So as far as that part goes, personal preference would tend to rule, unless his father also is famous and/or has an article and the Wikipedia needs some method of differentiation.). Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Except that who the editor is is irrelevant. Are you going to accuse other editors of lying if they made such a change? The point is that the same standards have to be held for everyone and, no, he gets no less slack than anyone else. Furthermore, what about the middle name? Silverseren^C 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think Jimbo would lie about such a thing. My point is that we don't want to rely on editor credibility because that is not transparent to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, Jimbo doesn't have to lie. He could always just be wrong or the other person could be lying for some reason. You know, like, maybe will.i.am doesn't like being called Junior or something so he bullshits about how it isn't part of his legal name when it is part of his legal name. We really shouldn't ever accept an "I heard it from the man himself, therefore it is the truth" argument no matter who makes it or why. Ignore all rules doesn't mean we should just let random anecdotes from a brief conversation, to which we are not privy, determine content. What if some famous person wants to punk Wikipedia and tells Jimbo about some "error" in his or her bio that is actually not an error at all, just to see if he or she can get Jimbo to change it to something false?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• "can we cut him a little slack?" Better question: should we? Why should there be different rules for God and for mere mortal editors? Resolute 05:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is now a moot point; WP actually worked as designed this time!

Wrt Karman, an editor (in this case, Jimbo) ignored all rules, was courteous, and boldly made a change. Verification by multiple RSs are now in hand. Jimbo's correction stands.

Wrt will.i.am, Jimbo did the same. We do not at present have sourcing for the change, and--Abracadabra Wikipedia Sesame!--the "correction" has been reverted, awaiting decisive documentation. Yopienso (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia worked, yes, I never had any doubts that it would. But the point of this section discussion is that the Will.i.am change was highly improper and it shouldn't happen again. Silverseren^C 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It could have waited a few hours for Jimbo to set a good example by getting a source (or having one manufactured) and source material.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"I beg your pardon, Ms. Karman and Mr. Williams. Please wait a few hours while we manufacture a source for your claims that you know your own names." Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"I beg your pardon, Ms. Karman and Mr. Williams, could you make a tweet or a facebook post that I can use as a reference for the change?" It's not like we're asking people to move the Earth here. Silverseren^C 04:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If they objected, he could have blamed it on us little people, who toil and spin while Jimbo hobnobs with Madeline Albright.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See also Ipse dixit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337 15 +3!-! 835+ L4NGU4G3 3V4!-! (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Amazing

Wao Great Skills.Thanks --111.119.172.212 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Donal from University of Bloomington, India

Gibraltarpedia cats

It seems someone accidentally categorized your user talk page with a Gibraltarpedia category while posting the project's banner up as an example. Not sure if you would rather just have the banner removed or if there is a way to remove the cats, while keeping the banner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the categories; they didn't make sense. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

PR company with 900 socks?

Are you aware of this? Tijfo098 (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For the first time in Wikipedia's history, there will be no administrators chosen in a month

This is the first time in Wikipedia's history, that no administrators will be chosen in a month.27.251.75.18 (talk)