User talk:Jimbo Wales

Check, please!

"To reduce inequality, Wikipedia should consider paying editors", reads the title of a recent Wired opinion piece. I'm sure most of the people reading this would appreciate it if Wikipedia did so. I myself have made money editing here before but always from people who paid me to create articles about certain people/topics. It seems like those who create content that is both high-quality and widely read should be incentivized to do so beyond some sort of symbolic recognition (like the gold star of a FA). Of course I know this idea has been proposed many times in the past, and as the Wired article notes, it would require Wikipedia ditching its not-for-profit model. Yet it might be an effective way to encourage creation of high-quality content and the retention of editors who create such content, at least if it's done right (e.g. being careful not to pay for the creation of vandalism/spam articles). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We'd also lose those who value the fact that we are all volunteers here. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Rewards can promote mass distortions: You've likely heard stories of clinics prescribing unneeded expensive medicines or medical procedures to get money from insurance companies or government programs like U.S. Medicare payments. Almost 30 years ago, a company praised energetic employees as "Employee of the Month" while unaware of people addicted to praise. Eventually a star employee, who had helped numerous employees fix mysterious computer problems or office equipment, was found to be staying late to sabotage the workstations of his coworkers, and it was amazing how well he could fix the most bizarre office problems, as a repeat favorite for Employee of the Month. Eventually the company learned how "Team of the Month" was safer and less addictive for individuals with histrionic personality disorder. The term "planned obsolescence" explains how some groups have purposely delayed enhancements, and crucial annoying bug fixes (for computer viruses for years), to sustain a system of continual payments until years when a real improvement could be invented as truly "value added" to the organization. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato advised to be governed by people who were a "philosopher king" where their passion was "love of knowledge" (Greek: Αγάπη της γνώσης), seeking to be "agathos kai sophos" (good and wise), and not wealthy or famous, as even recommending celibate people with no need for family rewards. However, theoretical physicist Albert Einstein indicated how reality is best understood by mathematical models to handle the complex interactions of multiple variables affecting real-world events, and hence forth the field of Philosophy faced the issue that reality could only be better understood by mathematicians. The brainchild was to seek cooperative groups with a passion for knowledge and math. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• We already have a system for paying editors - if an organization, including the WMF(!), wants to pay editors to edit Wikipedia it's really easy. All they have to do is get the editor to declare that they are a paid editor and who is paying him or her. The problem is that paid editors don't declare very often and that not many admins or arbs enforce our rules. We even have something like a system in operation for paid Wikimedians-in-Residence.

I should mention that the Wired article was essentially about getting a non-profit to pay editors, e.g. in Africa, where there are not so many editors. Actually the authors suggested that the WMF do it. I doubt the WMF really wants to do it outside the grants system now running, but any non-profit should be able to do it no problem. So if anybody wants to start a non-profit or otherwise find the cash from an ethical sponsor - please just go ahead and just do it. But the usual paid editor stuff - somebody trying to slip in some PR stuff about the company where they work in the PR department - that's not going to work in any situation ever. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not need to ditch its not-for-profit model to start paying editors! Can you imagine public television not paying its content producers? Or the Washington Post writers working for free? I'm sure Bezos would love to do that if he could. This is an excellent idea... offering a modest quarterly "coffee stipend" to editors meeting specified criteria that can be algorithmically quantified (minimum number of edits, clean or relatively clean block log, low edit-reversion percentage) would disproportionally motivate editors from less wealthy countries. Edit-warring would be discouraged by such a system. Editors would be more careful not to make bold, controversial edits that could be reverted and hurt their chances of earning their stipend. Editors paid by third parties with an agenda to promote wouldn't be motivated by this, as the third parties will be paying more than a simple stipend, but at least this will level the field a bit as we currently have an imbalance between COI editors and non-COI editors. Offering non-COI editors a stipend will help move towards balance. The current system isn't very good. The editors-in-residence have a COI with regard to the editing that the institution paying them wants to promote. Our crack sock puppet patrol should be able to snare the rogues who vandalize with one account only to revert for coffee stipends from another account. The current system of not paying editors is producing mass distortions – see the overwhelmed and underpaid Articles for Creation and New Page Patrol. It would be more ethical if the WMF assumed that its donors wanted to give financial support for content creation and maintenance, and not just servers, software and full-time around-the-world travel! Not to mention political lobbying for causes. I think it's rather unethical that they find money to do that. wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps create WMF "fellowships" for wp:NPP New Page Patrol (etc.), but computerized systems are notorious for million fake accounts "get $2 payout" each: somebody just got $2 million dollars. The U.S. election Russia investigations found thousands of fake-ad accounts, enough to sway election where candidates differ by only 80,000 votes in key precincts. It had been possible to run thousands of WP sockpuppet accounts through IP ranges, but would require expertise as cohorts. Who knew licensed MD doctors could prescribe fake-cancer chemo to get $millions even though chemo could create immune diseases, by warning employees to keep quiet. Giving away vast small money could cost $millions in management, accounting and audits to deter scams. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd start small by setting the bar pretty high for the first round; maybe limit to a specified number of recipients (as the number of scholarships awarded are limited). Ramp up slowly, and ensure that adequate controls are in place to limit "gaming the system" before giving away vast small money. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I did a quick back of the envelope calculation of the value of donated editor time per year. It came out to about $2 Billion dollars per year. Any proposal for starting to pay for that should include a realistic idea to obtain the money. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

But, I only want 0.05% of that! :b) . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a relatively small group of core editors administrating the content infrastructure, and I'm not suggesting they should be paid six-figure salaries. The majority of content contributors drive by and only briefly contribute to one or two articles. These editors, whose IDs often bear close resemblance to the subject of the articles they're contributing to, don't need to be paid. Maybe they should pay me for cleaning up after them, like when they try to change the name of their nonprofit charitable organization by editing the {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, since they're using VisualEditor and that's the only way that VE tells them how to do it. wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The idea of "intellectual property" is inherently false; it is an extension of the peculiar institution of slavery. Saying that Wikipedia editors "ought to be paid for what they do" does have a basis, but that basis is not in any kind of bean counting of who reads what, even if no toll were charged anyway. The true basis is that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... which is to say, the economic system should reward remunerative work, but not require it for survival. Hence arises the concept of basic income. If all people are paid a basic wage to ensure they can live reasonably, then they are free, if they desire, to live simply and edit Wikipedia all day, or to follow any other innocent pursuit that is not resource intensive. Something like this was possible even in medieval times in the age of the great monasteries and nunneries, so certainly we should accept no propaganda that would claim we can't do it in an age of machine labor and persistent underemployment. (Not even if Obamacare managed to get the rate low by rationing out a lot of 28-to-29-hour-a-week jobs) It should be possible to fix a large portion of society's ills at once. Wnt (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• As many of us are probably painfully aware, especially the addicted among us, some of our most prolific editors are also some of our poorest. The reality of many editors being unemployed welfare recipients who have enough time to work full-time on Wikipedia (and do!) is so well-understood that we joke about it. Although there is a long list of problems with any such editorial compensation concept, not least that the most disadvantaged globally won't be in Appalachia or any of the growing number of undeveloping regions of abject poverty in the United States and Western Europe anyway, I have little doubt that this will be appealing to many. Any editor reading this thread who has to rely on SNAP (or their localized equivalent) just to afford groceries probably fantasizes about such a concept with regularity, alongside basic income and perhaps changes beyond that.
  I have no faith that it will ever become a reality, and probably shouldn't since nonprofits funded by the poor shouldn't be used to fund the poor. Nonetheless, I think the fact that this idea might be appealing at all to any reflects more poorly on the society that permits such conditions to produce such an idea than on those clamoring for it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 15:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RE: "nonprofits funded by the poor" LOL just like Corporate Dems are funded by $27 donations from the poor. Doesn't the WMF get money from Google and other corporations? Those "donations" might be given (wink, wink) to make sure that their Wikipedia profiles are kept relatively free of negative information, like their record on environmental protection. And, if it's OK for Amazon's warehouse workers to collect SNAP, why not Wikipedia editors as well?

"the most disadvantaged globally won't be in Appalachia" Right, that's the point... to make "affirmative action payments" to Global South editors... a lot of the edits I make aren't rocket science. I could train these new editors on how to make the type of gnome-edits I make to clear maintenance queues, which would free me up to work on more higher-level stuff that I keep putting off, because I'm not getting much of any help to clear the more routine work queues. These are the type of edits that any for-profit corporation would outsource to the third world for sure. wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Paid editing is one of my hobbyhorses. I'm all for some form of it because of one issue, but I can understand why people would be against it because of a second:
  • Pro paid editing One overlooked issue is that to produce useful content, one must spend time doing research. Once upon a time, a Wikipedia article could be produced by taking an easily-accessible source & paraphrasing it. That's why a lot of older Wikipedia articles are heavily based on public domain sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. However, all of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, & getting to the next batch requires serious & dedicated research. I had to give up writing articles on Ethiopian topics (which I did for reasons such as there are more articles on Antarctica than any African country) because I found it frustratingly difficult to obtain information about Ethiopia. For example, I spent about $500 on books about that country to produce the articles I did write. (FWIW, I may have more books about that country than my local public library.) And with a mortgage & family I couldn't justify buying any more books about that country that I needed to write more & better articles. Right now I'm working on articles on Roman history, for which the information is more easily available -- yet I need to translate important articles into English to use. (I can muddle thru German language sources, but rely on Google & Bing to translate articles in French & Italian.) I not only end up donating time to Wikipedia -- which I expect to do -- but money to buy specialized works because it takes longer than a few months to extract their content.
  • Contra paid editing The major reason I feel people are against it -- & I fully sympathize & understand this reason -- is that if it is permitted $BOOGEYMAN will pay people to rewrite articles to whitewash/slant articles to favor his agenda. It is hard to argue with the person cutting your paychecks. And this is currently a chronic problem; when people mention "paid editing", the first thing that comes to mind is, indeed, $BOOGEYMAN hiring a hack to write or rewrite an article about a given corporation or political ideology. Everyone here can find lot of examples of this abuse. This toxic abuse makes it hard for any one person to make a persuasive case that if they received some kind of honorarium it would result in one or more good articles that might not otherwise be written.

Even if this problem could not be resolved, it would be nice to provide some kind of token support & enable active Wikipedians who meet some level of qualification to have their research subsidized. Even were it something as minimal as a 10% discount for purchases at Amazon. But IMHO the Foundation is so opposed to providing any financial help to Wikipedians (or members of other Wikimedia projects) they wouldn't bother with even a figleaf such as a discount for very active Wikimedians. -- llywrch (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The distinction should be made between "paid by the WMF" and "paid by third parties". By only allowing "paid by third parties" the door is opened for "$BOOGEYMAN". In theory "paid by the WMF" could provide a check-and-balance against COI editing, if the incentives were well-designed. These editors would be paid for content protection and administration; content creation could be paid algorithmically based on number of added bytes that aren't reverted, or subjectively based on editor's assessments of content quality and value (like how votes are taken to determine the best photographs that have been uploaded). – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on teen suicides

Talk:Suicide_of_Katelyn_Davis#If_a_deliberate_self-destructive_act_is_made_for_notability_and_others_emulate_the_act_-_is_there_a_danger_to_Wikipedia I think poses an interesting issue.

Newspapers now generally do not give publicity to "publicity suicides" in many places, as the number of "copycat suicides" is sufficiently high, that the initial coverage may be seen as causative of other suicides.

[1] from the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin presents several views. The case at hand is about a suicide who sought publicity and the likelihood of "copycat suicides" possibly as a result of the Wikipedia article itself.

[2] A Scientific American article points out : In Vienna of the 1980’s, a spate of subway suicides was combatted by the city’s main newspapers’ decision to substantially curtail the publicity surrounding these deaths. After a certain date, these suicides were no longer mentioned. This coincided with a progressive fall in the number of subway suicides illustrating the power for good of the media.

See also [3]

Teen suicide is at a very regrettable level in the US. [4] up 70% from 2006 to 2016.

The question remaining is: "Should Wikipedia give publicity to suicides of otherwise non-notable persons, where such suicides may reasonably cause 'copycat suicides' of other non-notable persons?"

Obviously a suicide of a notable (not counting the suicide) person would still be mentioned in their biography, but the case at hand is one where the desire of the person was for publicity, and the person otherwise is decidedly not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines. Collect (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The question is not whether we should have these types of articles but what constraints such articles should conform to. In a nutshell they should be stub articles without images. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The case is clearly notable. The free speech angle alone makes it worth covering -- As recently as January 2017, Facebook held out and kept the video up for two weeks before giving into the censorship warriors ... something they wouldn't do now for anything at all. There were several articles about how the video "couldn't be removed from the Internet" simply because it wasn't illegal, an idea which post-Charlottesville seems laughable. True, I did eventually find it ([5], cited at [6]), but these are far more remote locations than what I am accustomed to.

As for the article, I would utterly reject any notion of "permanent stubs", which is an oxymoron, real light on the oxy. There are all kinds of noble causes a person can put their hand to, like trying to get Sanders elected, or trying to stop suicide, but our noble cause involves collecting and sharing what we know so that we can find out what happened. I am highly doubtful that learning causes suicide, but if it does, that's not my department. I'm not censoring this suicide any more than I'm censoring articles about Camus or Nietschze based on what reading them might do to somebody.

I should add that the purveyors of laws and prosecutions about cyberbullying never seem to be bothered by the fact that their efforts have led to dozens of highly publicized world news articles that, again and again, have showed kids that suicide really is the golden road to show them all, get them all sent to jail for saying nasty things. I should also add that the coverage here has suggested a scenario of severe psychological or sexual abuse might have been involved, though I don't know what the police investigation came up with if anything. On the scheme of things, Wikipedia has very little influence on these things, if any, and its role isn't to try to use that influence for the "best" result, but to do what it is for - share the data. Wnt (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Where publicity is withheld, teen copycat suicides do not occur. Where teen suicides are publicized, copycat suicides occur. The influence of such publications as Wikipedia (and Wikipedia is indeed a "publication" in this sense) is that they end up promoting copycat suicides. This has now been pretty well established in a number of studies. As for Share the Data -- that path leads to an interesting point including EU laws concerning privacy and copyright. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to disregard "wrong laws" and to obey "right laws" only. Collect (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at your sources. Your top source from ethics.wisc.edu doesn't talk about Wikipedia; what it does give is an editorial I could agree with:

The pain of publicity is real. But it would be a mistake to conclude that journalists should not cover these personal tragedies. To be blunt, suicides are frequently newsworthy – a public official in trouble commits suicide, a distraught military hero takes his life, a hockey player dies after battling depression. These cases are frequently more than newsworthy. They challenge journalists to explore the economic and social factors that may help to induce suicidal behavior. When we witness a string of suicides among any group – among students at a school or among young people in an aboriginal community — suicide is no longer personal but social. It is the responsibility of journalists to explore the reasons for these disturbing patterns in the fabric of society. Suicide is often a taboo subject in society. Journalists need to break down our inclination not to discuss such painful events.

For your second source, I should note that by its own description the "Werther effect" was not held up in further experiments. Even if a wave of subway suicides progressively slowed after a media pact to reduce publicity -- what was the null hypothesis? That subway suicides had suddenly gone up one day and would remain common forever afterward??? No, I think not; I think any reaction was bound to be followed by a drop in numbers in that case, so it proves nothing. Some people cited in the Wikipedia article seem to give it credit, but the effect seems pretty nebulous for something we're supposed to backtrack from core values about. The "journalistic codes" (I am not condoning these) it mentions regard sensationalization or multiple articles, something Wikipedia doesn't do anyway. And even if there turned out to be something to the claim, I am still inclined to think that shaking the tree doesn't mean it will produce more apples, no matter how many thumps you hear at the time. And beyond all that, there is still the issue of whether it's really any of my business to override most people's decision to kill themselves - if they don't value their own lives, why should I make a crusade out of it? How about we instead fight the ever-increasing financial inequality in the world, the loss of human rights, the rise of gangs and war criminals, the reduction of culture to abject mindless materialism, any of the things that drive people to despair? Oh, I'm not saying it isn't good to talk somebody off the ledge, but not at the cost of accepting censorship or other things I know to be terribly wrong. Wnt (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The "editorial" is not the entire article, as one might infer from your post. "Some people argue that journalists should follow the guidelines on reporting suicide provided by organizations such as the Canadian Psychiatric Association. This association advises journalists to avoid putting the word “suicide” in the headline, and to avoid giving details of the method used. It also says that media should avoid photos of the deceased, avoid admiration of the deceased, avoid front page coverage, and avoid repetitive and excessive coverage." seems also rather important. Wikipedia should responsibly ask two questions:

Do copycat suicides occur?

If so, ought Wikipedia use guidelines and policies to reduce their occurrence?

The latter is the question I pose here. [7] from Psychology Today: "Ultimately, the responsibility is on all of us to recognize how far-reaching suicidal behavior can be, especially when the contagion is spread by word of mouth or sensational media stories. " We cannot hide suicides of actually notable persons, but where the person is intrinsically non-notable, ought we make them famous through Wikipedia which is not supposed to be a newspaper? WP:NOTNEWS Collect (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Sensational media stories" is the key phrase here. Wikipedia articles are factual and non-sensational. The nature of "copycat suicides" is debatable. Even if suicides do increase after an event, that doesn't necessarily mean the total number of suicides taking place is any higher, because those taking their own lives may have still done the act at a different time. Even if coverage of an event does cause additional suicides, we shouldn't ignore the fact that coverage can also significantly reduce suicides, because it can cause people to take suicide seriously and get themselves or others help in time, or attract awareness to the issue and generate additional funding for suicide research and prevention. Also, the "copycat suicide" phenomenon seems to be related to initial media coverage, and not older events. The event Suicide of Katelyn Davis took place nearly two years ago, and its page is nearly as old. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If "publicity suicides" or "internet suicides" is a thing discussed, perhaps explore merging them - Teens and older - as a section in Suicide that discusses that concept. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. There is a middle ground between not having articles on teen suicides and having articles on teen suicides. In my opinion that is simply to not have images in these articles. The images are invariably incongruous with the sad nature of the articles. Young, smiling, and attractive images as found in the articles in Category:Bullycide (example: Suicide of Katelyn Davis) are unnecessary. The reader can find these and a lot of other images of the subjects of those articles elsewhere. Our choice of image is always arbitrary. By way of comparison we have articles on porn actors. But we don't illustrate those articles with pornographic images. We are not censored but we try not to be a shock site. I would contend that the contrast between smiling, young, and attractive people and the fact of their having committed suicide is "shocking". We can simply act with sensitivity and not include images in these articles. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that comment in response to mine? A problem with a stand-alone article on an individual suicide is "one event". If we merge/redirect to articles under Suicide or its daughter articles, we are not removing from the pedia entirely, we are rearranging in context. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Alanscottwalker, it is not a response to your comment. I just wanted to get that view into this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am curious - at what point is a suicide of a non-notable person sufficient to be notable in and of itself? In the case at hand, the person deliberately sought publicity, for example. Ought we give publicity to each such suicide where the person seeks publicity? Collect (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

At what point? The practical answer is at the point you have enough people voting 'keep' (enough to at least get to no consensus) with some-kind of rationale within our squishy N "guidelines" ('lots of news') - so my suggestion is seek to modify to focus on the prominent location (social media) - apparently we have a daughter article on suicide location - and/or on the prominent phenomena "publicity suicide", assuming that is discussed by RS, as a thing. Or if something is an example of prominently 'youth suicide' redirect to that. (see also WP:NOTCASE - not case study, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem far more useful to show sensitivity by having the images -- by which I mean, the most relevant images, showing how a little girl gradually sets up to turn herself into a swinging chunk of meat. There is a strange forward-and-reverse here. On one hand, a video seems to make a suicide notable, because people apparently lack the imagination to understand what happened otherwise; yet they would imagine that without the video, it didn't happen. For example, the first source Collect cited talking about how to cover "suicide" was written in the week after the September 11th attacks, when some uninspired journalists claimed that people had committed "suicide" after jumping off the building, and blathered on about the horror of it. What they don't seem to have in their minds is the probable occurrence of a larger number of people who didn't jump out the window, but took their chances in the roaring flames instead. (Which one, exactly, was a suicide?)

The problem with those looking to cover up such articles is that they extend the same kind of thinking to the speculated outcome of media actions. Can news coverage of a suicide inspire a suicide right after? Maybe. But what if it also inspires people to take suicide seriously and get their kids help in time? What if it improves the funding for new research? What if it makes people ask why people want to kill themselves anyway, and how to make a society better than that? We aren't meant to be animals capable of reacting only to what we physically see with our eyes at the moment we see it; we're meant to be able to imagine a wide range of possibilities. And we're also meant to be able to see that certain concepts like free expression and free inquiry and free thought are good things generally, and to be able to have faith in that as we think through our options. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a topic for discussion for the movers and shakers of Facebook but a topic that really doesn't directly relate to WP too much. Suicides of non-notable people are not notable and are not the topics of articles. Killing oneself does not make one WP:NOTABLE. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The case at hand is one where the only "notability" is the suicide itself - and what if someone else now "broadcasts" their own suicide expecting to be just as notable as the case at hand and perpetual memorialization on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to say that every single suicide (whether recorded or not) is a notable enough event for a Wikipedia article. However, some suicides are clearly notable, due to their high media coverage, or their effect on things such as new bullying legislation or social media policies and reporting tools. It's similar to school shootings such as the Columbine High School Massacre: Not every person who fires a gun in a school setting gets covered an article, however some school shootings are notable enough for various reasons to be covered. Should school shooting event articles be censored, to avoid people potentially wanting to commit their own school shootings in order to be "memorialized" in articles? Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about memorials, but it's not about non-memorialization either. Ideally, everything covered by multiple independent reliable sources will be covered. If we aren't there yet, it is up to any individual editor to establish our priorities by writing an article. We can say that a suicide "shouldn't" be notable, but I would say the same thing about Kardashians and pro wrestling. But you don't make a better map by erasing the countries you don't like! As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is the map, not the territory. Wnt (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What about Tyler Clementi, Amanda Todd and so forth? Our position is that a non-notable person doesn't get a full biography, but that they can be involved in a notable event (see also Tank Man, though the official story is not that he died, he just disappeared) Wnt (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Just proves the point that they are written as crap. They all have the same pulp: grizzly/tragic event; shock/horror; promise to do better - they should not be events (which try to be bios) - they should be in articles where they provide context. State Laws on Bullying, say, but the present treatment is crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Also explain hopeless despair

There is a myth that all suicides are due to financial problems or family quarrels or peer pressure bullying to feel worthless. Instead, we also need pages to actually explain, not redirect, "Hopelessness" or "Despair" or "hopeless despair" as a bewildering state of mind, not just clinical depression. I was imagining a page where various iconic or famous people are quoted about feeling hopeless and how they rebounded. The key issue seems to be the common warning, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" (or feeling). Explain how even wealthy people, even with friends who could help them rebound or renew their lives, might still give up due to mental fog which sees no hope, only endless despair. It is a feeling completely removed from the reality of having money, success and friends. Also expand on "morbid curiosity" as when swimming too far into deeper water, would anyone come to help. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

One solution

Back in 2016 we had a suicide crisis within one of our native communities. The situation was so extreme, e.g. here is a suicide note left by one of the victims, a 13 year old girl: “She said ‘I am being bullied. I’m tired. I’m tired of being sick’ and she said ‘I’m sorry I love you please don’t blame yourselves,’” Jimbo, to his credit, was even willing to fly in (that ended up not being necessary) to help out. I got involved via the Attawapiskat facebook group, Attawapiskat suicide awareness which now has 3,616 members. I now have 53 facebook friends who live "on the res". My plan was to help them become Wikipedia editors as a way to broaden their interests and stimulate healthy thinking and communication. The crisis ended and now there are virtually no suicides there, afaik, so what stopped the suicides? Btw, I got zero interest from anyone in editing Wikipedia, but I was struck by how many Attawapiskats appreciated my effort and wanted to be facebook friends with me. Here is what actually did happen: -Our federal government responded aggressively in person. Our Prime Minister and a team of politicians and mental health professionals flew in and stayed for quite a while, maybe a week, to find out what the community needed and wanted. -Then they poured in a lot of money for a new community centre and sports facility that the young people wanted as well as mental health services. -The over the top attention to the issue made it virtually impossible for any potential suicide person to feel alone or to lack attention.

So, notwithstanding all the different individual clinical causes of suicides, the facts in this instance show that ongoing community caring and outreach to each individual person...for example an elder started teaching young boys the traditional native ways to fish successfully...will stop a lot of suicides. That African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child", is right on, I think.

So, my personal involvement yielded no quantifiable results. But I learned a hell of a lot. I learned how truly gentle in spirit the Attawapiskats are, how hungry they are for societal contacts and communication...every single day I get a facebook notice about some birthday or just "what I'm doing today" kind of thing. But the main thing is, they had all of the tools for communication before and during the suicide crisis in 2016. The tools did not stop the suicides, but the very tangible and even extreme attention from the leaders of the country and the rest of the country and the reassurance/assurance that each individual is cared for by our entire country and population seems to have done the trick. I know how humbled and good I felt with the open arms welcoming and attention I got/get from my 53 Attawapiskat facebook friends and within the 3,616 member strong facebook "Attawapiskat suicide awareness" group.

I still think that Wikipedia editing might be useful for the Attawapiskat community; maybe I'll give that another try as a result of this discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

On second thought

"It takes a country to raise a child" is what the Attawapiskat experience shows. Starting at the top, maybe. Perhaps because our/Attiwapiskat exposure ( via internet, which they had in 2016 and still have) to so much stuff of a national or international nature means that the attention and caring which we/they crave needs to be shown by our national leaders and institutions? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Response from Jimbo

I've been traveling and I'm just now catching up. First, I think the article in question is a very very clear case of a WP:BLP1E. It should be deleted. Simply renaming the article to "Suicide of..." while it is still clearly a (very weak) biography is not enough. To the extent the case itself is notable (it isn't particularly) it can be legitimately covered in whatever article is relevant (and if you can't think of one, that further proves the point that it isn't particularly notable).

Remember the point of BLP1E, and indeed the BLP policy in general, is human dignity. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Notice that most of the sources for this article are the worst sort of tabloid and clickbait pseudojournalistic websites, youtube videos, etc. It's a bad article and we should not have it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

disclaimer reminder message

Dear Sir

Wikipedia present unconfirmed information to the audience. The validity of this information is mixed: Some are valid and some are invalid. invalid information is Scattered across the articles, like minefield; and Detection of false information is sometimes impossible. Especially for readers who Unaware of the disclaimers. This issue is Very dangerous In medical articles.

Disclaimers must be Perfectly in sight and first thing that the audience sees. A Sentence like “The content of this article is editable and Not guaranteed.” In persian “محتوای این مقاله قابل ویرایش و اعتبار آن تضمین‌نشده است.”. This action may increase the number of contributors and Take away the risk.

what is your opinion? I give you a clear suggestion and Please give me a clear answer.

Sincerely, Mousavi

• this letter also has been mailed.

Seyyedalith (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Avast lists Wikipedia under "unreputable browser search settings"

File:Avast disses wikipedia 1.png

As I proceeded to login I got this "alert"

File:Avast disses wikipedia 1.png

The fix is to agree to Yahoo terms and conditions...

I just encountered the curious warning from Avast! software. My feeling is they deserve a nastygram, if not a full fledged help file on virus protection for Wikipedia volunteers that might identify some programs at more of a boost than a cash-in phase of their reputation cycle. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How odd. Telling me may not be the most effective way to get this to the attention of someone who can do something about it, as a side note!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The proper place to report this is at [ https://www.avast.com/en-us/false-positive-file-form.php ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Suicide

Wales, if you google "suicide", the first hit is Wikipedia.

I wonder if it could offer an immediate help service, such as phone numbers to prevention help lines. I am fully aware of the global nature of Wikipedia, and the considerable difficulties in maintaining an unbiased viewpoint.

Yet I feel that a simple short box heading that directed the majority of readers to appropriate organisations - such as the US National Suicide Prevention Lifeline or the UK Samaritans (charity) (for example) is likely to save lives.

I realise this is outside the remit of regular Wikipedian norms, hence the appeal to Jimbo. [aside: - Two people tried to reinstate that sig. [8] [9] I had many problems trying to undo that bot sig, I got "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive"... etc. I've attempted to discuss it. [10]. Wow. I cannot question "Bonadea" because their talk is semi protected. I can't even ask about that, because when I try, I get that same message about "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive".

[123.456.789...seriously does anyone care who is asking?]

Wikipedia is an extremely public-facing website. It's foolish to assume that the only people who will call a phone number on a Wikipedia article are those with a legitimate reason to do so, or that the phone number is to the organisation/person in question. Not to mention, we generally treat phone numbers as personally-identifying information to be suppressed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Furry dude, what the fuck has this got to do with supression? I'm talking about giving phone numbers to call, not the number of someone who is suicidal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk • contribs)

And that is precisely what I am addressing. The ad hominem isn't helping your case. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Jez, explain why you apparently think that Wikipedia:Oversight has any relevance to my point, or STFU and eat kibbles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@82.4.173.193: If you'd bothered to read what I wrote instead of just staking out a position in order to troll people you'd have your answer. But you're evidently not interested in hearing why we do not include phone numbers in articles under any circumstances, so debating you is a waste of time. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"why we do not include phone numbers in articles under any circumstances" - wanna bet me on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.173.193 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pingage @GorillaWarfare: @Keegan: @Newyorkbrad: @Risker: @Sphilbrick: @Timotheus Canens: @Worm That Turned:. I know you care about this issue. 82.4.173.193 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)