User talk:Jimbo Wales

How to mention political groups in a page

Tangent from: "#Horrors of a POV-fork page"

On the subject of Irish slavery, the issue was noted how sources about indentured servitude referred to "racist" groups, and that linkage seemed to slant coverage away from wp:NPOV neutral text as if saying the topic were a "favorite subject of wife-beaters" or such. In other words, the problem becomes a form of "begging the question" when describing a viewpoint. How else could Wikipedia mention various political groups, tied to a viewpoint, without writing an intrinsic connection between one particular political group as the only people polled about the viewpoint? Should a page limit the mention of both supporters or opponents, of an idea, into a separate section of the page, and include the time periods when the polling was done? -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Beware ad hominem text: Jimbo, I know you are busy, so this is just FYI. WP does cover the problem of quoting racist websites, as the issue of "Association fallacy" (Guilt by association), also as the section in page Ad hominem. Hence, to follow scholarly discourse and avoid poor form with argumentum ad hominem, then WP should remove mentions toward racists, or reverse-racists or such, when describing the aspects of a topic. It would be very difficult to describe issues, in an objective coverage, when including where "many racists" agree with scholars who note the term "Irish slaves" has been used for centuries about Irish captives of 1640-1670 etc. In general, WP should avoid descriptions connecting to obvious insulting or derogatory terms, which could sour the viewpoints of readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point I can't decide if you are incompetent or trolling. The sources are absolutely clear that the principal motivation for pushing the Irish slaves meme is white nationalism. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Othering

Somehow, in trying to understand this concern and the discussion thereof, I found myself at Other (philosophy) and specifically this:

"The term Othering describes the reductive action of labeling a person as someone who belongs to a subordinate social category defined as the Other. The practice of Othering is the exclusion of persons who do not fit the norm of the social group, which is a version of the Self.[7]"

Which (Othering) I am feeling might be the most important and consistent social problem which can and should be addressed and thought about. However, it is much more difficult to address than any one specific example of othering, imo. For example, I was at least once called a "Ni___Lover" as a child and I remember that I immediately felt like the "other" (outside of my group of pals) for a moment. I don't think I've ever been called a racist, but I suppose I could be because I like the old confederate monuments. I was also never called a "Commie" or "Dirty Commie" (as far as I know), as many Americans were back in the 50s. I hear there is some "othering" going on these days regarding red-heads, calling us "gingers" but now that my hair is white or gone no one can tell I used to be a red-head, but although I was called "Red" by my school bus driver, it was not with a negative connotation.

What is being called "tribalism" re: USA politics might also be a form of "othering". It is interesting that in Wikid77's sharing, the woman said something like "We're not all like that" which reflects, I think, an acceptance by that woman of being in the "other" grouping...i.e., an acceptance of the "othering".Here we have the weirdest example of a recognition and/or paranoia of economic status "othering" that I've seen.

I think Othering is a real obstacle to any substantive advancement of humanity. Its nothing new but may be getting more prevalent. Its also a really intellectually lazy and or stupid way of thinking, imo, and has no place in Wikipedia editing or discussions that I can think of right now. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting issue, where "othering" could also be used to insinuate a viewpoint was a peculiar fringe view, beyond an obvious ad hominem attack which links a topic to a radical or hate-group. As for the monuments, even President Grant stated how the world thought the North had mistreated the Confederacy, where General Lee and Stonewall Jackson had become "demigods" to the people (see Pres. Grant, 1878 p.385), while the North was viewed as wrong for hiring mercenaries (or Hessians) to overwhelm the struggling Confederacy, who only sought to defend their way of life. The next step is to trace how the revisionist history has twisted the beloved Confederacy into a hate-group target, rather than the honorable Rebels who were supported by millions in the North. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should be mindful of othering to avoid alienating our readers. That's why we try to write from a neutral POV, without the self-indulgent mocking of RationalWiki nor the theocratic sycophancy of Conservapedia. Nevertheless, we should never go as far as sacrificing clarity and facts, or we would cease being an encyclopedia.

Othering does have some useful purposes. For example, by othering kids in school who don't learn, we ensure that others do. Today, we might argue that even that othering is contraproductive -- maybe kids can be allowed to choose not to learn and still learn, maybe people can be allowed to nurse all their political opinions without public scorn and still get along. Still, if we want to stop othering altogether and keep our progress too, we'll absolutely have to come up very soon with a (less jarring) alternative to entice people to learn and contribute to the society, and especially to stop doing the othering themselves.

To illustrate by example: Wikid77 has above come one step short of defending the "peculiar institution". I appreciate his continued contributions in 60,000 edits on Wikipedia and, based on his user page, even happen to share interests with him, and don't want to alienate him, both out of human compassion, and respect for Wikipedia's interests. But I also feel that to attract readers and contributors, we must not alienate black readers either, whom Wikid77 others by his apologetic description of an institution that went to war to uphold human slavery and black slavery in particular; and that to maintain Wikipedia's objectivity and self-objectivity, the readers (including Wikid77) should understand that Wikid77's claims about Irish indentured servitude in the previous discussion didn't conform to the sources he cited. How to handle this with tact? Daß Wölf 01:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To handle this with tact, simply read what a person has written, and not over-imagine what they have "come one step short" of writing. As Jimbo has advised, talk to a person about specifics. To imagine what a person might say, and then draw conclusions, is a form of straw man fallacy, as arguing from a false premise. I perhaps came one step short of saying how Robert E. Lee and his wife, Mary Randolf Curtis, were both antislavery, and Lee knew the difficulty of emancipation because he had worked for years to free his wife's family slaves in a gradual manner, to reduce disruption in her father's two estates where those slaves lived. The Union went to war as blockades against Confederate shipping ports. You also claimed an institution went to war to "uphold human slavery" but that's not what the sources reveal, as they state they were protecting slaves, as people, in a Christian concern, in those Southern states, where the overarching cause was a 40-year political sectionalism, with the Northern states promoting high import duties ("bounties" or tariffs; see 1861: "Morrill Tariff"), while the transatlantic shippers had less money to buy cotton (etc.) for the return journeys overseas. Federal tax money was spent more on navigation and lighthouses in the North than the South. Even the churches split North/South, such as the Southern Baptists. There were more slave states in the North, plus slave territories per the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The problem was a North/South schism, more than slavery. Don't just imagine, but read the constitutions of each seceded state, and the Confederate Constitution, where they forbid the African slave trade and limit their president to one 6-year term. The Confederacy's apathy to the Corwin amendment (slavery amendment) shows the issue was not slavery per se, but rather the lives of slaves and others in the Confederacy, as protection against Northern aggression. Dont imagine, just read what the sources actually state, and avoid people speculating "one step short" of something else. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting details which I never heard of. One other detail that sticks with me is that there was a man who financed John Brown, founded the Republican Party, predicted the Civil War well in advance and trained young men to be ready to lead the Union Army, and founded the benign Skull and Bones and yet few people ever heard of him. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another related aspect is the wide ranges of subjectivity and relativity involved with the othering, and I have a great personal example. After growing up in segregated and, by any definition, racist, Georgia, I came to live in Toronto and had the luck to attend a sociology course given by Wilson A. Head. He asserted absolutely one day that there was a lot of racism in Toronto to which I quickly replied openly in class that he was wrong and that I knew what racism really was because I grew up in Georgia and there was none in Toronto. Only much later did I discover he also grew up in Georgia, so case closed; He was right and I was wrong, right?

And yet, when my son, born in Toronto, was in Grade 1, he had a best friend who was very black and the only non-white in the class. About half way through the school year, just for my own curiosity, I asked my son if he noticed anything different about his best friend. My son thought hard and then said; "he's taller than everyone else". Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are there 52 words (with bar-barous "phenomenology" in pride of place) in the lead line of that Wikipedia entry? The first line of Alterity does its dialectical dua|el hoopdancing with much greater economy. Seeing oneself painted other can indeed be a bona fide Jes Grew experience. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights in Europe

I am reaching out to you Jimbo about the need for the Wikimedia to keep the free knowledge movement in Europe strong. Already Project Gutenberg have blocked access to their site in Germany after a court there ordered them to block access to 18 public domain works. (PD in USA, but not in Germany) [1] [2]. It is important that European governments do not censor Wikipedia over copyright when enacting the provisions of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market which as you must know, will be passed into law individually by each European country. The legislatures have the ability to alter the overall terms and make it easier for people in European countries to restrict free knowledge. It is important that we do not think the battle is over and become complacent in fighting for free knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complet Idiot (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Striking comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet per WP:SOCKSTRIKE IntoThinAir (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'll do what I can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Airports

Hi Jimbo, long time no see, hope you are well and that you had a nice thanksgiving!

Listen, there is a thing going on at Talk:Sofia Airport which you, and all ladies and gentleman here, may want to know because it raises some interessting aspects. Let me put you into context of what I find important there, cause it ends up not being about some peripherical European airport, but about the approach we have as a project.

The article Sofia Airport is a typical article just as all articles of airports of that and bigger size are. The article structure and content are the norm present in, I dare to say, over 95% of our airport articles. This article had nothing special, till recently, when it was nominated for Featured Article. A series of editors uninvolved with airports or aviation came wanting firmly to remove the Sofia_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations table. The few Bulgarian editors that worked on improving the article thought it was extremelly unfair since all other airport articles have such a table. Obviously, WP:OTHER applies, but the problem are the reasons provided for the removal of the table. As all can see, the issue dominates the latest threads at Talk:Sofia Airport. The main arguments are WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTDIR, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTTRAVEL, ammong others. The thing is that the problem of the Airlines and destinations table present in all airport articles with active schedulled flights, was already discussed at least at:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_15#Request_for_comments_on_the_Airlines_and_destinations_tables
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_140#Should_Wikipedia_have_and_maintain_complete_lists_of_airline_destinations?
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive296#Mass_deletion_of_pages_-_question_of_protocol

At WP:Airports, project most directly related, the same concerns were expressed, and the result was to keep the tables while at Village pump the result was to delete. I didn´t participated in any of those discussions, I only got recently aware of the issue, and my intention is not to lobbie for any of the sides, I understand both. I have been defending the side that votes for keeping the table because of several reasons, but I brought the issue here because the issue itself opens way for analising the road our project is taking and how is Wikipedia positioning itself in the vast world of the internet. Depending on the perspective and interpretation, both sides can be right.

Allow me to make a minor introduction so the aspect of the question I am refering to becomes fully visible. I am an only child, and as such, I spent much time alone. At certain age the encyclopedias became my brothers and sisters. Not only I literally eat everything about the issues I was interested in, but I even grabbed encyclopedias opening random pages and reading what was there. I was fascinated by the encyclopedias because of all they included and they could take me pretty much everywhere. Afterwords many things happened in my life, but when I discouvered Wikipedia, that encyclopedic wonderfull feeling came back! Not only the joy of swimming in knolledge, but this was even better, I could activelly participate. Even as a child I dreamed about being able to correct or complete information in encyclopedias, and now I was able to contribute and improve it. We have pictures, multimedia, links, we can even upload stuff! When young, since I had numerous encyclopedias in different languages and sizes, some quite old, some new, I always found interesting to compare content. I often noticed how the view over different subjects changed in time or language. I found curious the aspect of the impossibility of updating encyclopedias, what was written there was eternal, even if a year after being published, events occured or discouveries were made that totally changed the perspective. Our project here is fascinating preciselly because it is dynamic in that sense, our content is being addapted continuously to any new reality, and even the old versions are available to see.

This opened way for Wikipedia to be much more than an encyclopedia in its classical sense, and opened way for content to be included which didn´t made sense in a static written encyclopedia. I see that happening right here in the case of airports. What would one include in an article of an airport in a classical encyclopedia? Obviously its history, evolution, its structure, important events, and available statistics and data. One could write about the airlines that were based in it and used it as its hub, write about the main airlines and most succesfull routes, etc. But our encyclopedia being dynamic opens way for us to give complete, ever updated, data. This is an advantage quite usefull for a reader. This aaspect didn´t made much sense in the past, but now, in this form, it does. People travel more than ever before, and will travel even more, and can use us now effectivelly. I mean, not just in the old sense of using an encyclopedia for basic information, but actually getting live information for planning a trip. Me, my family, my friends, we used preciselly our lists here at the airports for information to travel. And the best thing is that we have enough enthusiastic editors involved in mantaining those lists complete and updated. Me, for instance, despite being an airlines enthusiast, I never ever recall having added or removed a company or destination in those lists, I contribute in the prose, specially historic parts, of airports and airline companies. But I am very glad to see that there are people who mantain those tables perfect.

So, this decition of keeping or removing the tables, actually has to do with much more than the airport of Sofia itself. It has to do with the approach our project will have for this cases where the advantage of being dynamic, in comparison to static written encyclopedias, can be taken. I personally think we should take those advantages. I already sugested that recentism is solved by expanding the other sections of the article, and not by removing content. Also, the tables, as such, absolutelly solve the problem of WP:PROMO because they include all airline companies and destinations whithout making distinction or favouring any. The proposal of the opponents goes in the line of mentioning in prose the most important companies and routes, but how can they not see the problem of PROMO that would create? They claim the table creates instability in the article (yes, editors are constantly updating the table, that is a good thing) but how can they not predict the instability that would be ceated by mentioning only some companies and routes and not others? What criterium would be applied? The top 5 routes? Why not 7? ... The table has them all equally represented without favouring any, and, besides, our project has to take advantage of this situations for the reasons I explained. What you think? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is highly inconsistent when it comes to recentism. The proper point of view, in my opinion, is that encyclopedic material should always remain so. If you write an article about a hurricane and say its track was predicted to pass over Florida, and then it hits Cuba instead, if you do it right, you should only have to add the part about it hitting Cuba, without taking out the sources that said it would hit Florida, because they're still reliable sources, still relevant, still important. They just happened to be wrong as viewed with 20/20 hindsight.

Unfortunately, in practice this is often not done. People change the map on Syrian civil war (File:Syrian Civil War map.svg to match whatever the current situation is, without the faintest notion that the article should be written as a military history in which the history is actually important. We don't have regularly or relevantly spaced revisions, we don't display them in the article anyway. Ditto Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) and every other article I recall seeing on ongoing hostilities. I think it is routine to take out "outdated" information on the hurricane articles. I even recall seeing some discussion about trying to better set off updated content at the markup level, though I forget the specifics. The result of this is that the table seems either totally within or totally outside of normal policy. Wnt (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I also noteced the problem you are exposing, and, although a bit different than the airports table one I am into, its also in same latitude. I fully back up your point. Each time updates occur (be it a simple map or logo, or info in prose) we should add the updates but keep the previous valid info while obviously adapting it to the new context. You are absolutelly right in calling up the atention here about the bad habit of updating files instead of creating new separate ones. I noteced that as well, it occurs with maps, but also in cases of logos, coats of arms, etc. We, as an encycopedia, we should tell the story, not just the current situation, and this means saving all previous info, just adapting it to the new context.

However, the case with airports is different. The table itself should inevitably include just as updated as possible data. Everything else should go to the prose. My view is that in one airport article, we should have included both. The prose should contain all important past events, while the table should reflect updated info usefull for the reader. As I mentioned in the discussions at the Talk:Sofia Airport, I favour both: having an updated airlines and destinations list, and also having as expanded as possible, prose about past situations. The problem resumes to the fact that some ediors think that there are too many policies that favour the removal of the updated airlines and destinations table, wanting to have just prose mentioning selectivelly just the airlines and routes which were and are somehow important to the article. I actually favour having such prose, but I disagree with the dismissal of the table dealing with current situation. I think we win by having complete and updated information, instead of having a classical kind of encyclopedic article which would hardly tell you anything besides just history and general data. If the table gets deleted on grounds of recentism, all others in other airport articles will, and then it will become a strong argument for other kind of up-to-date-sort of tables, to be deleted. Notece that I am all in favour of having the prose about past events expanded as possible, it is just that I think both can live side-by-side. Both aspects should be expanded. Wikipedia should not disregard its capability static encyclopedias don´t have, which is having this extras of being capable of providing updated complete info, which in case of airports, it may bring quite a number of visitors finding it usefull because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How is the Wiki hierarchy supposed to work?

The lower parts I get: edits by IP-editors and newbies are checked by trusted users. Administrators check those trusted users. But who checks the administrators? As I found out, "bureaucrats" is not the answer. But what is? On a small wiki, there are usually no problems with admins that can't be overcome. But as a wiki grows, new structures are formed. Conflicts arise within groups. When you have 100+ admins, that is bound to happen.

And what if administrators would change the rules so they can't be removed from office with less than 75% support for that? And how can it be guaranteed that administrators feel free to voice their concerns about another administrator? Or even, how can it be guaranteed that simple users can voice their concerns?

I admit this case isn't entirely hypothetical - but what I'm curious about here is how it was all supposed to work in your mind. Because I can't really see that right now. - Alexis Jazz 20:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Committee has the authority to remove administrators. Also see Wikipedia:Administration. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks, but Commons doesn't have Arbcom afaik.. - Alexis Jazz 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Arbitration shows a failed proposal. Unlike Wikipedia there is no link to the discussion where it was rejected. If I could find that, I might be able to find what at least some people on commons think should be done when there is a dispute between admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thar she blows!

If you've never seen a financial bubble pop you should check out bitcoin now. Quick, before it disappears completely. The price is now about $3,735 down over 80% since last December (from about $19,500), down almost 60% (from about $9,000) on Feb.14 when I said it would go to $0, down over 40% (from about $6,500) in the last 2 weeks, down 17% in the last 3 days.

Why is the bubble bursting now? Actually, nothing much new, but the NY Times gives a pretty good summary at 5 Reasons Cryptocurrency Prices Are Plunging Again. The main reason is, as everybody should have known for several years, is that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are useless (according to The Economist). Most cryptocurrencies are also crooked as a dog's hind leg. Professor Nouriel Roubini of NYU says "Bitcoin is the ‘mother of all scams’ and blockchain is most hyped tech ever" . Eight Nobel laureates in economics have long ago said that bitcoin is a bubble. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Bing and half-a-dozen other large websites have banned their ads. China, which accounted for the majority of bitcoin transactions in 2017, has banned individual trading in bitcoin, bitcoin exchanges, and transaction processing ("mining").

But I'm not here just to say "I told you so." Wikipedia has a major problem dealing with financial scams. I've been trying to edit the Bitcoin article for months and found the ownership by bitcoin "fans" impossible to deal with. I did have some initial success putting in the above facts in the article, but they all got pushed to the bottom. You'd think when 8 Nobel laureates say that the bitcoin market is a bubble, that would be important enough to put into the article's lede. Sorry, but that can't be done on Wikipedia. And it must have cost our readers $10 million this year at a minimum.

tldr; the bitcoin bubble has popped, Wikipedia has trouble with financial scam articles, I told you so.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Got a date for that prediction that it it will go to $0? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You'd think one call saying the price would fall from $9,000 to today's bubble burst (now $3,665) would be good enough for you. But yes I did say $0.00. I don't expect you'll ever see quotes of $0.00 in the Wall Street Journal, but I'll say it's close to worthless now, and that will become apparent by New Year's Day (please remind me then). The problem for the small punter is that they can't get their money out even once they've sold. This has been reported on Reddit for about a month now for the Bitfinex exchange (parent of the infamous tether). Bitfinex/tether's problem is that they can't find a banker who'll deal with them for more than a few months. Money laundering regulations are too difficult to deal with (that's the nice way of saying it). This problem will spread to any other questionable exchanges as the small punter tries to leave the market in droves. It'll work something like a bank run. Nobody is going to be betting that bitcoin's price will be going up, and that's the only reason to buy bitcoin - you can't do anything else with it.

The big "investors", the so-called whales, have a different problem. Say one was worth $100 million last December when the bitcoin price was $20,000. When the price goes down more than 80% ($4,000), they are still worth on paper $20 million but there's no point in driving the quoted market price down to $2,000 with heavy selling or to $1,000 or $100. They won't find many buyers in any case. They'll just wait for the odd small punter to come in and sell to him at the higher price. Probably they'll do some wash trades (essentially trading with yourself) to record phoney prices. In other words, after the initial burst of volume, there will be very few trades, but at artificially high prices.

There's another huge problem - with the trade processors, the so-called miners. They burn a huge amount of electricity, are paid in bitcoin, and most of the big ones are located in China where they will soon be forced out of business by the government. If enough miners go out of business, folks might not even be able to have their trades processed. But it is worse than that. If one group of miners controls 51% of the computing power used for trade processing, they are able to dictate whatever trades (and prices) get processed. And who gets the bitcoins. There are only about 7 major groups of miners left now. Even before it gets down to 2 miners, the possibility of collusion among miners will drive away any trust in trade processing.

In short, there's no reason for anybody to buy, you can't get your money from a real bank if you sell, you can't trust the exchanges, you can't trust the trade processors. I forgot to mention that the regulators and FBI will be prosecuting more people. It'll be a real mess, but you might as well say that a bitcoin is worthless now, or soon will be. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 07:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, article space isn't the place for financial predictions or advice (even by Nobel laureates), but Jimbo-talk might be. I've had a price target of $2000/coin on Bitcoin for the past 2 years (from when it was at $700 to when it was at $20k), I expect we'll drop below that level in the next 6 months. Some of the other crypto-currencies (affectionately known by their detractors as "shitcoins") are very likely to go to 0. That's where the real shilling is; Cardano (platform) and Nxt are at AfD again and Justin Sun's TRON was deleted months ago. KodakCoin appears likely to never exist at all apart from the minds of some securities manipulators. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, I have disagreed with you in the past and probably will in the future. Always with respect. In this case, you were both correct and brave. I perceived things the way you did, but stepped back from involvement with articles about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. I have a close friend who is heavily involved and I feared to rock the boat. Thank you for doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the term "Dunning-Krugerrands" nicely covers it. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is substantial risk to partisan editing, and non-partisan editing can be intensely frustrating: when nearly all the sources are wrong, what do you do? And when Bitcoin was headed for $20,000, certainly there were many, many positive articles about it! So many that most of us knew not to touch it with an eleven foot pole, I would say. Frustratingly, sometimes an encyclopedia has to just parrot the nonsense of the age, and the only release for the enlightened editor is to try to shoehorn in a few "fringe" opinions (even if they come from Nobel laureates). Which is why it's important not to let policies get established that would try to exclude such opinions - it is better to err on the side of open-mindedness and allow a certain fraction of drivel into many articles than to exclude one good note of dissent.

I am still surprised that there has not been governmental action in the U.S. to impose civil forfeiture on Bitcoins that can be traced by the blockchain back to ransomware (even when the fraction is very small due to bitcoin "mixing"). Wnt (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You've identified a couple of key areas in the bitcoin article problem, but have a few misconceptions. First, there have been criminal prosecutions seizing bitcoins and regulatory actions with serious fines in the US and other countries. They've been a bit harder to do because of the blockchain's pseudonymity but once the criminal's public key (account number) gets exposed to the real world (and its hard to do transactions without telling people your account number) the blockchain actually makes it easier to track down the criminals. Like many other things with cryptocurrencies, mixers don't always work as advertised. Silk Road folks, ransomware hackers, and inside crypto-exchange thefts have all been prosecuted using the blockchain. Just this week a teenage bomb threat extortionist was convicted because he took his cash in bitcoin. But this type of stuff doesn't often make it into our articles, not because of our policies, but because of article ownership by seemingly interested parties.

The case "when nearly all the sources are wrong" is the very basic problem, but generally, if you stick to reliable sources, they get the story right most of the time. There is a deluge of propaganda - fake news - from the cryptocurrency press, but they are in no way reliable sources by our standards. The best sources e.g. Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Reuters, the New York Times, Washington Post (usually), get it right 90% of the time. The cable networks are all over the place but do have some accurate stories. But again, the choice of what's considered reliable sources gets limited by article ownership. For example, who ever said that Nobel laureates were fringe sources? Certainly our policies don't say that, though the article owners say that they are biased and I can't get them into the lede of the article. But it is not just Nobel laureates that are excluded as sources (when the are quoted in reliable sources). Financial industry leaders, e.g. Warren Buffett, George Soros, John Bogle, Jamie Dimon, etc. can't be used because (I can't even remember the stupid reasons the article owners give, maybe WP:WEIGHT?), websites that ban cryptocurrency ads (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Bing) - oh, they can be mentioned briefly way down in the article, warnings by regulators - ditto (sometimes). So actually, we have to realize that the sources I've listed above are the mainstream reliable sources and the crypto-friendly crap used by the article owners are the fringe opinions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Hello

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

• "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
• "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.

An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Saw you at the grocery

You were stocking bread. Financial problems?

No, seriously, he did look a lot like you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The most profitable business in the world

Here is a trivia question for you: what is the most profitable business in the world?

Free clue: it is an industry who's very existence makes it much harder for us to create high-quality encyclopedia pages.

Answer

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure Apple makes more... Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing revenue with profit. Stephen 23:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, Apple doesn't have a particularly high profit margin. Five years ago, Apple's profit margin ranked 40th among companies in the S&P 500. Now the company stands 113th. (Source: Bloomberg)

• Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
• Can’t Disrupt This: Elsevier and the 25.2 Billion Dollar A Year Academic Publishing Business
• Publishing Science: Impressive Profits from Intellectual Property
• Elsevier’s profits swell to more than £900 million
• Why For-Profit Academic Publishers Are Laughing All the Way to the Bank

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you still live in Tampa?