User talk:Jimbo Wales

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 1 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Are we now a Yellow Pages for U.K. Realty?

Jimbo, are we now hosting a yellow pages of the biggest developers, realtors and other realty services in the U.K. with this template: Template:Real_estate_in_the_United_Kingdom. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I posed the same question here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Are_we_now_a_Yellow_Pages_for_U.K._Realty.3F --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's a similar template for the main players in virtually every industry, from {{Ginger ales}} to {{Steel industry of India}}, on the perfectly sensible grounds that someone interested in one company is quite likely to be interested in other similar companies. (The UK property market is one of the most significant service industries in the world, with an annual turnover in the hundreds of billions, and these are some of the highest-profile companies in Europe—I very much doubt their marketing departments care about the additional exposure of a couple of hundred extra Wikipedia pageviews.) ‑ Iridescent 23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, then will we soon be adding {{attorney}}, {{barrister}} and {{solicitor}} naming each and every attorney on Wikipedia to the category {{law}} so that each of our law articles has this complete list; {{physicist}} listing every single physicist with an article to the category [[physics]] and all articles related to physics; and the same for {{realtor}}, {{dentist}}, {{doctor}}, {{professor}}, {{chemist}}, {{truck driver}}, {{janitor}}, etc. to every template that is related to these professions? Like I said, seems like we will be turning our categories into yellow pages. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly formed slippery slope fallacy. Every article needs to meet our notability threshold. So, no, we won't be adding every entity of a particular industry type, but why wouldn't we add relevant articles to relevant categories at the lowest level? Step hen —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my statement: every attorney, doctor, physicist on Wikipedia...with an article. Then look at Lists of mathematicians: We have hundreds if not thousands of articles for mathematicians. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and why was this brought here? Why didn't you nominate it for deletion if you believe that is the right thing to do?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Real Estate in the U.K. is an area of law. A small sliver in the middle of the yellow pages is dedicated to that important encyclopedia content. I stumbled across this when I was reviewing Land_tenure_in_England. I was afraid I would be topic-banned from real estate law if I tried to delete the free advertising of all these companies. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bizwiki is closer to being like Yellow Pages, where businesses can emphasize their positive aspects. CorpWatch (http://www.corpwatch.org) has a focus on the negative aspects of businesses. Wikipedia aims for a balanced presentation of both positive and negative aspects, to the extent that they exist.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are a good way to keep these companies from being WP:Orphans. Trying to keep this stuff off Wikipedia is kind of like trying to keep spam from entering your inbox. wbm1058 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim (talk · contribs) is perfectly correct saying that the UK Real estate template shows a widespread tendency for "yellow pages" advertising on Wikipedia. For example there is one firm in the template Targetfollow that seems to have gone through a (partial?) bankruptcy. I can't find anything on that bankruptcy and how the company emerged from it. It seems to me that if we can't report on something as obviously important as that, then we shouldn't have an article on the firm. And the main reason that we can't report much on the bankruptcy, is that there doesn't seem to be much of anything about it on the web.

The same type of thing happens with many other templates, e.g. the Burger King template gives about 70 links, a slight majority being to "purely Burger King" articles such as those on their advertising campaigns (Where's Herb?, The Subservient Chicken, their products (Burger King fish sandwiches). That is a whopping amount of free advertising on Wikipedia for one company.

It's not just templates, e.g. Template:Lehigh Valley Malls, where you can find lists of this type of advertising articles. There are "lists of companies in industry X" e.g. List of companies operating nursing homes, and in categories (Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures in the United States, with 4 sub-categories and 85 articles). If anybody hadn't noticed - we've got way too much advertising in Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list articles are another easy way to pull these out of the orphan work queue. Of course it's not impossible to notice this, if you pay any attention at all to Wikipedia content. What do you expect when you don't pay for content, and you don't pay anyone to edit the content? You can delete their article, salt the page, and they still keep coming back (some of them may be paid to not take no for an answer) – you may find a fork created at an alternative title that you didn't lock down. Just as with email, without automated spam filters the unpaid volunteers will always be outgunned. Good luck convincing the WMF to develop spam filters. As a volunteer developer, it's not on my priority list. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a volunteer, I might be interested in working on a spam filter. I do not want Wikipedia's content to be dominated by corporate, private and big money financial interests the way the mainstream media is. We must continue to push the WMF to support us in accomplishing this important goal, which is why I brought this to Jimbo Wales's attention. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have one too many "nots" in the bolded sentence above. I agree and will go further, paid advertising in Wikipedia is a threat to our very existence. If people know that they are going to be bombarded by advertising when the come to Wikipedia then they will stop coming to Wikipedia.

If you can come up with some sort of spam filter, please do. Or perhaps just something simple like a bot that will give an "advertising score" to a selected article. It shouldn't be that hard: PR folks have a very special vocabulary. I suppose that vocab is necessary - how to lie without violating false advertising laws. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed the knot of nots [1]; your observation was not for naught. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have something resembling a crude spam filter in userspace, see Special:Abusefilter/354 (edit filter manager + admins only), with about a 50% delete on sight rate. I'm not sure how this will perform in mainspace, some of the terms appear legitimately in non-spam articles. MER-C 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: Yes. We seem to be on the same page (please take a look at my comments below). I think something like that could be helped, but I hope it would not immediately block the work, but simply identify it as needing review for puffery (or as an attack page), and sending it immediately to a board like WP:AfD for wide review. Do we have any place where articles get reviewed because of filter triggers other than clear vandalism? I might be interested in working in such a place.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Smallbones: Sounds like a good plan. The code for the edit-filter that detects swearing type vandalism might be a good starting place. Review and analysis of articles that have been deleted for puffery would help in looking for language patterns that a bot could detect, rather than simply searching for specific words. A similar filter could be used to detect attack pages. Unfortunately, the deleted pages are inaccessible. It would be nice if someone who worked at hotmail, gmail, etc. on spam filters who knows the latest techniques could share their expertise. There might even be scholarly articles on the subject in a Computer Science Journals. It's a slightly different task for us, of course, in that email spam detection tools I have encountered tend of focus first on the email address names and extensions, but the techniques should be similar. Will take note of post right above in just a sec. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for the interest. I can add all the encouragement that you need, but my bot skills are nil. But please, go for it. I'll add one further method and ping @Halfak (WMF):. He uses AI and does things like the article/revision scoring system ORES. It is great stuff. I'm sure he could do something like the following (huge caveat at the end):

Organize a scoring session where human volunteers score hundreds of articles as "advertising/abusive" or "not"
Use his AI skills to predict how humans will score articles out of the sample
Do this on thousands of articles, and publish the scores, or just let individuals do it for whatever articles they wish
Caveats, he always says that his skills are in high demand at the WMF (they are) and that he has limited time (I'm sure that's also correct), plus I have a very limited idea of AI and can only really say that the above is what he's done for general article scoring.

I think that a limited purpose, grind-it-out bot would be a wonderful tools to start with, and an AI scoring system would be amazing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Yes. AI would work for that. I took an AI class a long time ago, and also worked with neural nets. A neural net could be optimized/programmed to produce scores that are very close to what humans have marked as puffery on a specific set of articles (as inputs) and the score is the output [like a function with a domain; y = f(x), where x is an article's wiki-text and y=the score for puffery]. The challenge is to get it to make the right prediction from articles that it has not seen yet. With the speed and memory of computers today, that task should be a lot easier now that when I was playing with them! So what do you think about moving the discussion somewhere (as mentioned in comment below)? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we copy or move this discussion somewhere appropriate to start work on this project. I'm glad there is interest in it. Possibly at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)? I think we also need to check to make sure no one has proposed this before, or if some limited version of what we seek to do already exists but needs to be improved. I'm not all that familiar where discussion goes about proposed bots, filters, categories, templates, etc. Maybe there is a better place to discuss it...--David Tornheim (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: please go ahead and list it wherever you think is best. I've never been one to use the Village Pump much, but that seems as good a place as any. You should probably start over with a summary of this section and link to here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sounds like a plan. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who is somewhat shocked by the argument that list articles and templates are used to avoid articles being orphans? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 999 out of 1000 editors know this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is however a prime example of WP:SPAMHOLE. We have many articles that have no relevance to other articles, and which are basically orphans, but just not in a technical sense. 'No kiddo, you're not an orphan anymore, you're in an orphanage!' We could just as well say that articles that are categorised are not orphans anymore. We've slipped down the slope a lot already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see - you were shocked in the same way Capt. Renaud was shocked, shocked that there was gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. I'd never seen WP:SPAMHOLE before and the timeline looks about right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly. But whatever. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I'm willing to entertain semi-protect requests for the most frequently targeted articles, lists, category pages and templates. MER-C 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that these templates and list articles are a constant spamhole-problem. I have a handful of such on my watchlist, and some require weekly cleanup due to additions of irrelevant entries (even witnessing sockpuppet type spam pushing). An enforceable solution would be highly appreciated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how effective semi-protection would be. The lists tend to accrete slowly over time, and new lists can pop up to have a slightly different angle. Perhaps if all lists of companies were automatically semi-protected???? I did want to give you at least one concrete list to look at. I don't think I'm responsible for deleting this one List of foreign exchange companies. It seems to have been created by a paid/sock who got indefinitely blocked for his troubles. It gave a wonderful list of articles to check out. I'd say about 30% respectable companies, 30% fly-by-night, and 40% somewhere in-between. I saved most of it at User:Smallbones/FXstuff before I started proding the worst of the worst. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some success: List of film production companies, Comparison of shopping cart software, List of marketing research firms, List of companies of Pakistan and List of blogs are my most recent protections for this reason. But yeah, most of these list articles are too low volume to justify semi-protection. MER-C 07:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bunch more looking through real estate:

Template:Toronto_skyscrapers -- I sent the first article on the list to AfD; we'll see how that goes.
Template:Walt_Disney_World
Template:Hotels_in_Monaco
Template:The_Leading_Hotels_of_the_World_in_Europe -- my new favorite yellow pages!

It's far worse than I realized. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more semi-protections: List of food companies and List of animation studios (bumped from PC1). Comparison of time-tracking software looks like it'll be next. MER-C 12:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the members of Category:The Leading Hotels of the World templates have the same problem. I'm wondering whether the Oceana one will become David T's new favorite. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did my part with the foreign exchange companies. Dealing with this on even a semi-automated basis is tedious and time-consuming. I'm happy though that you're interested in pursuing this path. I think it's a better way than trying to out people or companies and block accounts. Writing a good anti-spam-bot would be a task for someone with the talents to write the anti-vandalism bots, and you would still have the bureaucratic backlog of getting past WP:BRFA, where I've been on hold for over a month waiting for approval of what I assume will be my second set of tests by a bot whose task is considerably less complex than this would be. Good luck. wbm1058 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey, North Korea and Russia

A few weeks ago (1 week before the Turkey ban) I visited the Erdogan and Turkey pages and noted that anyone reading the leads of either of these "pristine" pages, would probably walk away with no idea that Turkey is now being run by a man who has locked up most of the journalists in his country, and who has rigged his way into becoming effectively Turkey's next new sultan. I then fixed both of these leads to better reflect "reality," whether or not Planet-WP was ready to reflect it in the article leads or not. Sure enough, a week later we got banned by Turkey. Jimbo's response to Erdogan's request to "fix" WP to his own liking was basically "we stand for free speech here, not for dictatorial suppression of same." I salute Jimbo for this, despite some editor's concerns that read that "Jimbo can't really tell US what to do."

Yesterday I paid a visit to Kim Jong-un's lovely page, and strangely noted the same problem there. After reading just the lead, one would have probably wanted to move to wonderful N. Korea, so good was this man! Same problem on the Putin page too. Not a single ref in the lead that Putin happens to be fond of assassinating anyone who gets in his way! Egads!! Is Planet-WP really still in touch with planet Earth?

I've since "fixed" the two pages for both of those two wonderful leaders, and perhaps a little later I hope to review and fix the leads of both of their two related "country pages" (if needed.) Why do I seem to be the only one around here so far who cares enough to fix these things in these leads? I sincerely hope more might assist in this fight for free speech that WP could be, and that my own physical safety as so far being the lone voice in this, regarding the article leads, is not affected.

I know that some of the residents of Planet-WP will probably now complain to no end that WP has no business fighting for free speech, we're just a fancy news aggregating service here and nothing more. If that is really all we are, then I quit, really. We are ultimately all here to be actual providers of Truth, whether we like it or not. Sure we have an arcane system of approving our edits, but that system was designed specifically to yield the closest thing to Truth that it could. The Truth was not designed to fit the arcane system of edit verification! Some editors here seem to occasionally have a much greater preference for arcanity than for Truth. You all have my express permission to be amongst Elon Musk's first chosen ones to go to Mars. On second thought, please never lose touch with our humble planet Earth. Please never stop being grounded in Truth.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status update on Putin's page: In the six hours since I essentially converted the page from "Fake News" into the Truth, the page has been vandalized twice by established editors who are apparently pro-Putin guardians of the page. I have no doubt that there are more of them than there are of me. By WP's arcane rules, will Fake News prevail on Putin's page? Yes. That is, yes unless there are at least a few Wikipedians who are willing to come back down to Earth and help me over there! Please somebody come down out of your safe ivory tower on Planet-WP and actually help me with their next attempt at what is essentially vandalism in the name of censorship, in the name of supposed WP:NPOV over there. Fake, or real? The choice is now yours my friends.

Scott P. (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottperry: Don't get too carried away. Dismissing valid objections about scare quotes and calling other editors pro-Putin guardians is a sure and well-worn road to trouble. In that case your text didn't say enough for its length before, though you did revise it to shorter. We do indeed need a lot more good editors looking over all these pages. It is easy to feel lonely out there nowadays. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page-guardians

I will admit, the "style" of my first "bringing in reality" edit was not the best, and only after I got the "moral support" of another editor, was I even able to think straight enough to write more accurately and clearly as I should have in the first place. I did also carefully review the edit history of the first editor to revert me, and indeed that fellow had a long and consistent history of always removing info from the Putin article that was critical of Putin, and of many noticeboard battles, and an in depth knowledge of our arcane rules to try to support his edits. I think its safe to say he's a "pro-putin guardian of that page." I didn't have time to do such an analysis of the second guy. Admittedly, for all I know, that guy, who reverted while ignoring my "edit comment to go to the talk page before reverting," and who left no "edit comment" of his own, could have simply been reverting for merely stylistic reasons. I would say that the information is now better presented with less potential for reasonable and purely stylistic objections.

Who was the first editor who reverted? It appeared to me that he probably is what I will call a "self appointed page guardian" who has personally decided to guard that page against Putin-critical edits, probably due to his own personal fondness for the man. Do such page-guardians exist in WP? You know they do. I used to be one myself at an obscure article on a certain theological topic, but have personally recused myself from editing there, knowing I need to work on my own personal tendency towards POV-blindness on that one topic. This is what I will call idealogical-POV-blindness, and I will be the first to admit that I may have it on that one topic. Then there is what I will call favor-based-POV-blindness. I consider idealogical-POV-blindness at WP to be far less problematic than favor-based-POV-blindness.

When I first evaluated the editor who did the first revert, I checked him out to see which type of editor he was. He looked to me like he probably only suffered from what I'm calling idealogical-POV-blindness, and for that I was quite relieved. As we all know, Putin has almost certainly recently used his favors to "throw" a presidential election in a major democracy. Who is to say he could'nt try to use them to "throw" an iddy biddy WP article?

I don't think WP's little page-guardian problem is ever directly identified, let alone directly discussed in any one WP policy. Personally I think it could probably have a whole policy to itself, but our policy section itself happens to be ran by a bunch of idealogical-page-guardians, who mercelessly attack, in coordinated fashion, anyone else who dares to move even a comma on those pages.

Having just made this not so humble observation, now they may soon try to use their "wiles" on me here, who knows? We've all seen what I will call an editorial-gang-bang, but that is another sweet topic that is "politely hush hush," around here. Scott P. (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott clearly Im the first editor, anyone could see that. Hello Jimbo it appears Im invading your page. But after being identified here (tiny check) I have to say I dont have much choice and that I like your spirit Scott but IMHO you have a few things backwards. One. I cant speak for others, but I only have time to watchlist so many pages, 7 or so currently, and then do them justice so to speak. This may look like Guardian behaviour, but in the real world its not. Its about time management. Two. You would not believe the vandalism on the Putin page in the past, so we get a bit reactive you could say when someone comes in and puts edgy stuff on a WP:BLP It may not survive review. But Im glad we emailed each other and I got to know you a little. Do remember I tried to warn you in a friendly manner about 3RR on your talk page. Lastly heres the other thing. Putin is the target of a lot of innuendo, smear, Russophobia and the like. Oh its RS for sure because MSM in the West is fairly tighly controlled, but a lot of it is BLP violation. Scott You seem like a crusader for Truth. Thats often a hard road. Truth is a hard commodity to pin down and there is a lot of Denialism around especially when its not protocol but RS is. I admire that you are trying but ask that you consider widenning and deepenning your knowledge base because there is another way to look at this. That WP is too valuable a resource to not be used by the Elites to further their agendas and that Putin and Russia are in their way. I have put a few thoughts about WP here[2] that apply that you may or may not have seen when researching me. Please also consider using the names of editors, its more transparent, when you talk about them in ways that are not exactly civil like 'idealogical-POV-blindness'. No I reject that and your general thrust imho is misplaced. SaintAviator lets talk 08:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator, (@SaintAviator:) I feel that you raise some very good points above. Probably most of us here have probably been "page guardians" of some sort or another at some point in time. Most aspects of being a "page guardian" are obviously positive, but I feel that there are also a few potential risks to this very important (and usually helpful) role around here. I suspect that everyone here probably already knows what I'm about to say. Page Guardians sometimes tend to become obstinate and possessive of the pages they guard. I feel that this can sometimes result in their actually harming the page more than helping it.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policy pages probably have the fiercest crew of page guardians in the whole place. Admittedly this crew does perform a necessary task, because policy pages really should not even be editable at all by newbies, so they effectively keep the newbies out from our policy section, which must be done. Still, due to this the presence of this now necessary crew, our policies have been allowed to be modeled by this very same crew, which in my mind do not really understand them themselves.

This all argues for two closely related things, which Jimbo has thus far not yet been very flexible with the rest of us on:

Accountability More accountability of one another and of Wikimedia is needed around here, in order to be able to better understand, trust and respect one another around here.
Transparency More transparency as to exactly how such vital processes as policy decisions actually work around here, is needed in order to keep WP policies as helpful for the rest of us Wikipedians as possible.

Possibly Wikimedia paid page guardians of the policy section, come on? Resulting policies that are steadily eroding the freedom of speech within WP itself, come on?

First, I will say this, I have no clue as to whether or not Wikimedia pays the policy page guardians to do what they do, but I do have at least a strong hunch that probably Jimbo has personally asked them to do what they do, if not more. Do I fault Jimbo for probably doing this? No. My guess is that he probably did this because he couldn't think of any other way to do it better. Do I still think that WP needs more transparency? For God's sake, YES. Even if my hunch might be mistaken about Jimbo asking the policy page guardians to do what they do, the level of transparency around here makes it impossible for me to be able to even have a clue as to this whether or not this is true, and this level of opacity around here seems to me to be quite counterproductive.

Scott P. (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

Hi Jimbo, I'd like to draw your attention to the deletion of futures and options an article I created recently. The CSD was massively out of process and obviously I could wipe the floor with it at DRV but that's not the point, because as far as anyone knew this was a newbie account which can't be expected to jump through this kind of hoop. That article was an improvement to Wikipedia and its putative author showed competence and potential to be a good contributor. It was trashed in an incredibly painful way and there is no way that a real newbie would want to spend any more time with this project after that, and frankly Wikipedia doesn't even deserve their contributions. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation for those of us not knowing such as myself:

CSD = Consideration for Speedy Deletion.

DRV = Deletion Review

Perfect timing Rex, sounds like possibly an editorial-gang-bang (an EGB?) to me. No? Perhaps we need a new WP, WP:EGB. This sounds like it might be both BITE and EGB at the same time. Nasty! Please see just above. Scott P. (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta go for awhile, Thanks, :-) Scott P. (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel that you've been treated harshly. I didn't participate in the deletion or even read the article, but it jumps out that we have several articles on the subject of Futures and options, e.g. Futures contract, Option (finance), and Derivative (finance). These are long, detailed articles that have been around 10 years or longer. I noticed on your talk page that you were informed about the existence of Futures contract, which was given as a reason for deleting "your" article. That seems like a perfectly good reason to me.

As far as an "editorial-gang-bang"- please don't attack editors who seem to be providing advice and doing reasonable editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, editors shouldn't gang up in "support groups" and then attack individual editors in a coordinated fashion, who may be merely doing reasonable editing and attempting to simply reasonably state their cases plainly without making personal attacks out of them. Scott P. (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You read my comment exactly wrong. When I wrote "As far as an "editorial-gang-bang"- please don't attack editors who seem to be providing advice and doing reasonable editing," I was addressing you. Please don't attack editors who provided the OP with good advice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the logs for this interaction, so I could be mistaken regarding this one particular case, but EGB is a serious problem around here, and it usually translates as, "There are two of us here who somewhat know WP's fuzzy policies, and only one of you, so we win and you're a donkey. Hay!" Scott P. (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a typical EGB discussion, the EGB'ers will pretend to be the most officious know-it-alls, deeply familiar with years of fuzzy policy, and the poor EGB-ee gets to be the "poor benighted idiot," being patiently and tenderly taught by the obviously superior intellects of the exalted ones. Meanwhile nobody listens to a single valid rationale that the EGBee has patiently tried to express. Of course not, poor benighted fools never have anything to say, why they're poor benighted fools of course! Wonderful system of deriving the Truth, if I don't say so myself. While we pretend at "respecting one another" around here, there is all too often a clear "subtext" of very real contempt for one another, which is always counterproductive, and unfortunately all too well tolerated around here. But will I soon be EGB'ed for daring to speak the Truth here? We shall see. Scott P. (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion was entirely appropriate. I have no idea why Scott P. would choose to rant about this situation. If Scott has seen the article, and knows anything about finance and Wikipedia, they would know this. If Scott hasn't seen the article, then the rant is even more misplaced. While there may be situations where knowledgable editors run roughshod over a newbie, even though the article might have some promise, this isn't remotely true in this case, so I'm left wondering about Scott's real agenda.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Smallbones is exactly right.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may...ScottP, could you please find a better euphemism to express your opinion and ditch the gross sexual innuendo? Referring to it 3 items by full term and 9 by acronym in a single thread is a bit juvenile. Thanks. TheValeyard (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP-fishbowl effect

What I see here is four editors (myself and three others) whose communications between one another are all suffering from what I will call the WP-fishbowl-effect. I see each of us as quite well intended, and each attempting to respectfully engage in the best communications possible, but due to what I call the WP-fishbowl-effect, little or no "real communications" are able to occurr here. When I first read smallbones' first reply, I would have to say this comment could be taken in various different ways, so yes, I must confess that only for the purposes of better illustrating the WP-fishbowl effect, I did indeed "intentionally select" which way I wanted to take it, knowing full well I was probably wrong. The point I hoped to illustrate by doing this here is how easy such mis-communication is here in what I am calling the WP-fishbowl where I believe that there is sometimes a certain group-dynamic that can at times systematically encourage miscommunication. Please forgive me for this intentional 'effect.'

I see many harder editorial decisions at WP derailed or mishandled many times by this effect. Also I hope you might forgive me for the slightly crude terminology, but I used it here, simply because I felt I needed to get somebody's attention. Why does WP always have a problem getting female editors on board? It's because of what I've called the EGB effect, is so perilously close to what the initials actually stand for. It's whenever a group of editors on some level agree that another lone-editor is suddenly essentially "worthless" as an editor, but they never explicitly say it, they only suddenly all agree to EGB the lone-editor. They will then use words/ phrase like "ranter" or "doesn't understand," or "if only [lone editor] had understood or read this or that," ect. etc. All of these types of 'code phrases' are really EGB phrases, though nobody really realizes it.

Please think about the implications of this. None of these types of phrases actually have a thing to do with the actual 'idea' being proposed. All of them are really subtle ad-hominem attacks against the lone-editor, implying that the lone editor's ideas must simply be worthless because the lone-editor is obviously 'inferior to' the EGB'ers. Women are able to pick up on the rather unpleasant sensation of the EGB faster than we men, simply because the female species has been both physically and mentally GB'd for millenia, and they get the H out of here.

Proposed solution to remedy the WP-fishbowl effect in this discussion

I would invite either @Smallbones:, @Sphilbrick:, or @TheValeyard: to please try and engage with me one-on-one via email, to see what I mean. Which ever one of you might post here first, your agreement to email/ discuss this problem further with me via the WP email system, I would be happy to illustrate further to you in the privacy of a one-on-one email discussion. The first thing I will try to work out with whomever this might be, will be a certain mutual respect. If that cannot be agreed upon first, then the email communication attempt will have to end as a "hung-communication." If after 01:00 UTC, none of the three of you has taken me up on this offer by first responding here at the end of this thread to reserve my time and energies to working with you, then the offer will be open to anyone in general who might respond at the end of is thread similarly, by 03:00 UTC. If nobody responds by 03:00 UTC, then that will be the end of my attempt to explain or discuss any of these topics here any further.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk)

PS: And yes Valeyard, you are correct that the EGB idea, if ever somehow incorporated into WP, would first have to be "politified," but not until at least one other person here can agree with me either that they really understand exactly what the idea here actually is that I'm attempting to explain, via a one-to-one email, or else that they at least minimally tried their best to understand via one-to-one email.

Thanks again,

Scott P. (talk)

@Scottperry: Early in my wiki career, a very wise Wikipedian, now a steward, advised me that discussion should take place on wiki as much as possible. While I think I have encountered situations where a private email discussion was warranted, this doesn't remotely sound like such an example. I don't think Jimbo's talk pages the right place, but if you'd like to discuss on your talk page or mine, or the talk page of some relevant WP page, let me know.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: , Thanks kindly for your generous offer here. I think I may be starting to understand, just a little more, why everyone here hesitates to discuss these things privately via email. Perhaps it's a concern about possible "factioning," that could result, which has the potential of sowing even greater discord in an already highly discordant place. This is a legitimate concern, and I thank you for in some sense, helping me to figure out what I will call the "internal-conspiracy-concern-effect." This effect is certainly very real, and would obviously have to be addressed in any new proposed dispute resolution process. Here is a concern of mine. It is one aspect of what I am calling the fishbowl-effect.

You see one of the clear downsides of doing all discussions in the WP-fishbowl is the fact that anyone from a first-day-newbie to Jimbo has the right to barge into any one-on-one conversation, and to then completely derail the original train of thought, to commandeer the conversation, to completely squelch whatever the original train of thought was. Or better yet, two or more could invite themselves into the conversation, and turn the conversation into a completely different topic from the chosen topic of the first two, which could in fact be something that the first two were fundamentally opposed to even discussing!

The good 'ole WP-fishbowl leaves my head spinning often, and leaves me often feeling quite frustrated and unable to carry on what I consider to be a truly intelligent conversation with anyone else here. Ultimately my point is: The traditional WP-fishbowl may not always be the best environment to have meaningful conversations with others, where ideas can be permitted to properly develop in the same way they often do in real life conversations between just two people. This is why I wanted to use email so badly, but please let me try to sort of "compromise" with you in the following proposal:

I propose the following "compromise solution" here, and I believe it is along the lines of what you have earlier proposed, and I hope that you might consider it. I would certainly be willing to discuss these things with you openly on my talk page, but only if you would agree to two simple rules in advance. Perhaps now you will see my rationale for these two proposed simple discussion rules. I will call these two rules the "no-ad-hominem" rule, and the "one-to-one" rule. By using these two simple rules on my talk page, I feel that a normal one-to-one conversation could be roughly "simulated" there. Here are the full descrcriptions of these two rules:

No ad-hominem, means that we would have to each promise one another not to make any personal attacks against the other, either explicitly or implicitly, during the course of our one-to-one conversation.
One to one, means that we would have to promise one another that one or both of us will politely dismiss any third party who might try to join in on our one-to-one conversation, until we are both satisfied that the conversation has finally reached its logical end.

The very reason I feel that I was just able to think clearly enough to put the above "compromise proposal" together, was actually due to your own agreement already, in the one comment you just made above, which had no ad-hominem wording in it, and was quite politely and well worded, if you don't mind me saying so. I believe that the "kindness" on your part just now actually allowed for perhaps a kinder response from myself. Perhaps a more polite label for what I have previously called the EGB-effect, would be the Ad-hominem-effect. In both cases, there is a subtle subtext of contempt. I believe that if there was a willingness to openly admit that the Ad-hominem-effect goes on a little too often around here, and to admit that a "lid" needs to somehow be placed upon it, that both the editorial environment and the quality of our articles would be significantly improved.

Game?

Scott P. (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. (As an aside, ad hominem is not a synonym for personal attack. The Venn diagreams have overlap, but many ad hominems are not personal attacks, and many personal attacks are not ad hominems. I'll read your request as wishing to avoid personal attacks, which is easy to agree to.)

I have one concern, easily addressed. Both my talk page and yours are intended for discussion, and it is quite inappropriate to uninvite third parties. Technically, a user subpage might also qualify as a page where we do not have the full right to exclude third parties, but historical practice suggests that such a request should be honored. So it you would like to create a personal user subpage (or I can) other than the main talk page, I'll try a discussion.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks Sphil. I've just finished creating a page that I think might be similar to the one you were describing. It is at: simulated email conversation 1. I look forward to our continued conversation.

Scott P. (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously hit a nerve here

The fact that not a single person here has yet dared to make a single direct comment here about whether or not EGB is actually occuring here in WP tells me that I may have hit just a tiny nerve here. If it were totally off base, someone here would be able to explain to me exactly why it is not affecting our edits here. So far it appears that either nobody here has the intellectual capacity to begin to grasp what I'm talking about here, or else everyone here is scared sh*less that they might be the next victim of EGB should they even dare to begin to discuss this important WP issue with me here. Bunch of yellow livered cowards if you ask me (but nobody asked me.) Scott P. (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to have to say it, but lack of interest may not be the same as being scared shitless, although that's only my personal opinion. — Paleo Neonate — 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott P., "bunch of yellow livered cowards" is (a) unlikely to promote further constructive discussion and (b) a clear violation of Wikipedia's prohibition on personal attacks. You obviously are passionate about this topic, but please reflect and dial things back a notch or two. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who you calling "yellow livered cowards"? :) You might find this essay I wrote at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention of interest:

By advising editors to "be bold" and that there are "no rules", aren't we encouraging disruptive behavior, which might needlessly cause them to be banned?

Since writing that, I have taken note that the last pillars 3-5 of the Five Pillars include: Pillar 3: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can...edit", Pillar 4:"respect and civility" and Pillar 5:"Wikipedia has no firm rules". The question is: are we following those rules?

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, more ad hominm attacks, but not yet a single attempt to actually respectfully and thoughtfully engage in a discussion of the EGB phenomenon going on here. You friends are only proving my point you know. Whether you realize it or not, you are simply EGBing me right now, and very publicly. Hah! By the way, such "ignoring" is certainly one more manner of performing the ole EGB. Great job fellas. Why am I being disrespectful here? It's simply because the EGB is the greatest disrespect of them all.

Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a single one of you might have the nerve to enter into a one on one email conversation with me about this, where mutual respect would necessarily have to be the first topic discussed, perhaps I might be more respectful here myself. Scott P. (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can say something perhaps. The goal of this project is to build an encyclopedia. When there are content disputes, the way it works is not how many people are in each camp, but what reliable sources there are and what they say. We have procedures to help in that direction when it's difficult. The rest is usually distraction from the main goals. — Paleo Neonate — 02:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Paleo, you are correct in theory. Unfortunately practice is always more difficult than theory. Take a look at the Putin page history. Prior to my pointing it out, despite multiple RS, there is now nothing about the many assassinations of Putin's critics in the lead. A failure of process. I think now we may be close to arriving at getting this in there, by using my new process of dispute resolution. This dispute resolution process is all I am trying to propose here, and nobody so far has been willing to discuss it with me. Thanks for your observation there. Scott P. (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott P. I hesitated to do this as it may cause another flood of posts, but this thread and the Putin one you started above and have since ignored after my reply, should not be occuring on Jimbos talk page. It should be on either your talk page or the other editors. Also the email me option is not a solution to your concerns. You have contacted numerous editors about it now. I tried it. Its not productive in these circumstances. SaintAviator lets talk 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email open to all now

Well, the original three who were invited to openly discuss with me, one to one about the EGB dynamic here have apparently declined my invitiation, and the clock has now struck 01:00 UTC, so I will now offer this conversation to anyone else in general who may be interested in exploring the question of whether or not editors tend to gang up on other editors here unfairly, and thus effect substandard outcomes as a result of this unfair practice. If anyone else might wish to discuss this dynamic of what might might also be called, the EGU effect, (multiple Editors Ganging Up unfairly against a single editor), then please let me know below.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem and I am happy to discuss on-Wiki. You might also find the essay WP:AVDUCK by Atsme of interest. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had "the intellectual capacity to begin to grasp what [you are] talking about here". So far this thread is You Ganging Up By Way Of Multiple Rants In Different Sub Sections, or YGUBWOMRIDSS. One is reminded of DNFTT. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a single one with the nerve I see. Wow. What does this say about the real level of trust and mutual respect around here? You guys are all merely pretending to respect one another, but nobody even has the guts to even take the first step to respect my call here for respect, by taking me up on my offer. Scott P. (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pff. Who'd want to reveal their email address to a Nigerian prince, a casual grindr contact, or someone who ... well, whatever you're proposing here. Sorry, but if I want to see other people, I'll watch Donahue. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great EGB. Thanks for that. Wow. Scott P. (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that there could be a better way, that is all. Scott P. (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All email discussion will only be made "unprivate" by mutual consent. Scott P. (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of how this "better way" can work, please refer to our Putin article now. After using the alternative dispute resolution process to resolve the article's dispute between pro and con Putin editors, the closing paragraph of the lead was finally able to have info in it about all of the assassinations apparently authorized by Putin, but now with apparently full agreement of both sides. Where do you see this type of easy harmonious dispute resolution elsewhere in WP? Now the article appears to me to be a far more helpful article for all concerned, primarily due to this proposed process. Case in point. Scott P. (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, tl;dr. If you way dial back the rhetoric and the verbosity someone might be able to respond to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott the ganging up is a problem, yes. But goes both ways. Take anything Syrian war or Eastern Europe and you will find ganging up in getting stuff in taking stuff out. My own experience is of POV pushing by a gang who appear politically motivated and likely to be back channelling tactics. Its happened before, they were caught then by a whistleblower and banned for periods like a year. I believe they could be back and also its very possible some sock puppets have been missed from that time and are now seen as established editors. Also legit accounts can be accessed remotely by programs like Team viewer, allowing one editor to engage mulilple accounts by agreement with other gang members. Essentially meat puppets. Why do I say these things? Because the coordination of responses is too suspicious. I am not the first to notice this, there have been numerous ANI on and around it. Admins are not capable, from my experience, of dealing with this problem.

As for giving out an email. They can be created and thrown away very easily so security is not an issue. Content of email conversations is however another issue. I have nothing to hide, and am happy to discuss this topic transparently anywhere with other editors. Saint Aviator 03:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offer now accepted

As noted above, at the end of the "Proposed solution" section, a fellow Wikipedian has now kindly offered to be a part of this small experiment, of attempting to have an "Simulated_email_discussion_body open-simulated-email-discussion" with me here on Wikipedia. I sincerely thank each one of you who put up with my intentional cantankerousness here, without trying to ban me. In my humble opinion, just the fact that you didn't make this maneuver speaks volumes of the integrity of each of you. Because you didn't do this, it tells me that you probably did (at least on a procedural level) actually listen to what I had to say, and you probably did sense that there may be at least some small grain of truth to it, so perhaps you had best just let me "rant" and maybe not send me off to the "brig" (just yet.) My hat is off to each one of you my friends and/ or fellow Wikifreakians.

There is hope,

Scott P. (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish to apologise if my previous reply to you seemed uncalled for. I have no objection to the development of dispute resolution tools (the ones we have needed to start somewhere). It may be the way it was proposed that was not very persuasive (your aims were far from clear). If not done already, I suggest writing an essay about it (some experimentation may be good before finishing it), then if still considered promising, to present the project by linking to the essay on relevant noticeboards (and maybe here, it will likely be taken more seriously). It may also be good for it to not ignore existing WP:3O, WP:RfC and WP:Mediation to persuasively demonstrate why it may sometimes be more appropriate... — Paleo Neonate — 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good advice and the good will. As noted above, I do believe that simply the fact that nobody did an ANI on me is proof enough of everyone's good faith intentions here. Yes, this little "experiment" actually only occurred to me yesterday, in the process of this discussion here. I had never actually ever considered anything like it before, until Sphil suggested there might be a way to carry on our conversation on a special dedicated talk page. If it goes well, we will have to move it to a project page and such for sure.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What I Learned When a Wikipedia Troll Deleted My Page"

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Osmond_Cook

Amy Osmond Cook wrote an article in Entrepreneur (magazine) entitled What I Learned When a Wikipedia Troll Deleted My Page. In it she recommends

1. Hire a Wikipedia editor.
2. After you hire a Wikipedia editor, don’t tell anyone. Anyone.

4. Don't post that you have paid someone to write your page. (which cites WP:Paid!)
5. Don’t be a “sockpuppet” or a “meatpuppet.” (where she describes how she meatpuppeted and then concludes "If I were to do it again, I would hire established Wikipedia editors to review and comment on my page," i.e. that next time she'll used paid meatpuppets.

May I suggest permanently salting the article Amy Osmond Cook?

We should also community ban her and the employees of her company until she discloses which paid editors she has worked with (per ToU).

Note that her business is marketing and PR, mostly on social media, mostly providing content (e.g. articles) for the type of folks who would like articles on their small businesses on Wikipedia.

We also need to let Entrepreneur (magazine) and its readers know that her advice is totally contrary to our rules. I'd like to hear how editors think this could best be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs rules but we cannot become the internet's analogue of Kim's North Korea. Count Iblis (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Polite version) Don't dare to compare editors who want to remove ads from Wikipedia to North Korea. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Count Iblis. Let's combat paid editing done incorrectly, but this is not part of the solution.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are agreeing with Iblis's North Korea comment you are just engaging in insults. If you are saying that there is no way to let people know that we have rules that will be enforced, then you are just dead wrong. Let's hear what you would do to let the folks who read Cook's article know that it is telling them to violate Wikipedia's rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, agreement with the central point made by Count Iblis does not constitute an insult. Declaring that we should not have an article about a person, ignoring all our guidelines covering inclusion, simply because you don't like what she says is so wrong, I'm stunned you would even support it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The central point of Iblis was obviously not the 3 words "Wikipedia needs rules". The only thing that's left is his comparing folks who want to stop paid advertising on Wikipedia (including me) to North Korea. I consider that worse than comparing me to Nazis. And tarring many other people with that brush makes it even worse. Both of you should apologize.

"simply because you don't like what she says" She is telling people to break our Terms of Use and put undeclared paid editing into our articles. She is in a closely related business to paid editors (social media PR and advertising) and essentially says she is going to continue hiring paid editors, including for "her" article. Why wouldn't we salt "her" article and ban her and her company from editing?

And you are avoiding my question to you "How can we best inform the readers of her article that her advice is totally contrary to our rules." Or do you think the question is just irrelevant? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between not responding to a question and "avoiding " it. I had not read the article until now, so I wasn't about to answer a question before reading the article. Now having read it, I am stunned at how uninformed she is. (And that's a low bar, as many writers are woefully misinformed). I think it is worth debating how best to respond, but this thread is the wrong thread. IMO, you poisoned it with some of the worst advice I've ever read here. I can now see why you over-reacted, but still, you over-reacted. Perhaps wait a few days, and ask again in a more neutral way?--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of unintended irony will note her lamenting the fact that "special interest and ecommerce rule" Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, this is why we pay you the big rubles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sock case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the AfD at the top of the page. I read the Entrepreneur posting she wrote. That is the opposite of a gracious response to everything, by her. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones, you may suggest that, but I see no reason to salt the article if it's to be done out of spite. Same with a ban. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "done out of spite"? Why are you accusing me of being spiteful? She is telling everybody to violate our rules. There's every reason to believe that she'll do it again. Salt and ban is the perfect way to prevent future violations of the ToU and WP:Paid, as well as WP:COI, meatpuppeting, article ownership ... And I do hope somebody will deign to answer my question "How can we best inform the readers of her article that her advice is totally contrary to our rules." Letting people know what our rules are is the first step in having our rules followed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically an article would have been recreated several times before we would salt it. Usually 4-5 times. This article was created once and deleted once. It hasn't been recreated so there is no justification in salting. If they begin recreating it then we could revisit that.
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Smallbones, you have been here for so long that I will not accept that you believe something as simple as "if we prevent this person from having a Wikipedia article they'll stop editing". So yeah, that must be spite. If she's notable, she should have an article. If she's not, well, then not, and if the article is being disruptively recreated, it will be salted. Calling for it to be salted on Jimbo's talk page, as if it's some kind of punishment, there is no point in that. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The entire idea is to let people know what our rules are. If folks know our rules, I believe that most people will follow them. But just saying "Oh this person is encouraging people to break our rules and there is nothing we can do about it," is just wrong. We can do lots about it. Please read User_talk:Smallbones#Thank_you and yes I mean you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Smallbones, at one point I would have thought like you did... but serving real people in medicine has changed my perspective: I don't get to treat patients different based on who is nice to me, who smells better, who flirts with me, who shares my political views... none of that. Impartiality is a virtue in medicine, and it should be in Wikipedia as well. It's not. Lots of people have grudges against things, and instead of all striving to be as impartial as possible, what we seem to end up getting is competing campaigns against this or that. Drmies is right: if she becomes notable, she should get an article, because that's how an impartial encyclopedia should work. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Quibble: Salting does not mean she "doesn't get an article". It means that any future article will be reviewed by at least one admin while in draft/user space before being moved to article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        (talk page stalker) Someone tell her that she can't use the word "devoured" instead of "deleted" per WP:WEASEL? ^[FBDB] Patient Zero^talk 13:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        And having "a long discussion with Wikipedia’s legal counsel" is very unlikely to go well when you're trying to force Wikipedia to host your autobiography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That too, NeilN! I wasn't actually aware we had one. I thought she'd made that bit up. Patient Zero^talk 14:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who said anything about draftspace/userspace? It can be created in mainspace and take its chance at AfD second time around. 79.79.140.250 (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Salt. There are 3 levels of page protection that are used to salt articles. Semi-protection just requires that a new editor (or a new sock) requests permission from any admin to recreate the article. It might also attract scrutiny to a sleeper account that recreates the article. I wasn't aware that people thought of this as cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn't sound at all drastic to me, especially for an article about somebody who says that they've read all our rules and links to WP:Paid and then advises everybody to ignore our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the number of people who have read this and watchlisted the red=link means it's not going to exist any time soon - unless, of course, she becomes more notable. Which is as it should be. Pre-emptive salting, though? No, we don't do that. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I didn't know that you could watchlist a red link. People should try it if they haven't done it before. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, I feel your anger and frustration. This event, imo, is 1 more example of how the mere existence and metastasizing of paid editing within Wikipedia is the disease. I realize the matter of paid editing here has been talked to death with no concrete attack on the disease, but that does not mean we can continue to allow it. We have to take drastic action. Now I'm going to use an analogy which is always risky but I think it is a good one. Uber...please let me explain. It does not matter for the purpose of this analogy whether I or any of us like or want or use Uber, what matters is looking at the historical and current ways in which Uber has grown, and/or been accepted, and/or been prohibited and/or been effectively killed off. To start with, there really are many countries and jurisdictions which have killed off Uber or made life so difficult for it that Uber has pulled out of its own accord. But in order to get this done, those jurisdictions have resorted to extremely creative and or drastic approaches, like legislating sensors within Uber cars to detect the number of passengers as just 1 example. I remember 50 years ago we had what were called "bandit taxis" in Toronto. It was a crime and was considered so serious that the car being used could be seized and sold off at public auction. Then, and I don't need to tell you how powerful and competent Uber's legal and corporate team are, Uber has been able to largely break the existing rules, attract huge public support, and pressure jurisdictions into accepting their presence. But, my point is, when there has been sufficient alarm, creativity and determination, they have been stopped. So, imo, we have to get much more determined to attack and kill off any and all paid editing here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, make no mistake about it, paid editing is an existential threat to Wikipedia, it threatens our existence. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry at Amy Osmond Cook but I do feel some frustration when admins and an arb come here when asked "How can we best inform people that her advice is against our rules?" and all they can do is pretend that salting an article is cruel and unusual punishment. I did get angry being compared to a North Korean official, and if I over-reacted to that I apologize. But I've actually had experience with North Korean students, e.g. in the FSU, and what their government does is unspeakable.

So creative is great - there are a million ways to let Cook's readers know our rules. I don't think "drastic" is necessary, though surprising or unexpected might be usefull. So let's hear some ideas folks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had cited the article and started with "How can we best inform people that her advice is against our rules?" you might have opened up a fruitful discussion. Instead, you opened with May I suggest permanently salting the article Amy Osmond Cook? I don't think it has sunk in how odious that proposal is. While NeilN correctly notes that salting "merely" means it takes an admin to allow the article, you didn't propose salting you proposed permanently salting, a concept that doesn't exist, but anyone with a brain knows what you intend. You were upset it was analogized to North Korea - I would not have chosen that analogy, but Soviet airbrushing did spring to mind, and we must resist with every fiber of our being even the suggestion that someone who says mean things about Wikipedia should be excluded from it. I fervently hope that you didn't mean that, but you haven't taken it back. As I suggested above, the question is worth debating, but I think it would be worth dropping for a few days, and trying again in more measured tones.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She definitely did say some nasty things about Wikipedia, e.g. "The real rules of the game are hidden, political, and bizarre." I'm not mad about that. In fact I think it is correct. It would be nice if we could have a simple discussion about how we actually can respond in an open, apolitical, simple way to somebody who not only violates our paid editing and meatpuppeting rules, but acknowledges it off-Wiki, and encourages everybody else to do the same. I do not think it's appropriate to say that I'm being "odious" for suggesting salting the article on this person, rather the only appropriate response is to discuss what steps we should take to let people know that her advice is totally against our rules. One nasty thing she said is that one or more of our editors who deleted the article are "trolls". Presumably she is referring to @DGG: who listed the article for deletion. DGG has likely gotten over this, I'd guess he's been called worse, but her almost random striking out is indeed odious. A bit more - articles apparently written by her or her company have been deleted including Osmond Marketing, and 2 likely clients Ryan Westwood, and Amada Senior Care. Ryan Westwood was written by a related editor, deleted twice (the first time as part of the Orange Moody scandal). Amada Senior Care appears to be a regular client, the same related editor was also involved. She's been practicing what she preaches. Responding to this is not unWikipedian, but refusing to recognize her actions as a problem is. Let's just get started. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the article, I was reminded of the concept of fisking which used to be common, but I haven't seen recently. That may be cathartic for you or I, and less useful as part of a serious dialog, but as I read her article, I literally wondered if there were a sentence without a glaring error in it. There probably is, but it is replete with errors.

She does seem to love the word "troll" and throws it around with abandon. DGG is a target, as is Ymblanter. Anyone who knows either editor would be gobsmacked to hear them called Trolls. I am sure it will roll off their backs, and she undoubtedly has no clue how far off base she is, which all by itself, eviscerates her credibility. How can you take anyone seriously who refers to DGG as a troll? Only the fact that she has an audience is reason not to simply dismiss her.

To summarize, you said let's get started. My proposed first step is a separate page identifying each and every error of fact.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support any punitive measures against potential BLP subjects, regardless of whether or not site policies have been broken. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I don't see why punitive measures cannot be considered. To respond to Smallbones' question, here are three consequences I suggest:

1. I find the Entrepreneur article to be kind of breezy and amusing at first, but then the author explains what is against terms of use and advocates doing it anyhow. This is unethical, and she seems proud of it. It does not come across as funny or well-written, it seems like just hack work. I personally think it is reasonable to assume that the author operates unethically in other arenas, i.e. I rather assume that they cheats on their taxes and rips off clients when they can; sorry, that's my personal view, and I am not suggesting I have any real knowledge that they do, and this does not constitute slander. It simply is embarrassing to see what they wrote, and I expect that many potential clients will see that, and will choose to avoid them. Potential clients who themselves tend to cheat where they can, may appreciate her dishonesty, and engage, and then accidentally on purpose fail to pay their bill, which maybe would serve the author right.
2. The publisher is Entrepreneur (magazine), right? The publisher is unethical for printing that. Probably, maybe, they would see their way to publishing a retraction/apology, if they were called on the carpet for it. Perhaps a well-written letter to the editor (do they publish letters to the editor?) with some balance of humor/sarcasm and actually-useful information for their readers would get published. I am sure that ethics matter in business, and I rather expect that Entrepreneur is sometimes pointing out to entrepreneurs that ethical shortcuts have consequences (like that no investor will ever trust you, when they see you cheating others). Any business owner who is seeking to get coverage in Wikipedia should consider the message they send to their employees and customers, that for this they will lie and cheat, yet they don't want the employees and customers to cheat them. It would be fine if Wikipedia's legal counsel or the community director(s) mentioned in the articles would be the ones to speak up in this way. It would be very appropriate for the community director to speak up and say their words were twisted if they were; they would have standing. And that could both educate Entrepreneur's readers and impose some consequence upon the author (that their work is trashed/retracted).
3. The article itself suggests a consequence that can be used. It discusses a service called "Upwork" and discusses finding honest (but of course dishonest) paid writers there, and goes on "When you are ready to reach out, post the job with a dummy account that does not reveal your real name. Even if you reach out in a private message, any editor can see the job board once it has been posted. This is important because some Wikipedia trolls routinely look for work on Upwork; and, if they don’t get the job, they find the page that another editor wrote and take it down out of spite." Okay, so run a sting-like operation. This can be done by any volunteer Wikipedian, who could be rewarded by barnstars and the like. Or it would be appropriate to give out grant funds to pay editors to do this, on general principle that the work done is protecting the quality of the volunteer editing experience for others. Write a grant proposal. In the sting operation, you create multiple paid writer identities, and do trolling for real. Seek to get those private messages. Seek to get hired. Then burn those seeking to cheat. Impose costs into that economic system. Certainly put all the suggested redlinks onto your watchlist, and as part of the grant or whatever, continue to watch them forever, and see to deletion of future efforts (assuming that real notability is not obvious...I agree with SPhilbrick's point somewhat). I believe the way that paid editing works is that if an article gets taken down, the paid author doesn't get paid, or has to refund part or all of their fees. Impose costs on them, that they will perform work and then eventually have to forfeit fees. It will be a continuous cat-and-mouse game with "Upwork" and other services, to figure out what are the violaters' strategies and to impose costs upon them.

Hmm, those are my off-hand thoughts, along the lines of being vindictive. I feel a bit dirty from taking this line, and I am not completely sure of my own moral stance on this. Is it unethical to try to impose financial damage on real persons? Is it somehow wrong for the Foundation to provide grant funds for such purposes? Is it wrong for me to cast judgment on the article author? I could perhaps be swayed by others views on this. However, I certainly am not recommending anything illegal, and I don't think that anything I am writing here constitutes slander. And offhand, I think it is allowable and even morally sensible/good to take negative actions against others, within the law. That's what we pay police, and criminal prosecutors, etc., to do. Hmm, what if trolling "Upwork" is against that service's terms of use. That's quite likely, and I am not sure what is ethically okay to do there, then, but I would explore what can be done along those lines. --do ncr am 19:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Thanks for coming up with some methods of addressing the actual problem.

I personally wouldn't suggest 3) we've had a heck of a time just to be able to link to these sites in very limited circumstances, without us getting banned here for harassment.

I'd also forget about "punitive" and concentrate on "preventative." Certainly any preventative action we take can be seen as having some punitive content (see above for some such reactions). But the more we concentrate on preventative, such as getting the word out that we actually have rules that we enforce, the better.

The letter to the editor idea is great. I'd mostly play it straight, but some humor might be useful, e.g. we might ask the magazine how they would react if someone without permission placed an advert in their magazine. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, can you run with the letter idea. This could be highly appropriate for User:Jimbo Wales to write. Certainly the persons mentioned in the article should be contacted, to find out if/how their comments were twisted (Wikipedia’s legal counsel, the media director, and the author "exchanged long emails one of the fifteen corporate community directors", so certainly contact all of them.

However, why not be punitive. Punitive is needed. I think it is nice that you shrink from that, and it is nice that User:Mr Ernie and most other readers here find it a bit abhorrent. That's because you're nice people, and voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia. The world of law enforcement, and the real ethics of sting operations etc., are not your world. You and me probably think that it is wrong for police to lie, ever, and we tend to dislike anything that sounds like it was entrapment. In the U.S., law enforcement against prostitution includes sting operations, where undercover cops pose as prostitutes and bust "johns", and there are undercover drug law enforcement operations where agents lie and violate lots of local laws and norms except probably usually not performing actual murders to prove themselves, and you and I don't really grok how those things can be allowed. Although I am not familiar with that world myself, I am sure there is ethical lying and misrepresentation going on, that is ethical and appropriate. It's not right for nice regular Wikipedia volunteers to have to engage in that kind of stuff. It is highly appropriate for the Foundation, IMO, to fund grants to competent professional ethical law enforcement contractors and to hire people directly to engage in protecting the franchise, protecting the nice volunteers and the mission of serving readers. --do ncr am 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight - because the author of this piece had some struggles with her biography and wasn't happy with the events that followed, you believe that she might cheat on her taxes or rip her clients off? Sorry, but this is disgusting. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I absolutely do think that. I could have been entertained and amused and approving of their sarcasm about Wikipedia hypocrisy and bureaucracy and so on. But they did not write a high quality piece that conveys that. Their work looks like it is paid work...they perceive what they think the audience wants to hear (give them permission to cheat) and they write that. Who the hell are they to give permission. I don't know if I believe that is really their view; they are acting like people i have known who believe they are paid to lie, and they do lie, when it would be better for them to actually sort through some ethics and come to a principled position. And right, I do suspect that a person shamelessly advocating cheating in one way is very likely to cheat in other ways. --do ncr am 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC) do ncr am 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this a little longer, I think it is quite interesting to see the direction of discussion. The author had an issue with Wikipedia, spent some time reading policies and interviewing people, and uncovered some very real flaws in the Wikipedia processes. Now, instead of trying to work with this person and improve the project, the response is to try to bring them here and publicly humiliate them. Note that User:Smallbones has also tried to follow this formula with Corey Stewart (politician) and the Burger King Whopper incident - btw did you ever receive a response to your "demands?" To me, these actions run contrary to the collaborative nature of our project. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to some extent with your statement "The author had an issue with Wikipedia, spent some time reading policies and interviewing people, and uncovered some very real flaws in the Wikipedia processes." I'm sure we've all read an article about Wikipedia and smiled at the lack of knowledge of the author. This isn't quite in that same mold. The author claims to have done a fair amount of research, yet makes error after error after error. If it were merely full of multiple errors, that would beg for education rather than humiliation, but it goes well beyond that. Some of her claims are "merely" over the top (she claims to have read every single rule in Wikipedia) but she's doesn't simply identify flaws, she actively promotes violation of our rules. She isn't simply advising people how to get around a bit of a bureaucracy, she is actively promoting an approach which would undermine what we stand for. If she's interested in education, I'd say reach out but I'd like to see some signs that she identifies flaws in our processes and wants them improved as opposed to subverted.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fraud: "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting". Facebook recently hired 3,000 people to combat fake news. I think WMF should use some of their millions to hire some people to identify and combat undeclared paid editing activities and enterprises as well as respond to articles such as the one in question. We need a "fraud department". Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble - "Fraud" is often used in a legal sense meaning "theft by deception" Just deceiving somebody is not legally fraud - did I tell you that I won both a Pulitzer and a Nobel and really am a lawyer? But, of course, legal definitions have lots of ifs, ands and buts. Borrowing from [3]

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. Note that "lying by omission" can be considered to be a "false statement" in some cases, e.g. "Sorry I forget to tell you that the house I sold you is built on a toxic waste dump."

If the "lying by omission" applies here - and declaring that you are a paid editor is required by the ToU - then all 5 elements are there as shown in the Entrepreneur article and the fact that "her"article lasted 6 months, for point 4. (No I'm not really a lawyer). Note that I do think it is important for several reasons to ask somebody that you suspect of being an undeclared paid editor if he is. 1st he might be able to explain why you're mistaken, 2nd, it's no longer "lying by omission" if an undeclared paid editor states that he isn't one, it's just plain lying. 3rd he might re-examine his actions at that point. ....

Some people seem to not understand the "theft" part "(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." The use of a webpage (for advertising or otherwise) is property, owned by the WMF in this case. If Osmond Marketing really, really wanted to use a page for an ad, then they could contact the owner (the WMF) and arrange to pay for its use. Just because the owner doesn't want to sell doesn't make it any less "property." It also injures our reputation and can injure our readers e.g. in the Banc De Binary case.

So was AOC committing fraud? Morally, I don't have any doubt about it. Legally, we can leave that up to a real lawyer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ernie. It's not a bad read, and I sense some anger that she "spilled some beans". Like it or not, I think she paints a reasonable picture of the current "system". It's up to the editors or the Foundation to change it, if we don't like the system. Sure, she uses the word troll a lot. It's a negative word, but just think of it referring to "the people who are controlling the content". I'm not seeing the blatant "errors" in the article, other than minor things like not getting someone's precise job title. wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She said the editors "violated every rule in the book (and I know because I read them all)". Let's AGF a little hyperbole and assume she overstated by a factor of 100. Can you name five rules the editors violated?--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's hyperbole, and she didn't define what she meant by the "book". The "rulebook" could be every rule in Wikipedia: project space, or it could be just one policy or guideline page. Even so, there isn't much detail to back up the claim. Where she was specific, she just said, "the others basically just voted"; that would be WP:Not a vote, or the Wikipedia:Consensus policy: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity...; nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns... obviously her opinion is that insufficient effort was made to incorporate her (legitimate) concerns. So yes, "every rule in the book" is an over-the-top claim that isn't backed up. On the other hand, she didn't claim any specific policy violations that didn't actually happen, as far as I see. wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convenience break~~
While I know our legal counsel, she claimed she communicated with "the media director" and "one of the fifteen corporate community directors". I don't recognize the titles. Can someone tell me who she means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your guess is probably as good as mine, but here is the current staff page. Probably someone from Community Engagement and someone from Communications? wbm1058 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect she means that she contacted someone (or a couple of someones) with some degree of authority at en:wp, then either forgot or took a little creative license as to the details. One might have been an arb -- aren't there 15 of them when we have a full complement? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a member of the Arbitration Committee sounds like a good possibility. Makes sense that she would want to talk to someone at the top of the command pyramid that actually controls the content, as everyone she talked to at WMF said, "we don't". I think it's actually nice of her to be vague and not name names so as not to bring undue attention to someone in a negative light. wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Target freelancing sites~~
As this article points out, it's incredibly easy to find freelancers on Upwork to create articles for pay and hide who the client is. In many cases, even if we can find out who a client is from the ad, the freelancers are sophisticated enough to avoid being CUd e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mareenchee. Unfortunately finding undisclosed paid editors is a cat and mouse game and we are losing the fight against the most experienced UPEs such as User:Morning277. While there are a few exceptions, the vast majority of freelancers are creating promotional articles on non-notable subjects, generally using throwaway accounts. We can chase them here, but a longer-term solution has to be to target the sites where this originates i.e. Fiverr, Upwork and Freelancer.com. The jobs are a tiny part of their sites and yet are a considerable source of spam on here. Presumably being associated with spamming us is not good PR for them and we should leverage this to our advantage. I've had some success at getting ads by freelancers removed from Peopleperhour after contacting one of the CEOs. I've reported users on Upwork who are blocked here to them and they informed me that they will ban users who break other site's ToUs, but frustratingly they were unable to understand the evidence I provided linking accounts here and there. This is really something where WMF could flex their muscles and at least encourage the sites to either completely prohibit WP editing jobs, or require that users on their sites disclose their WP username and only use one account. SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The WMF should be taking action on issues like this, and not relying on (or even letting in the first place) editors to propose punitive headers for article subjects who broke the rules or to send them a list of "demands." Frankly the inaction by the WMF on this issue is surprising. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you are accusing me of, but the header of main section here is just the the title of the article in Entrepreneur. If you can find some rule that prevents me from doing that, please just list it below. It strikes me that you might be proposing that folks who recommend to their readers in an off-Wiki site that they break Wikipedia's rules and ToU must be left completely unanswered off-Wiki, but that Wikipedia editors who want Wikipedia's rules to be followed may not post anything about that off-Wiki. A complete double standard. Or are you trying to censor me on Jimbo's talk page? If so, just ask Jimmy to request that I not post on this subject on his talk page. I will follow his wishes on the matter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upwork isn't really our primary target in this; I have a distaste for the modern practice of viewing corporate monopoly as a natural condition that should be exploited to make companies the nannies of the serfs they supervise. But even so, they may be the clients' primary target.

The first thing to understand is that the BLP subject, even a sleazy corporation, is a victim here. They get their reputation trashed in news exposes because they paid for work they usually could have convinced someone to do for free.

Once we have the victim identified, who is the criminal? Well, that's the person who puts out his shingle as a professional Wiki contractor when in fact he's a fly-by-night vandal who is defying the site's Terms of Service and leaving his clients' name in the mud when he finishes. But that's not our cause of action - it's the client's cause of action.

Now if something like this happened, a company like Upwork's position would be simple enough: as a client, you're saying you turned to them for Wiki contractors, and they gave you flim-flam men who didn't even follow the site TOS. I imagine you must have to sign away every right known to man to hire contractors on any freelancing site, but legal matters are never predictable, and there's always the court of public opinion. Even if such a dispute merely leads to an unproductive lawsuit ... the contractor probably had to sign something even worse with Upwork, which lands indemnity for any and all court costs at his doorstep.

So Upwork and other freelancing sites aren't really a target, but they are potentially a medium, but first we have to identify the right person to act, who is the subject of the article. Only by acting as an alliance can Wikipedia and a wronged article subject act together to crack down on the stealth paid editing marketplace. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upwork is certainly not the target, it is just a medium. But the advertiser, usually the company who initiates the advert on Upwork, which then results in an advert for the company on Wikipedia, is not the victim. Using your words, it is the "criminal." Wikipedians certainly have a cause-of-action. The companies are effectively stealing advertising on Wikipedia and degrading our reputation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation of using those sites deceptively is one of the most disturbing parts of the Entrepreneur article. We can shut down the deceptive use of those sites, with minimal cooperation by the sites, if we are willing to take the bull by the horns. What we need is a simple, essentially self-checking method to confirm whether proper disclosure has been made. I suggest adding to the WP:Paid policy the following:
Paid editors using these sites who wish to edit on Wikipedia must prominently post on their Wikipedia user pages that they bid on jobs or advertise for work on them, and post their user names there.

When posting on one of those sites, they must also link to their user pages here, and link to WP:Paid with a short statement saying that they will follow that policy.
Note that we are not dictating to anybody what they have to do on Fiver or any other off-Wiki website. We are only saying what they need to do if they want to do paid editing on Wikipedia.
~~Given that set-up, all Fiver would have to do to see if a UPE is breaking our policy is~~
make sure that the ad is for writing on Wikipedia

check if the links to the Wikipedia user page and to WP:Paid are there

check if the Wikipedia user page has the required positing about bidding on Fiver
~~That's avery simple process that doesn't require any detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy or making any fine distinctions. A 5th grader could do it.~~
~~If a Wikipedian sees that there is an ad to write a Wikipedia article, they could send a notice to Fiver if they see that any one of the notices is missing.~~
Ultimately this system would make sure that everybody who uses these sites will declare, or totally close the Wikipedia business on those sites. It will also let the businesses that offer the jobs know our rules via the link to WP:Paid.
~~All we need is the will to put this into policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Lacks context up-front~~
~~So currently the beginning of the page is like~~
"Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic.
Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.

He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
So it does get around to introducing Jimbo, but only after some boilerplate messages that apply to any talk page. Also it jumps from first person to third person, and says something which sounds important but has no clear relevance to this page.
So I was thinking instead, Jimbo might want to say hi and introduce himself at the top of the page, along the lines of 'Hi I'm Jimbo, I'm the founder (and kinda the "boss") of Wikipedia, please leave a message after the beep. "
But he's a smart guy, and presumably has plenty of time on his hands, so he must have thought of this before and decided it was a bad idea. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Siuenti This is a "User talk" page, Jimbo's userpage is over there, that's where his "introduction" is. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
Siuenti And it doesn't say he's "kinda the boss" because he's not.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a chair isn't like being a boss? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. A CEO (which we do not have) is a boss. An Executive Director is sort of a boss, although my guess is Katherine might be uncomfortable with the term.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Engraving it in bronze~~
"Citing Wikipedia is one thing. Engraving it in bronze is another. At Pretoria Gautrain station." [ https://twitter.com/IanMac111/status/847034550102507522/photo/1 ]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~It looks like they have cited Longest trains, which says:~~
Sishen–Saldanha, South Africa. Run on 26–27 August 1989, comprising 660 wagons, 7.302 kilometres (4.537 mi) long and a total weight of 71 765 tons. The train comprised 16 locomotives (9 Class 9E 50 kV AC electric and 7 Class 37 diesel-electric).
The source here is a problem, because it is a 404 and not on the Wayback Machine either. The other cite is a newsgroup posting and quotes The Guinness Book of Railway Facts and Feats (ISBN 978-0851127071) which says "The heaviest and longest train, with the largest number of wagons recorded, was run on the 3'6" gauge Sishen-Saldanha railway in South Africa on 26-27 August 1989. The train consisted of 660 wagons each loaded to 105 tons gross, a tank car and a caboose (guards van). The train was moved by nine 50kv electric and seven diesel electric locomotives distributed along the train. The train was 7.3km (4.5miles) long and weighed 69393 tons, excluding locomotives. It travelled 861km (535 miles)."
Looks OK, but it would have been better to cite Guinness directly as records are more their department than ours. By the way, the author of the tweet, Ian Macleod‏, is *not* me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, someone needs to go there and stick a "citation needed" sticker on it? Murph9000 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not! There is a citation, so it needs a ^{[unreliable source?]} tag! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever engraved this didn't read the Wikipedia:General disclaimer which is at the bottom of every page. It is likely to be correct, but someone should get their hands on a copy of The Guinness Book of Railway Facts and Feats and cite it directly from the book. There is a photo of the train here and the sourcing looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~laughing! Thanks for posting. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
However, it doesn't appear to be the current world record holder, which is an Australian iron ore train on 21 June 2001.[4][5] This was very slightly longer at 7.35km. This doesn't make the South African plaque wrong, because it was a world record at the time that it was set.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Saudi Arabia~~
~~Jimbo I've read you are at an NGO summit in Saudi Arabia. Is this true? Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I attended and spoke at a UN event there. I'm in London again now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Editing News #1—2017~~
~~Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter~~

Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".
In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.
~~Recent changes~~
A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.
A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [6]
The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [7]
Other changes:
You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [8]

The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [9]

The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the icon) for quicker access. [10] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [11]

You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [12]

Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [13]

The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [14]

A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [15]

There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [16]
~~Future changes~~
The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [17]

The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [18]

The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use. [19]
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]