User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

violating copyright laws by linking to archived sites when original site is still live

Some editors believe you should have archive links in references even when the main article its archiving is still there. [1] I believe this violates copyright law, plus makes no sense at all. If someone takes their copyrighted material and puts it elsewhere, depriving them of ad banner revenue, then I assume its illegal. They might not mind someone archiving stuff they no longer have on their site, but they certainly don't want people ignoring their active content, and getting it elsewhere. Dream Focus 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely it is the content that is copyright, not an url pointing to it? pablo 16:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This may be an interesting issue if WMF takes over WebCite. It could raise copyright issues if WMF servers archive and offer copyrighted material from other websites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pablo, Wikipedia would not allow a link to a site that hosted an entire book on it in violation of copyright laws. Same thing here. No way this is justified under fair use laws. Dream Focus 17:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The laws are not very clear. To use a dead tree analogy, libraries are allowed to archive and make available books that are still available for purchase. Presumably that also deprives authors of income, and yet those library collections are undoubtedly valid. Recent cases have argued that the nature of the internet is such that users have an implied license to copy and archive the publicly available material unless the copyright holder takes active measures to prevent it (such as excluding bots with robots.txt or asking for archived pages to be removed). It's not really a settled issue though. Internet archives would also argue that proving a site contained XYZ as of a specific date is a valuable service even if the site still contains XYZ as of today. Such evidence of website histories have been introduced in court cases to establish things like precedence for trademark claims. That said, its still a gray area, and many copyright holders get upset about archiving services for many of the reasons you mentioned. At present, Wikipedia operates on the presumption that such sites are legally valid and generally encourages linking to them to help avoid future linkrot. In particular, many people use the on-demand archiving service, WebCitation (e.g. WP:Using WebCite) to establish an archive link around the same time the reference is added. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely I agree with Dragons flight; however, the notion of Wikipedia taking over Webcite has worried me because I don't know what happens when WMF is both the reuser and the archivist. Besides, I hope that WebCite will find a way to stay afloat in the hands of people who are more determined to hold onto their content. Wnt (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think there are zero legal implications for linking to an archiving service rather than the original article. That does NOT mean that we should do it, it just means that the argument that we must not because it is illegal is one that I don't find persuasive. I think there are many good reasons to link to the original whenever it is available. I can think of no good arguments for not linking to the original. (I can understand an argument that perhaps we should link to the original and an archive, particularly if the original source is likely to go away, although I'd need to be persuaded with more facts.

I'd be interested in a bot which constantly crawls Wikipedia archiving every source and gathering metadata about when it crawled Wikipedia and what the source said at that time, automatically and repeatedly. In the event that a page goes 404 (and some other situations, like a human deciding that the page no longer accurately represents the original in some way), it could semi-automatically (i.e. with human oversight) edit the page to link to the archive, leaving a note on the talk page about what it did and way. If such a bot/service did not publish the page to the public until the original page vanished, we'd minimize the ethical questions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is a very grey area, definitely - and one worth considering. The apparent current idea, that we like linking to these archives, may conflict with WP:COPYLINK. I know that these archival sites try very hard to do the ethical thing. Webcite's website says, the WebCite® initiative is advocacy and research in the area of copyright. We aim to develop a system which balances the legitimate rights of the copyright-holders (e.g. cited authors and publishers) against the "fair use" rights of society to archive and access important material. We also advocate and lobby for a non-restrictive interpretation of copyright which does not impede digital preservation of our cultural heritage, or free and open flow of ideas. This should not be seen as a threat by copyright-holders - we aim to keep material which is currently openly accessible online accessible for future generations without creating economic harm to the copyright holder. [2], and Wayback says informed by the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html, the Society of American Archivists Code of Ethics http://www.archivists.org/governance/handbook/app_ethics.asp, the International Federation of Library Association's Internet Manifesto http://www.unesco.org/webworld/news/2002/ifla_manifesto.rtf, as well as applicable law [3]. Honourable goals, but that's talking about 'fair use' in the American way; there is considerable debate over whether such ideas are permitted in other countries. For examples of legal problems, see Internet Archive#Controversies and legal disputes.

I'm not sure of the answer - but if we're not sure, perhaps we shouldn't be linking to them at all. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo, whether something is or is not published elsewhere makes no difference to whether it is legal to publish it. I'm sure you don't think we can publish a photograph from BBC News just because the article has gone away; why is the content of the article any different? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was closer to automatic than that, but I confess I haven't been an active user of the archive option. I thought the goal was to include in the cite template both the live and the archived url, and a reader clicking on it would automatically get the original url if still live, and would only get the archive if the original is dead. If it isn't the process, it should be. Then no live link would ever be deprived of any meaningful amounts of traffic. The only traffic to the archive would be the original copy,and occasional tests to ensure it still exists.But it would ensure that copyright holders would still get traffic to their site as long as the site exists, and only if dead, would traffic be diverted to the archive. Am I misunderstanding how it works?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Phil yes, sorry, you are misunderstanding. Have a look at refs on [4] for example; it has both the orig and the archive, as in...

G., Robert (June 2011). "Characters with Character: Garrett". Blistered Thumbs. Archived from the original on August 20, 2011. http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/06/cwc-garrett/.

88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't link to a photo that we thought contravened copyright either - or the text from an old news article. if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link - WP:COPYLINK. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction. I'll note that given a link to a title, and a second to an archived, I would suspect that most traffic would go to the first, but that doesn't mean there aren't issues worth pursuing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It says at Wikipedia:Link_rot#Web_archive_services you should do this to avoid pay walls, so people can read copyrighted material without having to pay for it, which the owners certainly don't want. Dream Focus 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a number of aspects to consider, but the suggestion that archives can be used to circumvent pay walls is very troubling. I don't believe this can be justified. What is the rationale for allowing this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I maybe wrong about the actual expectation, but I have been told that Featured Article Criteria requires such archive links, which would be a significant driver for doing so (if truly the case). The Copyvio issue, itself, does sound "unclear." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Although IANAL, the copyright issue is not unclear. If an image, piece of text etc is still within copyright under US law, the copyright holder would be within their rights to object to having it in a web archive; this has happened in the past. It would make no difference whether the web page hosting it was still available or not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You maybe right, which is why it's unclear, see the links put forth above by 88.104.27.2. If it were clear one would think a prosecution or lawsuit against these Archive Sites would have shut them down (or otherwise altered their practice) long ago. But my main point was if the Pedia incentivizes this in say FAC, then that would have to be addressed, if the goal was elimination of such links. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It depends what country they're in though. USA has this whole mess of "fair use", which helps justify them. I doubt a web 'archive' that provided copies of UK websites that was hosted in the UK would last very long. It's worth reading WP:VEGAN 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Even so, a British trade group can sue in San Francisco federal court, if someone is violating their copyrights with apparent impunity. They might even be subject to suit in Britain (depending on British law and treaty rights)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The main reason the DMCA safe harbor and take-down provisions are what they are is because of the Internet Archive testimony explaining that anything else would have outlawed them. Congressional floor debate during consideration of the Act discussed this in detail, so there is absolutely no doubt that linking to archived versions of copyrighted works is entirely legitimate and should be encouraged as much as possible (use it or lose it.) Congress is quite clear that it is the rights-holder's responsibility to ask that their archived content be removed if they no longer want it available for free on the internet. 70.59.27.8 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In USA, yeah. What about respecting the law of other countries? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As a site policy matter, isn't that covered by "legal under US law." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

While we consider ourselves bound by Florida law, by and large, we also make (what might be best described as) reasonable efforts to comply with other countries' copyright laws. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

To be clearer, what I worry about is something like this:

1. Alice scans in the latest Harry Black novel and posts it to her MySpace page.

2. Bob archives the page at archive.org.

3. Cindy posts it as a reference at the Wikipedia article.

4. Duane, an admin, is appalled and removes it, citing "copyright violation" in the edit summary. Maybe he even blocks Cindy and says at an AN/I or on the talk page the link is inappropriate. But he doesn't contact the organizationally separate archive site.

5. Five weeks later, the author's attorneys notice the archived reference and go ballistic. They say that 3,041 people downloaded this book and that uncounted millions probably got copies from them and Wikipedia, if it owns archive.org, knew about the violation the whole time and should be made to pay.

I think such things would be avoided if archive.org is set up as a separate non-profit organization that is merely receiving some support from, but not actually controlled by, WMF. But IANAL either. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all nonsense.
The DMCA says that someone like the Internet Archive has no liability if they delete the material when they get a complaint. Having no liability doesn't mean that the material wasn't a copyright violation; it just means that they can't get sued for the copyright violation. It still is a copyright violation, and so our rules don't let us link to it.
Furthermore, Youtube is in the same position as the Internet Archive: if they delete infringing material on request, they aren't liable, just like if the Internet Archive deletes the material on request, they aren't liable. By the reasoning above which lets us link to Internet Archive material, we should be able to link to anything on Youtube directly. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:COPYLINK has always allowed linking to verbatim archives such as the Internet Archive and WebCite (but not derivative works unless fair use is claimed.) If the law explicitly permits an exception, that means it's not a violation of the more general prohibition. Under your theory, the copy that your web browser receives over the internet of copyrighted web pages from their servers would all be copyright violations, too. 71.215.91.87 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be, if you published it. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. By the way, YouTube is not a verbatim archive because it doesn't include the source address and title of the original like the Wayback Machine and WebCitation always do. 70.56.35.100 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

YouTube doesn't include source addresses because it is not a web archive. It's a "verbatim" archive of videos people have uploaded, surely? I think Ken has raised a very good point. There does seem to be an inconsistency between us frowning on YouTube sourcing on the one hand and talking about investing in web archiving on the other. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

About non english letters

Hello ! I just happened to discover an old discussion about non-English letters, and You made an example remark like "Should we use (signs I cannot read -or spell) instead of Japan ?". A good point. But just one little remark from me - there is a distinct difference between latin based alphabets and f.i. Japanse signs, Arabic and Tamil. (However Vietnamese seems a bit difficult, despite it's latin based alphabet, I have to agree) Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference but I think the principle remains the same. There are letters in Polish (for example) that look very much like English letters but which aren't English letters at all, are not pronounced even remotely the same way, and using them blindly is a very bad idea. And it isn't bigotry to note that Munich is spelled Munich in English, London is spelled Londres in French, etc. Each Wikipedia should be written in its own language. I'm not opposed to all non-English letters in all cases, but note that we very much over use them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This topic is much more complicated than some editors would have it. Here is some food for thought for everyone who wants to participate in this debate.

On the term non-English letters
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The concept of 'English letters' is a simplification for elementary school use. A more correct way to refer to them is as [the 26 letters of] the modern Latin alphabet, but that would hardly appeal to elementary school learners. Most native English speakers get exposure to some of the modern uses of accents in English later in life without noticing how this contradicts the simplification they learned earlier. The letter þ (see thorn (letter)) as in "þe þing requires some þouȝt" is not non-English. It is Germanic and survived in English longer than in German. Icelandic still has it. Þ was replaced by th, and ȝ by gh, when England imported printing presses from Germany. For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to make this change just like ſ (see long s) is changed to s. [5] Putting two dots on a vowel does not result in a non-English letter but in something that some authors use as in "coöperation" or "coïncidence". See trema (diacritic)#English. The function of the trema/diaeresis in other languages is similar: Like in English, it changes the vowel qualities to something related to what you would otherwise expect. Putting a downward stroke on a vowel does not result in a non-English letter but is a construction used in English to indicate stress when documenting or preparing speech where non-obvious stress occurs and matters. See grave accent#English. The function of the grave in other languages is similar: It changes the vowel qualities and often also indicates stress as in English (of which changed vowel qualities are a side effect). Letters with French accents are not non-English letters due to (Norman) French once being the native language of the upper class, followed by many centuries of very close cultural contact with France. As a result, English has many loanwords from French that are still very frequently spelled with the original accents, where applicable. (When an American tourist insults a waiter in Paris by calling him garçon, I may have a feeling of déjà vu. Anyway, it's quite risqué to do this.) Also, even today entire sentences of French appear in British literature, are typeset according to French orthographic norms, and are expected to be understood by every half-educated reader. Most other diacritics are technically not non-English, either, because they appear as the lemmas (titles) of main entries for various foreign places in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary.

Why doesn't my favourite newspaper use diacritics in foreign names?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The odds are, if it's a quality paper it actually does this to the very limited extent that it can. The style guides of several high-quality newspapers are available online, and from them I learned the following. The main problem is that most news reports come in via the news agencies' antediluvial system, which does not even support the full printable section of ASCII. Everybody can replace "per cent" by % (one of the symbols not technically possible), but only qualified staff knows whether or where to put an accent in names such as "Gérard Depardieu". Nevertheless, the newspapers try to fix the agency reports by putting in the accents to the extent possible. Many have positive lists of languages that are supposed to be sufficiently familiar to their staff to make this effort. If such a list exists, then for British newspapers it always contains French and German, and for American newspapers it always contains Spanish. In practice, agency reports often appear in their raw state and even the accents on languages that are on the positive list are not restored.

How do other reference works deal with the problem?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
English reference sources of the highest editorial standards (Britannica 1911, today's Britannica, Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary) generally do use all applicable diacritics for the major European languages, even Polish. (Yes, this includes the 1911 Britannica, which had significant typesetting difficulties with Polish but still found workarounds.) They don't do this for some other languages with diacritics, such as Vietnamese or the Pinyin system for Chinese.

What does the Chicago Manual of Style say?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It gives advice on how to get diacritics in foreign names right. It does not advise to omit them. For geographical names it advises to use the primary spelling in Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary. In the vast majority of cases that's the original spelling with diacritics.

How about practical concerns?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the point of view of Wikipedia's editing processes, we have a huge, silent majority of editors from all over the world who move articles to their proper original spelling including diacritics. Nobody needs to actively use diacritics, as there will always be other people around to make the necessary changes. We also have a small, vocal minority of editors on an anti-diacritics crusade who argue that as soon as a foreign name starts to appear in English publications that don't use diacritics, they have an "English name" and the article must be moved. The majority of established editors has a position somewhere in between the extremes. If we decided that we usually don't want diacritics in foreign names, roughly 5% of Wikipedia articles would have to be renamed and move protected to prevent massive disruption. Also from the point of view of editing processes, it's not as simple as dropping diacritics, even when we ignore special letters such as þ or ß for this discussion. It is totally unacceptable and absolutely unusual to simply drop the two dots from German umlauts, and it is equally unacceptable and absolutely unusual to treat Danish umlauts the same way as German umlauts. For subjects related to both countries, this creates unnecessary POV problems. In general, there can be several relevant methods of transliteration and transcription even for a single language. For languages with non-Latin-based scripts this has already caused countless POV disputes. In addition, if we got rid of diacritics, we would have to update WP:ENGVAR to the effect that normal but optional accents in English words are not allowed. Otherwise we might get an article about "Frederic Francois-Marsal" using French accents in English words, but not where they would make much more sense. (But then it will be hard to distinguish exposé from expose.) From the point of view of the readers, it all depends on the reader's background and motivation. Readers who are using Wikipedia because they want the best/standard spelling according to major style guides will be misled if we drop the accents. We are currently a good, free substitute for Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary. If we suddenly change course, this may affect the English language overall, so this should not be decided on a whim. Native English-speakers familiar with the other language are a major target audience of articles relevant to this discussion. We can easily confuse them about the other language: There is at least one acute on "Gerard Depardieu", but where does it belong? Are the original spellings of two German towns Höxter and Coesfeld or Hoexter and Cösfeld? Readers who don't understand the diacritics on a name have to strip them off in mind and may feel overwhelmed in certain cases. In an article not using diacritics, readers who do understand them have to add them in mind, leading to irritation. For readers who can't input the special letters, searching inside the page can be harder. This is not an unusual problem. Variant spellings of English words or punctuation (quotation marks, dashes) can have similar effects.

Doesn't policy require us to use English names?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Almost, though not quite: "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)". [6] Calling this the 'English name' of the subject can be misleading when there are two versions, one unchanged from the original language and one not, which both satisfy the definition. The most common version of the name must be proved with reliable sources. An otherwise reliable source that is not concerned with the correct appearance or cannot print a name correctly due to technical or organisational issues is not reliable for the claim that a subject has a common English spelling that results from straightforward accent dropping. We are not transcription monkeys that copy such style decisions from sources without regard for their differing style guides and similar constraints. Past experience has shown that for foreign sports people we have the following three stages of notability: (1) Only local coverage in the local language. (2) Coverage in English sports sources that drop all accents. (3) Coverage in high quality English sources up to Britannica, which use accents. It makes no sense to remove diacritics as a person gets better known in the Anglosphere and starts to appear in low-quality sources and specialised low-culture sources, and then add them back in again as they make it into the New York Times and Britannica. Some subjects are so common in English that it is obviously justified to speak of an English name. But this English name can be identical with the original non-English name, Paris and Berlin being obvious examples. When there are two English names, we need to find out which one is more common, not which one 'is more English'. See linguistic purism in English for the ideology that would be behind such a decision. The vast majority of non-English names does not come with a corresponding English name. By pressing "Random article" repeatedly I am consistently getting 5% of articles that are about foreign topics with diacritics, but have never found even one that actually had a different English name or was titled by diacritic-dropping. Some people choose English names after moving to an English-speaking country. The press obviously respects this, and so do we. Some people and places have traditional English names. Especially for places there is a general tendency in English to move towards the use of the local name instead. This seems to be the natural result of increased mobility: Once more native English-speakers know a place from traveling there than from reading about it in English, the older English name can become unstable. Sometimes editors disagree on whether a name has already tipped or not. (See Talk:Marseille/Archives/2012/October#Name for an example.) Examples of genuine English names are Napoleon not Napoléon, Lisbon not Lisboa, Marseilles (quickly falling out of use) as the older English spelling for Marseille, Warsaw not Warszawa, Zurich not Zürich.

Hans Adler 11:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd just note that a considerable amount of the above is highly contentious, some of it to the point of being bafflingly and obviously wrong. For example "The letter þ (see thorn (letter)) as in "þe þing requires some þouȝt" is not non-English." is just a ludicrous claim. The letter þ is not a letter in contemporary English. And English Wikipedia is not written with spelling conventions that died out hundreds of years ago. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You missed the last line of that (rather convoluted and unreadable) section Jimmy. "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to " [make the same change that the language itself has made over the years] —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, Hans Adler is right that it is an English letter (as in, a letter that was used in English for hundreds of years), only not a contemporary or modern one. And for that reason, he is not advocating using it, or in his own words "For English texts using these letters, it is general editorial practice to make this change" (i.e. change "þ" to "th" or another equivalent). There is nothing "baffingly and obviously wrong" or "ludicrous" in what he actually wrote. Fram (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to TheDJ's and Fram's explanations: The general context of this discussion is a campaign by a handful of editors, many of whom appear to have a xenophobic agenda. Their thinking seems to be, roughly: If speakers of other languages are stupid enough to add silly adornments to the perfectly adequate Latin (well, they call it English) alphabet, then that is no reason for us, the speakers of a reasonable language, to humour them.

Now I felt it appropriate to tell them that English once had exactly the same problem. The printing presses imported from Germany could do ä, ö and ü, but they could not do þ. Nowadays there is only one solution: always using th rather than þ. At the time, there were two approaches. The other was to replace þ by y, which in some hand writings looked very similar. This is where things like "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" come from. People forgot about this, and nowadays "ye" in such a context is generally pronounced as written, though it's really just an antiquated spelling for "the".

And this kind of chaos with translations and transcriptions occurs with other languages as well. I gave the example of German and Danish. Librarians have extensive literature on how to handle German authors in Danish libraries and vice versa. It's a can of worms. By needlessly manipulating names from major European languages, which make up a considerable fraction of the project, we would import this chaos.

If you think my statements about the approaches of Britannica, Webster's Geographical Dictionary and the Chicago Manual of Style are wrong, check them. They are verifiable. If you think I have made a poor choice of reference works, find more reliable ones and check them instead.

If you think I have misrepresented the situation with déjà vu, exposé, garçon, risqué etc., look them up in various dictionaries. You will find that most have them in both spellings, with sometimes the accented variant primary and sometimes the other, following no easily recognisable rule. If you doubt they are English words, ask a linguist. As I had to learn these words when I learned English as a foreign language, I am pretty sure what a linguist will tell you. Oh, and don't forget to read what style guides have to say about them. Most give detailed advice on which optional accents on English words to print and which not to print.

In my personal opinion we should use all applicable diacritics even on most Pinyin and Vietnamese names because we can and because it seems the right thing to do. There is a lot of resistance against that position, so I am not even trying to defend it. I am only defending what is common and entirely unremarkable practice among the English reference sources of highest quality and so far also of Wikipedia.

The art of encyclopedia writing appears to consist mostly of practices that are not codified, or at least not publicly. Maybe the Wikipedia Foundation should hire a professional encyclopedia editor who previously worked with Britannica, Encarta or similar to advise you and the project on such matters.

You clearly have an opinion on this matter. So far you haven't made much of an effort to justify your opinion. Which is what people normally need to do here when you want to win an argument. And if you can't justify your position, maybe you will learn something and change your opinion. This is generally considered a very good and honourable thing to do. (Except by certain manager types, constitutionally incompatible with wikis, who don't understand the concept of changing course on new information and imagine it involves loss of face.) I believe it is by publicly changing my opinion when I find out I was wrong about something that I have accumulated a large number of editors who respect me and are prepared to consider what I have to say even when it's not what they want to hear.

You may not have time to do your own research on this topic. But it would be very helpful if you were careful not to feed the frenzy of certain editors opposed to the status quo until you have done it and can properly explain your position. Or until you have found someone with the same position who can do so. Shouldn't be so hard if you are right, no? Hans Adler 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit

I believe the system might be Flawed.— Maile (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

RFCU is the process you were looking for, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your interview

Hi Jimmie, I enjoyed reading your interview, and wonder, if you could address some comments on it? Thanks. 71.198.215.65 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, fire away.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he meant the comments on the Wired website page. You won't like them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Those comments don't make any sense to me actually. I don't say anything that is inconsistent with the things they are complaining about. This is well-worn territory. Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he would approve of the Britannica's comment, which denied that Wikipedia was responsible for discontinuation of its printed volumes, citing bit.ly/XnZEBH (sorry, WP blacklisted the site). I don't think Wikipedia has ever been, nor wanted to be, in the business of putting other publications out of business. I think that the ideal outcome of the Wikipedia Movement is not the destruction of writing and research as occupations, but rather, the understanding by society that copyright is an intolerable economic model and its subsequent replacement by a system that pays people for writing encyclopedias (by any name) without metering who is allowed to read them. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[7] isn't blacklisted, bit.ly is. The Encyclopedia Britannica sales graph is at the top of page 5. 75.166.222.120 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"The ideal outcome of the Wikipedia Movement": your position, or some official goal of Wikipedia (the Foundation)? If it is your personal opinion only, perhaps better to make such things clearer when posting here, before people get the impression that this is an official, Jimbo Wales endorsed position. I don't think you or I are qualified to speak on behalf of the "Wikipedia Movement", whatever that may be. Fram (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever using that phrase, actually. What does it say I said?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fram is quoting Wnt's comment immediately above. (The "before people get the impression..." clause is perhaps badly worded - something doesn't become "endorsed by Jimbo" just by being posted to this page by someone else.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but how many non-regulars (like, presumably, the IP who started this section) know that? But indeed, I was quoting Wnt, who gave (probably inadvertently) the impression of presenting some official or common goal of "the Wikipedia Movement". Fram (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think this was controversial, or that anyone would think I was speaking for Jimbo! I've added "I think that" above to be clear. Let's put it behind us? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmie, you say: "Look at who is complaining there, and their track record speaks for itself!" So I googled for Edvard Buckner and Wikipedia, to find his "track record", and I found this article for example. Looks like Edvard Buckner is actually "Dr. Buckner" and "a medievalist, who shared with me a paper he has written about deficiencies in an Oxford University study of the reliability of Wikipedia." I do not understand what's wrong with Dr. Buckner's "track record"? 71.198.215.65 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a banned editor. You can look up the details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To address the point's Buckner makes in the Baltimore Sun: (1) He's looking at a very small number of articles on one topic - medieval theologians. He's only looking at what he terms the three most important theologians. This may be a domain of knowledge that lends itself particularly well to top-down professional efforts, perhaps because there is a limited group of people who know about this subject and they don't necessarily spend a lot of time on the Internet. I don't see this very specific topic as representative of Wikipedia as a whole. (2) It may very well be the case that an expert is going to write a better article on the most important medieval theologians than Wikipedia can produce. However, I think we've proven conclusively that top-down, professional efforts cannot match Wikipedia's breadth of coverage. I'm quite certain that we have more articles on medieval theologians than Britannica does. (3) I wouldn't describe Wikipedia's incorporation of 1911 Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia as plagiarism. We almost always provide citations and, of course, the material is in the public domain. The reader knows what they are getting and the author's rights are not violated. (4) Buckner is looking at these articles as static text. He doesn't address the possibility that these articles can get better over time. For instance, efforts like our collaboration with universities and galleries, libraries, archives and museums may very well lead to scholars and others from academia improving these articles. In that sense, Buckner's criticism is a good motivator for us to focus on improving existing articles, but I don't see it as damning because we aren't a static, printed text that can't improve. GabrielF (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF, actually I looked up news on Wikipedia after a conversation I had with my friend (the world known expert in some areas of science). We were talking about an error I found in one of Wikipedia's articles. I told my friend:"This error will be reproduced in many, many sites, and maybe in some books." He responded: "I guess so. Well, it's like a lot of things: it looks OK when you look up a subject you know nothing about; but when you read what they have on a topic you're familiar with, you cringe. It certainly makes you respect real libraries more." Expect I am not sure libraries will be safe. Who knows how many Wikipedia's errors ended up in books, which later were bought by libraries. 71.198.215.65 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's not a problem specific to Wikipedia. In the area of science that I have studied, I routinely find glaring errors in media that have reputations for accuracy including news articles, scientific journals, text books, "reputable" websites, etc. Those glaring errors end up in the "real libraries" that your friend respects. Deli nk (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short: Buckner (editing as User:Peter Damian) was given a community ban in 2009 for sockpuppeting, harassment, wikihounding, violating ArbCom rulings and general disruption.[8] Even before that, he had a record of bad behaviour going back years, leading to an extensive block log, and was a regular source of unwanted drama.[9] Since then he's dedicated himself to the sad and futile pursuit of campaigning against Wikipedia. Anything he posts should be read in the light of him being an embittered individual with a history of abusive conduct on Wikipedia and a persistent grudge since he was kicked out. Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your closing sentence there is quite applicable to the IP editor that initiated this time-wasting exercise as well; the ever-returning-and-never-quite-departing Mbz1. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like people here are quite paranoid about banned users. Besides it so decent to accuse people who have no ability to even respond, and accuse them without presenting any evidences. By the way I cannot understand what "banned user" means anyway. If somebody is banned, it means he's no longer a Wikipedian, which means he's no longer a user, and if he's no longer a user how he could be "banned user", right? Ah whatever, let's improve Wikipedia by banning as many experts and content creators as you could, and please do not worry I will not fix that error I found in the lead of a popular article because, if I do, I'd probably would be accused in being Carl Hewitt and who knows what else. Wikipedia will be safe. Have fun.71.198.215.65 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, Dr. Buckner was blocked for making allegations that another editor was a sockpuppeteer and then for not adhering to an interaction ban by aggressively repeating these same allegations around a block. He expressed fundamental disbelief in the Wikipedia project off site and was consequently rode out of town on a rail by his wikienemies. Drama was maximized and bitterness accentuated — and a lifelong enemy of the project created. His case was a great failing of Wikipedia's ability to mediate interpersonal conflict. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem with banning editors from the project is not the banning itself, but the way it is done, when anonymous users are allowed to participate in a character assassination of a named person. And then Wikipedia co-founder says: "his track record speaks for itself, he's a banned editor." If he only understood how silly such statements sound to an outside observer. A named person, a professor,a teacher,a writer was banned from the project by a bunch of nobodies and without an opportunity to respond accusations publicly on-wiki. Of course he's hurt, and of course he has became a lifelong enemy of the project. 71.198.215.196 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that Jimbo's portrait photograph by Christopher Morris (VII Photo Agency) is fantastic! Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent portrait. By the way, thanks to Jimbo Wales for taking the time to reply to this thread. I found the article and responses here very interesting and a good read.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Good use of traditional portrait lighting. Nicely composed. A bit Karsh-ish. Needs more fill on the jacket and a little on the background, though, imo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Prior editors can be right about scholarly quality but wrong on priorities: When it comes to improving the articles, I would prefer to have "58" clerical errors fixed in mega-article "Jennifer Lopez" rather than revise article "John Duns Scotus" to better describe his major works. We have to continually re-prioritize, as to how many readers (or editors) will benefit from improvements to which articles. Eventually, editors can improve the explanations about medieval theologians, and if those changes can be maintained for another 3 years, then that could offset prior years when not so many readers were viewing those articles. BTW: Article "Thomas Aquinas" was already improved, long ago, so not all scholarly criticisms were a lasting issue. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you realize that ...

All this is worth reading, but I'm hatting it to refocus the discussion, i.e. to cut down on some extraneous threads. What I want to do here is keep focussed on a factual look at what has happened here, so that I'm prepared to talk about this intelligently. Your help is much appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About 40% of Wikipedia's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers. If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired> Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC) How do you know this as fact and how is that an issue? Are you claiming a conflict of interest? Is there an attempt to remove well sourced information or to add false claims etc?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC) 44% was an estimate calculated by User:SlimVirgin based on the amount of text in User:Arturo at BP's user files that was added to the article. Check the BP page - there's no footnote or similar stating that the material was written by a BP employee BP pleaded guilty and paid a $4 billion fine for lying to Congress and for causing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and $525 million for lying to its investors see, e.g. NYTimes Nov. 15, 2012 BP Will Plead Guilty and Pay Over $4 Billion Check the BP page - nothing on lying to Congress or pleading guilty. I think anybody should realize that BP writing 40% of our article without disclosing it to readers, when they are involved in billion dollar lawsuits on the oil spill, and are convicted liars - anybody should realize that this is a problem for Wikipedia's credibility. User:Arturo at BP admits the conflict of interest. There has been a certain amount of bullying - see the talk page entry above. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC) We don't add a footnote just because someone works for a person or has in the past and is an editor here contributing to an article. Where is that in policy or guidelines? That alone is not a concern. Again, is there an attempt to compromise the article in some manner or are you just trying to discuss the editor in a public forum? --Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Arturo at BP works for BP now and has written about 40% of the text of our BP article and that is not disclosed to our readers. Are you saying that that is not a problem for Wikipedia's credibility? Surely you must realize that many people will question Wikipedia's credibility over this. Remember that 5 months ago - while this material was being added to the article - BP pleaded guilty to 2 counts of lying (to Congress and their investors). I actually have no complaint about Arturo at BP. He is just doing what his bosses have told him to do and his livelihood depends on it. He is very upfront about it. I do have a complaint about folks who don't see this as a problem - they are ruining the credibility of Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I think you need to make some retractions and apologies. You are claiming that Arturo at BP is responsible for, between 40 and 44% of the BP article and that is just an outright falsehood. [10] Further more Arturo has not admitted to a conflict of interest. He has disclosed his relationship in his username to policy and, even though he may still edit the actual article, has stipulated on their user page, that they will not write in the article space but just the talk page. This is a reasonable manner to edit under the circumstances (even though, as I said, they can still edit the article as long as they stick to our guidelines and policies). This really is just a lot of drama for absolutely no reason. You do not strike me as a disinterested editor yourself by the way. You seem quite outraged by the lack of information you feel should be in the article. OK...source it and add it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) And the accusation that the editor is doing something because his bosses told him so is pretty outrageous with no actual proof of such.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Pshaw! Check your facts. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I did, now you check yours. I think this is outrageous and melodramatic.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Cue piano music... --Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Well, I just read the article and found this text: "On 14 November 2012, BP and the Department of Justice reached a $4.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. BP also agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts related to the deaths of the 11 workers. Beyond the 11 counts of manslaughter, the government charged several individuals as well. David Rainey, who worked for BP during the spill response, was indicted on charges of obstruction of Congress and false statements. He alledegedly cherry-picked pages from some documents and withheld others "to make the spill appear less catastrophic than it was.” Two other BP supervisors on board the rig when it exploded were charged with manslaughter and other counts[16][17] The settlement has not resolved the fines under the Clean Water Act, which could be as much as $21 billion.[17] Speaking at a news conference, a U.S. federal official said, “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence.” The total amount paid out by BP by November 2012 was $42 billion.[287][18] In November 2012, the U.S. Government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts.[288][18] Estimates of the total amount of penalties that BP may be required to pay have reached as high as $90 billion.[289]" So, I am not sure what Smallbones is saying is lacking in the article. It also links to four additional articles about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the one Smallbones linked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I am just guessing but it seems to me the OP didn't do a lot of reading.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Well, I did. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Like--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I think it's very problematic (if true, although note that it is disputed and hard to define/measure) if 40% of any article about a company is written by someone representing that company. Let's note very well: it's as problematic for the company as it is for us, as they are at very strong risk of getting negative headlines about it. I'm happy to hear that the editor in this case has resolved to follow my "bright line" advice and not to edit in article space directly, and I invite the editor (and anyone else in a similar situation) to post here for advice in case it's hard getting heard elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Addendum: I hadn't noticed but the negative headline I predicted above has already appeared: BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Second Addendum: Can someone confirm for me that the account in question did not directly edit the article but instead only interacted on the talk page? If that's right, then I intend to contact CNET and ask them to retract the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) On what grounds? The article makes it very clear that the account did indeed not directly edit the article, but provided "BP-approved" texts on the talk page, which some editors apparently then copied willingly into the article. I have not checked whether any of this is correct or not, but I don't see any grounds for a retraction on this basis (if there are actual clear errors in the article, you may have an argument, but retracting it because it is correctly reporting the situation seems bizarre). Fram (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I think it will be up to CNET's editors as to whether this kind of article is up to their standards. I think that accusing Arturo of "skirting" Wikipedia's rules in this case is fairly ludicrous - unless "skirting" means "going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice". So, I would consider that a blatant factual misrepresentation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I get the impression that the article author considers this "best practice" a quite dubious approach, and that in this case it has failed to achieve the intended result. Having COI editors note errors on a talk page is hardly the same as having COI editors completely rewriting major parts of the article, certainly on such rather controversial subjects. To me, assuming that the story has any basis in facts, the main problem is not so much a COI editor declaring his COI and posting "BP-approved" versions at the talk page, as it is the other editors then posting these versions wholesale into the article. Our rules and policies only work as long as editors are actively following or enforcing them. Fram (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Honestly, in my experience, POV editors are far more damaging to Wikipedia than COI editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Terrible reporting from CNET. They don't give a single instance of biased editing by the alleged BP employee, let alone a careful examination of the totality of these edits to determine if there are any POV issues. Instead, they rely on assumption that simply because the editor is a BP employee, they must have had ulterior motives. Shame on CNET. But hey, they got people to click on their article and generate more ad revenue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) It gets even worse. I took a quick skim at this editor's last 500 contributions,[11] and all of them related to BP are to the talk page. I don't see any edits to the actual article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Can someone please double check that I did this correctly? According to this,[12] this editor has never edited a single Wikipedia article, let alone the BP article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) ...which is both what is clearly stated in the CNet article, and was already discussed right above your post (see the posts from Jimbo Wales and me). Fram (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The CNet article says the account did not edit the article directly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Then there's nothing to see here[13] other than CNET's lousy reporting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'd like to see us do now is analyze his suggested edits, i.e. the actual content, to see if they warrant characterization as POV pushing or biased about their environmental record, and to see whether the incorporations by Wikipedians of his suggestions were inappropriate. I know that in many cases this might be a judgment call of the usual sort that we make in the content record, and I'm not likely to get an easy answer. But a thoughtful discussion is worthwhile here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is some of what we have established so far (but please check my facts):

1. Arturo openly identified as an employee of BP.
2. He never made any edits to articles relating to BP, nor indeed, to any articles whatsoever.
3. Concerns have been raised whether Wikipedians were too quick to incorporate his suggestions in the article, and whether those suggestions biased the article.
4. Evidence has been offered that the article covers in a quite direct and clear way the oil spill situation. It's difficult to say in light of that, that any whitewashing actually took place.

More discussion, particularly of this last point, is warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Essentially all correct, although you may want to add they have also been active on the article's talkpage and engaging with editors. Which is exactly what we want COI's to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, my real concern is that some editors, with a particularly obvious hostility to the company, have made an effort in the opposite direction and are generally proving successful, removing all but a sentence about BP's positive environmental record in the lede in favor of an intense focus on environmental disasters such as Deepwater Horizon. See the following examples: [14] [15]. As far as what has been inserted from Arturo, here is a diff of Arturo's material regarding the Prudhoe Bay spill being inserted by another editor. There has also been material added regarding the company's stock and the company's American operations. Here are some of the discussions of the content proposals: Talk:BP/Archive 4#US operations Talk:BP/Archive 6#Stock history.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Editor in question here for the Prudhoe Bay section. Yeah, if you look at the diff supplied by TDA, you can see that Arturo's draft actually made the section, if anything, more negative, because he properly filled out the details on the incident that were missing. And, sure, he added in some things that one could call positive information, like when BP finished their cleanup efforts, but that certainly seems like relevant information to have. In fact, the most positive added line I can find in that section is, "The spill was cleaned up and there was no impact upon wildlife", but that's directly from the government report and is wholly accurate.

I find it hard to see how anyone could think whitewashing was happening here. Silverseren^C 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jimbo, what do you think of our current COI policies? I think that reactive policy-making is worse than exploitable policy-making; and sadly, we at Wikipedia prefer to do the former. It is time we also insert important paragraphs in our COI policy which make it clear that any COI editor, paid or not, do not enjoy any less standing than any normal editor, provided that they follow the rules in place, and are non POV-pushing on the topic under question.

I also further would like if some sort of penal action (warning followed by short term blocking) could be used against the editors whose actions go brazenly against any such view. While such editors on Wiki do not directly break any rules [and hence go scotfree of any reprimanding], their actions on the whole poison the entire atmosphere on this delicate issue, forcing those with COI to turn to anonymous third-party paid-editing. If we as an encyclopedia were more forthcoming to actually work alongside the article subjects than shoo them away (at least in practise), then we would be saving a lot of time policing and hunting those with a COI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be a drastic change to Wikipedia policy. We do not punish editors. We discourage them and try to guide them. That way of thinking is to controlling. One thing we could...and should do is clarify what an actual conflict of interest is. Right now people are making accusations of COI editing when none exist and it is creating more issues than the editor themselves. This is a good example of that. Someone starts screaming their head off about another editor and then when you look there appears to be nothing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That tends to happen with a lot of issues, and not just COI. Some editors simply link an irrelevant policy/essay than post an argument, and try to defend their original posting of the link. It is really sad to see how many times such policies are mis-interpreted and mis-quoted to try and defend the arguments. Regardless, it is indeed imperative to have a much more clear cut stand towards COI editing, and the relative status of the COI editors with respect to any ordinary editor. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also reply to Jimbo's point, that I really don't think a white washing has happened. I don't have a lot of edits at the articles, but someone did ask for my input a while back and I felt that there were enough articles to create a series template to let editors know about all of the articles within that subject. It appears to have grown a bit sine it was conceived and I have gone ahead and added the BP article, although I am not sure about adding the template to the BP article. I will leave that to the more involved editors. But here is the template:

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We do actually have a Deepwater navbox already, which is on the BP article:

.

Rangoon11 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the Navbox is for the bottom of the article and doesn't have all the articles in the Series template, which is meant as "at a glance" information under the infobox.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's start by acknowledging the obvious: no serious, reputable reference work on Earth would allow a member of a corporation's PR team to play a substantial role in drafting coverage of that corporation. That would be out of the question. The fact that this role is undisclosed to the casual reader makes the situation even worse. It's not a question of specific diffs or navboxes - it's a question of credibility, which is the lone currency of any value to a serious reference work. We can't ask our readers to invest us with credibility if we have such a cavalier attitude toward conflicts of interest. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nor would such a work allow anyone to edit it, especially random people. Nor would such a work allow anti-company activists to edit it, which is clearly what must have happened to the BP article, considering the state it was in previously. So I fail to see your point. Silverseren^C 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong. Reputable outlets such as the Financial Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, Whitakers Almanack and many others use company sources for coverage on the same companies. Companies are very often the most knowledgable experts on themselves. Read the FT and you will constantly see "Source: company". 92.24.131.19 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• What's missing here, of course, is that we don't inform the casual reader that a particular piece of information came directly from the company's PR department. Which is the key point. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is certainly true that major corporations have plenty of hooks in the media to get their message out. At least here we let the people weigh in on the matter as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• My point is that every serious, reputable reference work takes conflicts of interest seriously. We don't. Insofar as we aspire to create a serious, respectable reference work (a goal which, admittedly, seems increasingly irrelevant to the community), that's a problem. I get that our editorial process is different from that of every other reference work, but I don't see how that frees us from worrying about conflicts of interest. On the contrary, I think it makes the problem even more pressing and relevant. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...so you believe the editor is a part of the PR team Mastercell? I disagree with you strongly that our credibility is in question over this. That is just doesn't take into account the efforts of all those editors that have been overseeing these articles and working for neutrality. So, you are in favor of adding specific attribution for other editors adding material that they felt was relevant because someone you don't trust proposed it. That doesn't seem logical. How would this work exactly? How would you determine who the attribution belongs to? How would it be added to the actual article space? Would that violate any current policies and guidelines and what happens if the editor objects? Is this a privacy issue? Is this even credible itself?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I trust a handful of pseudonymous Wikipedians to be able to filter the efforts of a billion-dollar corporation's PR department? No, not really - especially when they seem totally oblivious to the problem presented by these sorts of conflicts of interest. I get that you're offended, but pride is a handicap to dealing with these things effectively. As to dealing with the problem, I don't have a handy solution, but we haven't even reached The First Step - admitting that there's a problem. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The tone on that was too harsh and I have edited it. But the issue is, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Not an encyclopedia that only the "correct" editors are allowed to edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a rhetorically compelling but utterly meaningless statement.Struck as unconstructive. We make judgements all the time about who can edit. See Special:BlockList, or the long list of editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. Also, I would prefer that you not retroactively edit your comments after I've already responded (e.g. [16], [17]). MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note the (edit conflict). If you want to be hard headed here I can as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia admitted there was a problem a long time ago, but too many people simply do not know what an actual conflict of interest is on Wikipedia. That is the main issue here.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

convenience break

I've just noticed in the media " "Arturo at BP," is the head of BP's Wikipedia engagement team, which interacts with Wikipedia editors to improve BP's Wikipedia page, according to ... a BP spokesman."

Wikipedia engagement team?

This raises all sorts of questions. How big is a team? Who's on it? What are they editing? How do they get paid? What are they doing all day? Have they also declared COIs?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The last question is a valid question. All the rest are who cares. Though I think Arturo might be the only one that actually edits. Silverseren^C 23:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

My first encounter with a COI editor was a producer of a small theatre company that had created and edited his own page, theater page and the cities arts section. Without realizing it, the editor had disclosed who he was through their Wikimedia Commons account for attribution of their images. Their edits used a number of their own non RS websites and contributions to them and not their actual official website (although they did have one). I raised the issue and was simply told that the consensus of editors was that he should be able to edit as he would know more about himself than others (a bit of an over simplification but that was the nutshell of it). Simply put, editors didn't feel the editor was compromising Wikipedia's integrity. I still disagree with that...but the community has spoken and I just don't touch the articles with even a ten foot pole now.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone with a conflict of interest is incapable of editing objectively. It may be rare, but it is also rare to find anyone capable of editing objectively. Many of the editors crying so loudly about this BP issue are themselves not objective about the subject because of their political leanings. We should be chiefly concerned with the content itself, and not who adds the content. Not to say who adds it is not relevant, but only insomuch as it affects the content. If the content is good and is exemplary with regards to our content policies then I fail to see the issue with who adds it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we are seeing the Streisand effect move fast here because that article (mentioned above by Smallbones) is 2 hours old and is about THIS thread which is only a few hours old itself. I sure hope it is just a coincidence that the source got this information so quickly and was on their own. I also note they post personal information there so I will not mention where this was.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean at Wikipediocracy? Volunteer Marek 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's start cleaning house by banning all the Doctor Who fans who edit our Doctor Who articles. Clearly, they are a danger to the integrity of Wikipedia and must be stopped. Off with their heads! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Insanely High Super Uberlicious SUPPPPPORRRRTTTTT!!!! (I have no idea what this discussion is about, I just saw the edit summary).Volunteer Marek 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You may not know this, AQFK, but at least some of the people commenting here think that Wikipedia has far too much coverage of Dr Who as it is, and that any drop in editor numbers on those topics would be a good thing. It takes all sorts, or so they don't think. btw Hi Marek :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Smallbones

Smallbones, I am the only representative from BP on Wikipedia. I understand the rules about that, and I agree it would be bad if we were doing otherwise. I am a member of the Corporate Communications team, and I've had help with research, and making sure everything is accurate, but on Wikipedia it's just me. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So when "Scott Dean, a BP spokesman" says that you head the "Wikipedia engagement team" what did that mean? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've awarded a barnstar[18] to Arturo at BP as have a couple other editors [19][20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, he's referring to help I have with research and verification.Arturo at BP (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer. I'll also thank you for your Dec. 19 talk page suggestion to put in:

“In November 2012, BP reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, admitting culpability for criminal charges relating to the oil spill including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress, as part of which it agreed to pay a $4 billion fine, the largest penalty of its kind in U.S. history.”

in place of the clear falsehood that BP had only been indicted.

Now I think “admitting culpability” should have been “pleaded guilty” and "lying to Congress" would have been more direct than “Obstruction of Congress” but that's just being picky about words.

• More seriously, why did you leave out BP’s admission to lying to its investors and the additional $525 million fine (3rd highest in history, Goldman has the record of $550 million)? and
• why did you just forget about this when your suggestion was ignored, leaving in the "indictment only" falsehood until today (when I changed it)?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick and walk away from the carcass.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, I haven't put a great deal of focus on the lead section. As I recollect, there was previously discussion about including only the most salient details in the lead, and discussing more details in the body of the article. I was trying to help them find consensus, although I'm afraid we didn't succeed. I still think the introduction needs work, and other editors should weigh in with their views. I can't speak for them. Arturo at BP (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, just so you understand how nuanced this can all be, here's why saying "pled guilty" in November would have been technically incorrect: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/29/nation/la-na-nn-bp-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-in-2010-gulf-oil-spill-20130129 Arturo at BP (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Analyze this

Please enjoy Spin Checking BP's Tar Sands Entry petrarchan47tc 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Petrarchan. I'm afraid your analysis is misleading. I think editors should be aware of what "Canadian oil sands" looked like before the community discussion, and here is what it looks like after. In fact, if you look at my drafts (here), I had suggested adding much more information about the controversy. Following discussion on the BP Talk Page there was consensus to rewrite it to the version that Beagel added. And it still includes criticism from the Cree tribe, with more context. You were active on the page at the time as well, although it doesn't seem that you commented at the time. Meanwhile, I hope other editors who evaluate this would agree the latter version is better. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment of Arturo at BP needs to end

Despite all the sound and fury, nobody has provided a single diff that Arturo at BP edited the BP article. In fact, none has been alleged. Arturo fully disclosed their relationship with their employer and only made suggestions on the talk page. There is nothing to see here, and the harassment of Arturo at BP needs to end. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a witch! Burn him!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

_{Sorry Jimbo, I know you wanted an intelligent conversation, but we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)}