Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aspro (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 26 March 2018 (→‎Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Deletion of current affairs articles deemed to have "no lasting notability"?

    See also: Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information § Reevaluate this article

    It appears that some editors think this is a good idea, even on a good-sized current events article (with ongoing consequences) which survived an AfD in May 2017 as a SNOW keep. The prime movers happen to be Trump fans, though not all in the discussion are in that camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but this really smells like deletionism/protectionism/carrying water for Trump. They propose to revisit AfD or condense it down to practically nothing, compared to its current size, and then merge that content elsewhere. The article deserves more than passing mention.

    See: Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information#Reevaluate this article. I think this is a bizarre and horrible idea.

    What do others think? I have never seen Wikipedia as an assembly line where, as new articles are added at one end, older ones are deleted at the other....and this one isn't even old! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When people propose old articles for deletion, keep an eye out for new news. Nobody remembers an old article that has genuinely passed from the public eye, let alone cares to delete it. As a rule, if they nominated it, there's a reason. (To be sure, I didn't find that reason in this case; even this recent editorial referencing the case doesn't seem that important. But occasionally deletionists seem to know news from tomorrow and the day after ...) Wnt (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Yes, sneaky deletionism is a reality. They wait til "no one is looking" and then succeed with a small cabal of supporters, when they previously failed with the broader community looking on. Ban those types. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, clearly we should ban everyone that doesn't agree with your opinions *sigh*. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is still an over-hyped nothing-burger news story. Due to the existence of semi-partisan news media sources whose WP:MILL contemporaneous news coverage is often mistaken for secondary sourcing, it's almost impossible to fairly assess anything involving Trump and Russia in realtime, and probably will remain impossible for the duration of his presidency. Fortunately there is no deadline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More fortunately, we never have to fairly assess it. I generally believe in "verifiability, not truth". But while it is theoretically possible for editors to decide what is True in a more absolute way than the mere reading of sources, it is implausible and unnecessary for them to decide what is Important. The mere existence of the sources, summarized here in a hopefully impartial way, and of editors interested enough to do the work, is sufficient to justify the permanent acquisition of the article. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expect most are aware of this, but for those not, the basic policy here is Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY - notability is intended to be permanent. But the policy recognises we may not always get this right. In such cases, I'm likely to generally support a keep, as I think the question is usually adequately scrutinized at the time of creation, and heaven knows that Trump's presidency is going to keep historians & readers busy for decades to come. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion is not the process to be looking for or at, as a merge, or a title rename/scope issue is what is being suggested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange this section's heading begins with "Deletion" then! Notability is all about a subject's appropriateness as a stand-aloner article. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not strange, just usual confusions of Wikipedia process - will the subject be covered in Wikipedia, quite obviously, so the subject will not get deleted, how it's organized is up for debate, that's why we have talk pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully, when all the public furor dies down over the 2016 election of what some consider a shady, playboy businessman over a crooked politician (only in America, folks), the pedia will return to normal, and those who are interested in being journalists rather than authors/editors of encyclopedic content will move over to the WikiTribune. The Trump administration doesn't need our help to cause any further damage to their reputation than what they are quite capable of accomplishing on their own. Facts only, please. Regarding the deletion of Trump-connected articles, it would not be an issue if editors (as applicable) would stop discounting the cautions described in WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. WP was inundated with similar types of disinformation/gossip/unfounded allegations relating to the Clinton, Bush, & Obama administrations - there were plenty of controversies/scandals to cherrypick from RS to fit a particular POV agenda - but those articles had a chance to cure over time, so the bulk of negativity was whittled down for compliance with NPOV, and the same will happen with the Trump articles. Per WP:RECENTISM: But in the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles should be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias or article imbalance, and not every topic eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article.

    Trump just completed his first year as president, and there are 3 more years to go (maybe)...possibly even 7...and we already have more articles filled with unverified allegations, journalistic analysis/commentary/opinions mixed with news, along with so-called expert analysis by doctors who never personally examined him, and other negativity than what was included in the articles of 2-term presidents. Deletions/rewrites are a necessary part of reaching compliance with NPOV which is why WP:CIR is important when making early determinations, especially considering the DS and accompanying restrictions to which such articles are subjected. It may feel good to write what we "feel is appropriate" now but it simply won't stick. Stricter adherence now to WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:LABEL, WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the 3 main core content policies NOR, NPOV, & V will probably reduce a lot of the necessary UNDUE, GOSSIP, POV deletions/modifications that will become apparent as time progresses.

    Suggestion - while some may oppose any comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica, (because WP is far better and more reliable than any other mm), we can't deny that the Britannica is a long standing, stable and widely accepted tertiary source in academic circles, and aligns with encyclopedias by Cambridge and Columbia. It is also conveniently available online. It wouldn't hurt to compare their articles about the same political topics, and use it as a gage for neutrality as it relates to our own. Atsme📞📧 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The "journalists" will stay here. Phil Graham once said that journalism is the first rough draft of history, and today Wikipedia is that first rough draft, for better or for worse. As far as policy acronyms go, truly enforcing WP:NOTNEWS is clearly not supported by the community (I've made vague suggestions of stronger enforcement that got no support). The rest will happen in due time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The name WP:NOTNEWS is trotted out every time there's one of these conversations, so every time I have to mention that if you actually read the policy, it doesn't say we have to delete good data just because it's news. It says only not to treat news differently than other content. There has been a global push against news aggregators of all kinds, with even big companies like Google teetering on the brink of illegality as the legal landlords claim their rent from knowledge of the world's events (see ancillary copyright for press publishers), but Wikipedia doesn't have to go along with it. The news industry is failing because their overall economic model, the idea of copyright in general, is failing, and if we can hold out just a little longer, they won't have the capital left to lobby against us. After that we may need to get more creative about how to define or find a reliable source, but I think the hindrance of their collapse may be less than expected. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigeria as a major "expanding market" for Wikipedia?

    I volunteer at WP:Articles for creation and over the last couple years I've seen a major uptick in submissions relating to Nigeria, mostly biographies of musicians, actors, footballers, and some politicians. I came onboard in 2008, and what I'm seeing now reminds me of the big uptick that I started noticing around 2010 where we started getting a ton of contributions about India. And as I'm sure a lot of us have noticed, India-topic articles on Wikipedia frequently rank in the Top 25 when a blockbuster movie comes out, or something major happens in the sports or political world.

    Nigeria is 186 million people (USA is 325 million, UK is 66 million) and while there are many local languages the national official language is English. So while not as huge as India, that's still a really large Anglophone population that is increasingly online. I'm seeing this though on a smaller level with other Anglophone African countries like Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

    As a very, very tentative observation, it's my vague impression in AFC that Nigeria submissions tend to be higher-quality, pound-for-pound than general US or India draft submissions. Is this a reflection of a slightly higher technological bar-for-entry in Nigeria, or due to a larger portion of people coming to WP through more formal outreach that has them paying more attention to article requirements before submitting? I'm genuinely surprised at the success rate of drafts for Nigerian musicians, that are relatively more likely to be properly sourced to Nigerian media reports as opposed to the regular flow of non-notable American garage band (and I say this as someone who's played in American garage-bands).

    Are there any good articles or essays (on Wikipedia or off) that folks would recommend to read up on Wikipedia's increasing penetration in Africa? I'm under the general impression that Wikimedia is doing more outreach there since I've seen edit-a-thon drafts come through AFC, so that's heartening to see.

    Just writing here for those who may work in other aspects of WP and not have noticed this trend yet, or to invite further enlightenment from folks tracking this issue more closely who have interesting observations about this trend and what it bodes for Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked to evaluate 100 articles about Nigerian topics a couple of years ago, as part of an editing competition. I read about 20 of those articles quite carefully. My experience was quite positive. Although there were a few clunkers, a large majority were solid, properly referenced start class (or better) articles about notable topics. This is the day-to-day work of addressing systemic bias. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed a major Wikipedia awareness campaign in Nigeria. Graham87 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This all seems quite cool to me. I think we in the community need to on-guard to make sure that people aren't reflexively nominating things for deletion in this area based on spurious "I have personally never heard of this, therefore it is not notable".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm sure others have noticed, one of the huge issues with Systemic Bias is the "chicken or the egg?" wherein Wikipedia can only cover a topic if RSs have covered it. So we run into the issue where there may be major African figures who aren't well-covered in RSs and thus hard to prove Notability despite being unquestionably significant figures in their field. The solution to that is more, for example, Nigerian scholars and journalists publishing about significant Nigerians. Fortunately there are a number of Nigerian media sites online that appear to be RSs; I've found entertainment news is really well-covered by Pulse so that really helps getting Nollywood films and actors through since we have coverage of their careers, box-offices and reviews, etc. In a weird symbiotic way, increased Wikipedia coverage of Africa might actually help more scholarship and journalism to cover Africa since running into Wikipedia roadblocks might cause more people to say "hey, why isn't anyone writing about Dr. Smith who had such an active role in medicine during the Biafran War?"
    Thanks for the Wikimedia blog post, that's just the kind of thing that helps answer my questions. Just today I'm seeing Category:WikiGap Harare popping up in the queue, so glad to see Wikimedia folks kicking off such projects. Having seen a lot of iffy India content come through during the initial press of Indian editors, it's gratifying to see that African editors are disproportionately doing their homework in advance to provide strong sourcing. I'm unclear to what degree that's just a reaction to Wikipedia's rising standards, and to what degree it's because editors are entering through a more formalized outreach process, but in either case it makes AFC easier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that there is more wiki potential in the Nigerian ecosystem. Kudos to Wikimedia UserGroup Nigeria, who have been making some strategic partnership and organizing awareness programs that could be responsible for the increase we are seeing today. Although 2018 is my 8th year on WP, I began interacting with the Nigerian off-wiki community about two years ago and have been priviledged to coordinate the activities for Ibadan hub and I'm proud to say off the top of my head there are at least 10 new editors (eg. Oshhhh, AshiomaMedi, etc) who became WP editors due to the two outreaches we were able to organize in UI in conjunction with WUGN. However, I still think more can still be done, for example many Nigerisns still do not know that Wikipedia is free on Airtel, sometimes I wonder if part of the mou between Airtel and Wikimedia foundation was that it should not be overly promoted.@Mathew You are 100% on point about refernces; notable Nigerian nollywood and music-related content that were released since the mid-2000s have good coverage, especially from Pulse. However, we also have a number of indigenous sites that cover local Nigerian football, but they don't have the resources Pulse have to make them 100% reliable sources. Media platforms like allnigeriasoccer.com, ladiesmarch.com, Saharareporterssports, Savidnews, etc are owned and published by reputable stakeholders in Nigerian male and female leagues but they are not as refined as Pulse, all their first-person information have always been accurate too. So we can also say Nigerian football leagues (both male and female) have also been well covered lately. Goal.com, Complete Sports Nigeria and other richer sporting sites are also doing quite well for the big games. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

    I am very concerned that Wikipedia medical articles now embed videos created by Osmosis. These videos are uploaded by an editor user:OsmoeIt who declares to be paid by the foundation to create and upload them to Wikipedia. Osmosis appears to be funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a private philanthropy foundation created by a founder of the American medical firm Johnson & Johnson.

    Wikipedia is, I believe, fundamentally a project collaboratively edited by volunteers. While it may link to other websites containing medical information created by third parties, I hope the Wikipedia content itself is fundamentally user created and open to being collaboratively edited. For audio-visual material we have a history of accepting content that is not created by volunteers, provided it is freely licensed. However, this content is mostly images or short video clips which can easily be substituted for another by any editor.

    Here, though we have lengthy videos that often comprehensively replace the article content in their scope. Take Epilepsy. Here we do not just have a short video of a person having a seizure, but a nine minute video documentary covering the entire article topic. There are several issues with that:

    • The content cannot be edited. [While theoretically, someone can take the CC BY SA video and make a derivative work, it is not realistic to do that as the narrator would be different and it would be very hard to achieve the same visual style].
    • The content begins and ends with publicity for a third party.
    • The content is unsourced and therefore does not meet our editing policies.
    • Some content is outdated, and it is not possible to fix. For example the video uses the outdated term "complex partial seizure"
    • The video does not fit with our style guide for medical articles, referring to "patients" rather than "people with epilepsy".
    • The video contains American English slang terms such as "spaced out" which would not appear in professional writing and may be unfamiliar to our international audience.
    • Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, not a YouTube channel, nor a documentary. Videos should supplement the article text, providing information in ways that cannot be done by reading alone. Instead here, we have whole article topics in video format.

    Here is what happens when an editor challenges the material in one of these videos in Dementia with Lewy bodies:

    Another example to Coeliac disease

    So we now have content created by a private organisation that cannot be removed by any editor with concerns about its content. Instead the video is forcibly, and without discussion or consensus, restored to the article by edit warring, with just a promise that this third-party will at some point update it.

    There are nearly 300 of these videos added to many of the major medical article topics. In addition to the Canadian User:OsmoseIt, another editor User:Tannermarshall is involved, of which we know nothing. But the biggest player here is Canadian User:Doc James. I can find no discussion at WP:MED where Osmosis is discussed as a possible project the community might approve of. Yet the material is added with edit summary "Videos have been released under a CC BY SA license and uploaded as part of a partnership between Osmosis.org and meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. I can find no mention of Osmosis at meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis page was created by Doc James "We are working with Osmosis to create medical videos under a CC BY SA license." That project page contains almost no discussion -- these videos are not in fact being reviewed by the project or community prior to being added to articles by Doc James. I must conclude that the "we" is Doc James, and not WP:MED nor the Wikipedia community.

    While the project to create and add these videos may appear well intentioned, this is not IMO, what Wikipedia is. Would we accept it if our history articles embedded documentaries from the History Channel? Or our current affairs articles contain vidoes by Fox News? A CC BY SA licence, and an educational purpose is not sufficient reason to embed content from private third parties. Wikipedia is being privatised and collaborative editing denied. -- Colin°Talk 10:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If they were well done, presented the consensus of scholarly opinion, and made available free, why wouldn't we? I checked the dispute on coeliac. I'm at a loss to understand what "danger" BallenaBlanca is talking about. The video is a reasonable description of coeliac as I understand it, as a late diagnosed patient. Obviously BallenaBlanca has a different view, but this is completely mainstream, and one thing that is dangerous is rejecting mainstream content in Wikipedia medical articles because we have a different view. I don't know if BallenaBlanca is medically qualified (Doc James is). Guy (Help!) 12:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some years ago, Jimmy Wales was pleased to announce that the medical fraternity wanted to become more active on Wikipedia. They would import good, reliable, encyclopedic information. What have we ended up with ? A torrent of subliminal advertising ! I agree with JW on most things but this paid for activity has got to stop.Aspro (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=832504649"