User talk:Jimbo Wales

Casual use of "hatting" to "censor" talk page discussions

Jimbo, sorry to use the word "censor" but I can not think of a milder term in this instance. Please have a look at this discussion thread and the "hatting" threats and applications thereof related to the thread, i.e. diffdiffdiffdiffdiff

There appears to be thoughtful interest and discussion from many editors on both sides of the issue of that thread.Apparently they had already hatted it once before being unhatted. Your thoughts? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have hatted that discussion, had I been involved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I am really surprised. I must be way out of sync with current norms and mores re: artificial limits being placed on constructive discussion. So be it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to give your reason? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, The editor of the last 4 diffs mentioned in the opening message here, later supported an edit for the article that I had later proposed in the subject discussion. In case you're curious, the proposed edit is to add the phrase, "based on highly classified intelligence," to the first sentence of the lead as follows.

The United States Intelligence Community concluded, with high confidence based on highly classified intelligence, that the Russian government engaged in electoral interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Here's a link to the proposal and discussion. Proposed change in first sentence of lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors criticizing each other

He's being disruptive by derailing and hijacking discussions about article improvement to rant about... well, conspiracy theories and such. Just like he's doing here. So yeah, hat it. Volunteer Marek  06:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: My comment right above was not a criticism of Nocturnalcow, but an explanation - which was an elaboration on Jimbo's comment above - for why the discussion by a DIFFERENT editor was being hatted. The addition of these section sub headings sort of completely confused the issue. Volunteer Marek  08:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek, who are you talking about in such an ad hominem way? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem not to actually understand what the phrase "ad hominem" means, just like you don't understand how properly to use the word "censor". Volunteer Marek  14:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The irony of the above post is delicious. "I'm not using ad hominem, you imbecile!" -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Marek did not call anyone an "imbecile", nor was it implied in his post. You can't just lie about what a person says, claiming an insult was uttered when the evidence says otherwise. TheValeyard (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think I was trying to directly quote Marek, I can't help you. I also can't help you if you can't see the ridiculousness of Marek denying engaging in ad hominem, while at the same time saying things like, "just like you don't understand how properly to use the word 'censor'." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Implies enough to insult but not enough to be held accountable.--v/r - TP 00:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but YOU are trying to imply deviousness on my part, which IS a dishonest false accusation. Coming from an administrator no less. "Conduct unbecoming" and all that. Look, if I wanted to call him an imbecile, I would've called him an imbecile. But I didn't. Volunteer Marek  06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Who me? I just typed some words into a box. Held no meaning. I didn't even use a complete sentence - it lacked a noun. I'm just an innocent bystander *wink* --v/r - TP 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Volunteer Marek , actually TP's edit was necessary for me to see that you are referring to me, because I could not believe you would be so hallucinatory with this edit of yours since I have not been editing at all, zero, at the article in question; yet you say "derailing and hijacking discussions about article improvement". Maybe you have a better command of vocabulary but if you were trying to actually communicate, you get an F-. Now that I know you were talking about me, what exactly is the shiny object "conspiracy theory" you accuse me of in this situation? Or was that just more hallucinations? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. No. You're not comprehending here. My comment about why the discussion was hatted ("derailing and hijacking discussions") was not a comment ABOUT you, it was a response TO you, because you asked for it ("Your thoughts?"). It was also a response to Bob K31416 who asked Jimbo to elaborate (In both cases, I was trying to save Jimbo the trouble since the reason for the hatting appears to be pretty obvious) .

My first comment ABOUT you was the one in which I pointed out that you seem to have no idea what "ad hominem" actually means. (And seriously, accusing people of making ad hominem arguments, then claiming that someone is "hallucinatory" (sic)? Really?).

ok, I couldn't tell if the "he" in your first comment was me or Bob which is why I asked who you were talking about. I should've left out the "ad hominem" bit. Sorry about that and the hallucinatory slight. Best wishes, Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings TP. You're right Thuc has no business insulting Valeyard, even worse to play dumb on his own personal attacks vs Marek. 😲"Who me?"😲 SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister Thucydides, words mean things. You said someone said something that they in actuality did not say. Don't do that, and all will be well. Cheers. TheValeyard (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Yard, I did no such thing. It is strange how whenever Marek attacks someone, all these defenders come out of the woodwork. It's pretty clear he gets a pass because of his politics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, Thucydides. A criticism of a person's action or statements is not an "ad hominen". If a normal adult says "two plus two is five" then responding with "that is a lie, because it's not, and since you're an adult you know better" is NOT an ad hominen. An ad hominen attack would be saying "you're wrong because you have funny hair". Likewise here, if Nocturnalcow uses a phrase which clearly indicates they do not understand it's meaning it's not an "ad hominen" to point that out. This is pretty elementary.

Oh wait, I got a better example. If someone says "Marek called someone an imbecile", when the exact quote is right there in plain sight and clearly shows I didn't, and then someone else says "no, that's not true, you're lying", that is NOT an ad hominen. That's just a pretty trivial observation on your own dishonest behavior. Volunteer Marek  06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys have really latched onto the interpretation that I intended to directly quote you with "imbecile." I know you understand better, but I'll spell it out for you: "I'm not using ad hominem, you imbecile!" wasn't a quotation of you. Anyone who looks at the thread knows that, because my comment came right after yours. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone reading the thread that I was ridiculing the fact that you attacked someone personally while claiming not to have used ad hominem. You can keep on insisting that this is some sort of false quote I was trying to manufacture, but nobody with a sliver of reading comprehension will buy it. I know your reading comprehension is good enough to pick up on this, so it's pretty clear who's being dishonest here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thu, That's how WP works. Most editors abhor personal attacks. Therefore, when you post a personal attack, editors who see it are likely to rebuke you. From what I've seen you've had the experience many times. Often enough to be able to recognize the pattern, in fact. Or do you think that @Volunteer Marek: has a claque of irrational or corrupt "defenders" who are indentured to him for some untold and unintelligible reward? Maybe payola like the American deejays of the Rock n' Roll era? Do you think Marek is in on it? I doubt it. The simplest explanation is that folks don't like to see aspersions and personal disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

We've both recently been in threads in which several senior editors have expressed a rather "meh" attitude towards personal attacks (one was about VM's behavior specifically, and it was opined that a number of rather aggressive comments were just "feisty"). In other words, your remarks on editors' general opinions towards personal attacks are empirically wrong. My observation is that personal attacks are generally given wide latitude unless the admin in question dislikes an editor for different reasons, in which case the personal attacks might be held against the editor in question. How much leeway is given could also depend on how the editor who suffered the attack is viewed.

You're no stranger to personal attacks, so I'm not exactly going to take my advice from you. I recall when you called one of Wikipedia's more patient editors a "misogynist," and then refused to take back or apologize for the statement. I think the issue with VM is pretty simple: a lot of people share his general views on American politics, which he makes pretty obvious through his editing, and are therefore willing to look the other way when it comes to his impossible editing behavior. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to try to explain why I used the term "Ad Hominem" when Marek made this edit. That edit reads to me as if Marek is suggesting hatting decisions ( whether or not to hat a thread) should or could be made on the basis of the identity (thus Ad hominem - at least as I understand the term) of an individual editor as opposed to on the content of the thread. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"Marek is suggesting hatting decisions (...) should or could be made on the basis of the identity (...) of an individual editor as opposed to on the content of the thread" - that is a blatantly false since I made no such suggestion. I specifically said that a hatting decision should be made because an editor was *derailing* a discussion (content, not identity), because an editor was *hijacking* a discussion into off topic territory (content, not identity) and because the editor's *behavior", not identity, was disruptive. BTW, aren't you indefinitely banned from US politics, which your comments would fall under?  Volunteer Marek  08:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but in that case there was no reason to even mention the editor's behavior as your reason for hatting could, and I think should, have rested entirely upon the current content, not how the content came to be the way it is/was. Re: your question, I only wanted to discuss systemic media bias and the harm shiny objects, such as "conspiracy theory" in 2017 and "communism" in the 50s, do as distractions and blockages to constructively flowing discussions. Then, when Bob brought over the discussion going on where "conspiracy theory" was used as a shiny object, in his opinion, I looked over at that article for the first time and was literally very surprised, almost shocked, to see "hatting", which I had always thought was exclusively a technical tool for very old or duplicative stuff, being suggested and used in a strategic, discussion controlling way which, imo, has the consequence, whether intended or not, to substantially erase access for most readers, not editors, of Wikipedia. So, I get excited about, and feel I should talk about, any form of information, discussion restrictions here, on Wikipedia, which so many average people around the world rely on to get information, especially since there is so much information, discussions already hidden from our citizenries, e.g. there is now more classified info in the USA than unclassified according to a Harvard University report on removing knowledge. That is the sequence of how the discussion widened but I still do not feel as though my thoughts or contributions in this sequence have wandered into U.S. politics, other than perhaps very tangentially, and as you likely know, its hard to discuss almost anything in 2017 that does not in some way touch on US politics, however, I think I have obeyed the ban and I know that I have not intentionally disobeyed the ban. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Break

I want to add, Jimbo, that any deep thought about the details of the preceding section (Systemic bias within Wikipedia.en) and this section (Casual use of "hatting" to "censor" talk page discussions, as of time/day of this message) demands a conclusion that the content of Wikipedia is, with your blessing, subject to being controlled by a MSM which, in turn, is subject to being controlled by a political establishment or political establishment/MSM partnership. That is kind of historically usual, and thus, maybe acceptable, except for 2 diametrically opposed positions which you are taking, i.e., your commitment of Wikipedia to NPOV and your opposition to governments like Turkey controlling their messaging. Turkey just does it directly rather than via a MSM that it influences (via access restrictions or monetary opportunities), as is the case in many other countries. Imo, the situation you are blessing (more than condoning) is a relationship of agency; i.e. Wikipedia being an agent of MSM, which in many instances are themselves an agency of a political power such as the Liberal International Order. Your WikiTribune project idea seems to want to deliver only fact based journalism, so at some level you must be aware of the current junky status of MSM. I hope you can use this awareness to help improve Wikipedia going foreward. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: You don't need to ping the bloke on his own talk. It is generally an irritant of the grandiose kind. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@NN. You seem to have tapped into a buzzword (the Liberal International Order) which usefully serves a paranoid, right wing narrative without understanding that particular neologism in the context in which it was intended. Per your link: "The International Order is defined as the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations between the key players on the international stage. Today, this body includes a nexus of global institutions, such as the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization; bilateral and regional security organizations; and liberal political norms, as well as what the authors describe as "liberal political norms.'" — In other words, democratic civil society as part of an interrelated international community; as opposed to the "existential threat" to that post-World War II system presented by authoritarian nationalism, which is more akin to the anti-democratic movements that dominated Europe during the 1930s. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Its not a zero sum game, the left wing/right wing "struggle" is a staged wrestling match with the management laughing all the way to the bank, imo. Its all about control and whether we have sovereign countries controlled by the people of those countries or regional/group authorities controlled by technocrats and corporations and professional politicians or something somewhere in between. You can call it "the establishment", which is the best term and if you like where the world is and where its heading, then that's fine, no problem. I am interested in the USA's MSM's bullshit, both left and right, dominating many of Wikipedia.en's articles and what can be done about it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the use of weak facts from the popular press is to use better facts from the academic press. Use books and journals rather than newspapers and blogs, in other words. Some contemporary topics don't have that sort of sourcing available (yet), which presents a temporary problem. But in the long run, better sources tend to supplant worse sources. I don't think WP does a bad job of any of this at all. Carrite (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Carrite, you make very good points and I'll defer to your greater Wikipedia experience when it comes to most Wikipedia articles in the "long run", as you say. My own experience is that I actually sat in funeral homes as childhood buddies came back in body bags from the Vietnam war during a time when a knowingly false narrative was being pushed through the MSM. I can still hear Don B_______'s mother and sister wailing behind a curtain as his closed casket was draped in an American flag and I was the only one there to pay my respects. So, I may have an extraordinary awareness of how much personal and societal harm is being done by sketchy narratives which flow through USA MSM in support of invasions and war expansions. Thus, I notice today, right now, how 15 years after our side invaded Iraq that our articles on how the Iraq war began still leave out the downright criminal plans and false justifications for that war which have since been disclosed by many "insiders", including the example I referred to in the now archived section, which you may have missed; "My example relates to our articles...thus sourcing..for how the Iraq War started and how General Wesley Clark's crucial "whistle blower" report, in 2007, of the fraudulent justification for the war has not made it into our articles in any substantive way.....Only Salon picked up the story in print whereas over a million people have viewed his interview on youtube, yet a google search of "Wesley Clark 7 countries" shows virtually no USA main stream media published his revelations. Our articles on the Iraq War and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction do not include anything about Clark's revelations..." Carrite, 15 years is just too damn long and even 10 years is too damn long for our articles on such important existential and humanity issues to self correct. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My take is that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, because a good article would rely on information that is not currently public knowledge. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to do a good job on the topic. The sophistry on both sides as to how to handle the lack of sourced material for parts of the article is too stupid for me to respond to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Surely you mean "because a good article would not rely on information that is not currently public knowledge? Agree with the utter surrealism of that article and some conversations about its contents. — JFG ^talk 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean that the version of the article in Wikipedia 2050 will be of much better quality, because it will rely on sources that do not currently exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "information that is not currently public knowledge" – I have an idea of what type of information that is for that article's subject, but I'm curious about what type of information you think it is. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:, I wholeheartedly agree that it is too soon and, therefore, we can't exclude the possibility that it could end up looking like the Gulf of Tonkin incident article by 2050. Unfortunately, if that is its destiny, a lot of damage could be done by promotion/publishing of existing non-public assertions. I wonder how you'd feel about the article being deleted as it has such an obvious WP:TOOSOON status? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of discussion that should be hatted and archived. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. -- Begoon 09:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, FYI, the discussion has grown considerably. [1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, in that discussion there is currently a proposal for an addition to the lead (diff) that has 2 for and 2 against, which could use some more opinions. (Not to be confused with another discussion there about adding a section.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually it has 2 "for" and ~30-40 "against" because ~28-38 have resisted being drawn into this pointless, repetitive, off-topic, strawman soapbox thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

While we're in the business of counting people who haven't commented in our own favor, I'm going to go ahead and say that the count is approximately 7.6 billion to 2 (in favor of the position I support, of course), because most of the world's population has refused to get involved with the repetitive, off-topic, strawman soapbox (have I ticked all the boxes?) thread. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Our own favor"??? Is that you Pope Francis? Welcome aboard. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"We are not amused", SPECIFICO, please try to be less frivolous in such a serious discussion. I'll give you 500 internet points if you do actually hat all this though, and a gold "too obvious but still absolutely justified irony" award - I'm not sure how much longer I can resist the temptation myself. Please use "1=Casually hatted" as a rationale in the "hat" template if you do so, for transparency. -- Begoon 09:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You (Jimbo) are mentioned in passing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rats Jimbo! Looks like you're going to be indefinitely blocked again. oops, I just read the rest of the thread, it looks super-serious. Sorry for making jokes Edaham (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

...and 'sorry' you should be. This goes beyond 'super-serious'. The casual hatting of threads and censorship thus enabled is a veritable scourge upon our website. Don't be fooled by those (including me) who would have you believe that this is all just a tedious, yawn-worthy, extended whinge ...</sarcasm> -- Begoon 09:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bullying culture

I've just received another request for contributions to Wikipedia and I simply want to explain why I'm not contributing this year.

There are certain editors on Wikipedia who practice a bullying culture and have the tacit support of many admins; particularly those who take a strong scientific line. I realise that bullying is an endemic problem of online systems and is not easy to deal with and that administrators have to deal with many issues in a short time and do not have the time to understand the minutiae of individual articles.

This problem shows itself in at least two ways: one is to do with fringe scientific theories where they insist on only including references from top line scientific journals, which by definition don't usually exist, thus changing the normal Wikipedia citation rules significantly. They are usually not specialists in the topic concerned and therefore have little more specific knowledge than the average reader. The other is an insistence on using correct scientific jargon even in the lead sections of articles and where this usage makes the articles much less accessible to the average reader. They are then dismissive in talk page contexts of any attempt to introduce topics in a less formal fashion.

I don't see any way of changing this culture as a normal Wikipedia editor without appearing to champion causes for which I have no sympathy. However it is apparent that Wikipedia is failing to engage a significant portion of the population who are the only ones who have set up rival pedias. Unless you believe that science is the only path to true knowledge I think this should concern you. Chris55 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Give us a specific example, please, of content you feel should be included in wikipedia but is excluded due to this "Bullying culture" which you allege exists. -- Begoon 12:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I honestly can't see why you'd feel that way. Edaham (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh--that makes no sense at all, unless you are implying that Jimmy (back in 2014) was getting bullied by 7,000 signatories to an online petition demanding we change our guidelines and stop doing reliable sources and stuff. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the comment was sarcastic, suggesting that I'm part of that culture, due to my view that we should privilege peer reviewed scientific studies in quality journals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Drmies Neither of the above. I just liked that article and thought it relevant. I recently added a quote from it to my user page, so it was fresh in my memory and hope that the person who started this thread reads it. It explains in part in the linked article, why insistence on adherence to high-quality sources has been interpreted as bullying. To further clarify (as now I'm a bit worried that I was misunderstood) I can't see why someone would feel bullied simply because someone writing about fringe scientific theories has met insistence on including references from top line scientific journals. Apologies if I was not clear and/or misinterpreted the original post. Edaham (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Chris55: please return part-time to Wikipedia, else the bullies win. I returned after 2 years away. I think Jimbo is aware of such problems x100, but when he helped he has been bullied, also insulted on other websites because his name is famous. I suggest become an admin, as other admins tend to back down, and there are admins who spend more time expanding text than blocking vandals. In fact, blocking, or unblocking, others could help understand how other users view bullies. Major advancement comes via wp:RfCs where dozens of people can help steer change. Meanwhile keep a "to-do" list of quick edits for when you plan to return. Many amazing topics to write in this "Brave New World which has such creatures in it". -Wikid77 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• For those who don't want to look at the edit history, it appears the original dispute was at Aquatic ape hypothesis. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• "...references from top line scientific journals, which by definition don't usually exist"? About fringe topics? But the essence of Wikipedia:Fringe theories is that things are called "fringe" if reliable sources say they are. And if there are no reliable sources we don't write about it. If the editor who started this thread wants to do that, they will run into some difficulties, and not just from the bullies and their admins. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what this complaint, although it does underscore how easily the accusation of bullying is made. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

To : Jimmy Donal Wales

A :

"To set a new standard for breadth, depth, timeliness and lack of bias, and in the fullness of time to become the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of humankind."

B :

"It is a social faux pas to write about yourself."

What if it was humanly impossible to accomplish A without committing a 'social faux pas' of B ?

- 100.14.81.196 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:YOURSELF and the WP:AFC instructions linked there. The AfC process takes weeks if not months, and will probably not be satisfactory to you unless you clearly meet notability guidelines, which the vast majority of people do not. But it is the only process which doesn't result in useless auto-hagiography. There are services like LinkedIn and About.me which may be more suitable for your needs and those of the wider readership. 83.137.1.222 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not questioning WP this and/or that, and the specific article in question has already been 'around' for hundreds (nearly thousands) of years. But the specific article is prophetic, referencing from a time in the past to a point in the future, which already, with lack of bias, has specific, unchanging, unyielding facts that, notwithstanding, should still be recognizable to Wikipedia. But they aren't, due to an inherent 'block' of human nature, but a surmountable block, even though the specific manifestation of that block is also prophetic. If all the Wiki this and/or thats were sufficient, Jimbo would have no need for such a page, he could just as well retire to an island and sip mai-tais for the remainder of eternity. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than eight years, and regarding the specific article in question, it remains a catch-22 (guaranteed failure of "A") if the author of "A" doesn't step up to the plate and give (take) affirmative action. - 100.14.81.196 (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed

At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.

These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.

A study reported in the Japan Times[2] by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.

The New York Times published an article last month[3] called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.[4]

They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief.[5][6] See also this article.

There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones.[7] Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.

An article last month in Die Zeit[8] says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."

There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics.[9][10][11][12]

This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?

Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is very interesting. The first question I see here seems easy enough to answer: what should we do about this in terms of writing about' them? Be NPOV, I would say. The second question I see here has to do with making editorial judgments about which journals are accepted as sources and which are not - and organizationally, how do we help good faith editors who are having trouble distinguishing between the two?

I have spoken often recently about how the true "fake news" sites (created by teenagers in Macedonia, etc.) have caused us little problem because we have a lot of experience and Wikipedians are very able to recognize things like the Denver Guardian as being unsuitable as a source. But this is about general interest newspapers.

To the extent the same problem is existing (for different reasons) in academic publishing - this seems a lot harder to manage. These are not completely "fake" publications, if I understand it. They have real professors submitting to them. But because they accept absolutely everything, the quality should not be considered confirmed in the way that quality is (more or less) confirmed by traditional high quality peer review processes.

My view, for what it's worth, is that we generally shouldn't use them as sources. But I recognize that this opens a huge set of debates about how good a journal needs to be in order to meet our cutoff.

I encourage further discussion. I think there are answers here which are likely to be fairly nuanced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's gotten to the point where in some tenure files you have to comment on the quality of the journal you got published in. Sure, we are usually pretty good at weeding out fake/predatory journals, but members of university-wide T&P committees look at stuff well outside their own field, and then it's not always easy. People publish in these journals for a variety of reasons, and some of those are valid, even if it's not good to do so. Yes, we have a job to do here: I have advocated in various places for us keeping a list of reliable sources. Perhaps we can have someone tallying up the results of RSN. That would be beneficial not just for our editors, but also for the larger public. I just suggested we put Usernameunique on payroll; surely we have librarians here who can do this kind of thing. And why not pay them? Drmies (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• The participants in WikiProject Medicine have been aware of this problem for years, and I think we do a pretty good job of handling it. Our insistence on the priority of secondary sources (review papers) rules out most of the junk right off the bat, and for the rest, WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals gives useful guidelines. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems the straight forward approaches are either a white list, a black list, or both, see, [13] but someone is going to have to pay to get access, and work it into policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are fine suggestions here, but we should be careful as a community not to pose as an authority on academic quality. I think it would be a great first step to start a supplement, even a simple essay, about predatory publishers. It can be a list of pointers to RSs on the subject or a well-sourced summary, and it can include pointers to RSN discussions, but without implying that the conclusions reached by Wikipedians have greater authority than they actually do. This would help channel community efforts into further elaborating this resource.

The line separating reliable from unreliable academic publications is not always clear, even for someone with a practiced eye. For example, there are some online publications which list reputable academics in their editorial boards, apparently with their consent, but exercise weak editorial control, and function less like peer-reviewed journals than group blogs. Eperoton (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)