User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Eric Ely AfD

Note: Please start migrating this discussion over to Talk:Eric Ely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely has been closed as No consensus, with the article being kept. Coren asked here, "Do our content guidelines allow for inclusion of that person's biography?", quickly followed by "If they do, how do we fix them so that they do not." These were fair questions that we should try to answer. --JN466 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the refs calls in a Lakers game, can I fix the rules of basketball so they dont lose again? ;)Camelbinky (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One way to "fix" the result is to limit the number of bios to 10,000 people, say. A duff one would be deleted to make way for each new one - comparatives are much easier to judge than absolutes. I often use a similar principle for over-long articles. I don't add new material without removing some waffle. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another idea, following up on Stephen's. While I tend to agree with Camel, I think we could harness technology to help us here. Would there be a way to create a list of the least-viewed BLPs (over, say, a 3-month period)? If so, and if that list were made available, editors with BLP-deletion in their blood could review articles on that list to see if they were non-notable (by Wiki standards), and bring them to AfD them as appropriate. The premise here is that the least-viewed BLPs are of least interest to our readers, and perhaps most worth checking for notability--by those who wish to look for such things.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One practicable idea that's been raised before would be to have BLP AfDs default to "Delete" if there is no clear consensus. --JN466 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not an approach I would support, though I do believe the German wiki works that way.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ze German Viki is much more strict, because ze Germans haff strict laws. For example, all tools on the toolserver have to comply with the German laws. Annoying, but necessary. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Isn't it far worse to have a bad BLP on a marginally notable person than to have none at all? --JN466 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You have an assumption or two tucked away there. The Ely AfD was not with regard to a "bad BLP". Nor was there a consensus that the person was "marginally notable" -- there was a split between people, many of whom thought he was perfectly wiki-notable. And some of the no votes appeared to simply be a misunderstanding of the one-event rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think this is not a bad BLP ... try nominating it for GA or FA, or just a peer review! Your argumentation is incomprehensible to me, and this dialogue, clearly pointless. Let's leave it at that. --JN466 12:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Even some of the delete !voters expressed that view. I guess I wouldn't agree with your suggestion that all B-level bios and below are "bad". But that's fine, reasonable people can disagree.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Over the years, it's been quite a normal and salutary evolutionary process in sport to change the rules when people got hurt. Camelbinky, neither you nor me "lose" in a case like this; it's the BLP subject that loses. This article will still sit there in five years, even if the guy does sterling work over the period between now and then – sterling work that does not attract newspaper attention. It is simply not a very humane or responsible way to go about our business. You won't find articles like this in a reputable work like Gale's Encyclopedia of World Biography. --JN466 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Epeefleche: This mechanism already exists, through the {{blpunreferenced}} category; we cannot force editors to tackle deficient articles, neither can we require that deficient articles be brought up to standard other than by forcing the issue per WP:AFD. That is a perennial problem here in that articles which meet minimum requirements are left alone until some dedicated enthusiast comes along and resolves to spend the time and effort to take them to the next level. But my experience here is that although stub creation is useful, there are few editors who can, or will, make a useful article. I cut my editing teeth here on the Wikification project, and it was a useful experience. That does not appear to be happening any more, and we end up fire-fighting. Unhelpful. Rodhullandemu 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been bringing some articles up to scratch (or at least to the next level). It's very informative and I enjoy it (although unfortunately a lot of the best film sources are unreliable) - but it's lonely work for an extravert like me, so I come by the more public places (and articles) from time to time for a holiday. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER covers my counterarguments against limits on the number of BLPs we should have.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some indication of the number of editors who have seen an article recently. One with a lot of traffic is likely to be higher quality than one which is only occasionally read by an editor. The watch list measure comes close, but for some reason it has a lower limit which seems to be higher than almost all articles on WP, in particular the difficult ones. For example Eric Ely currently could have 29 watchers, or I could be the only one. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes I have seen an article recently (several in fact). I disagree with your premise that articles with more traffic are higher quality... perhaps that is somewhat true, but there are multiple exceptions to that just within the subset of Wikipedia articles that I work on. By both number of "visitors" and by number of editors who have it on their watchlist I would assume that Port of Albany-Rensselaer and Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District arent POPULAR articles, but I would say they both are much better than you would expect using a graph corelation based on your premise of "more watchers=better quality". Of course outliers will be expected from any hypothesis, perhaps these are just two of them.Camelbinky (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I agree it could only be a warning light and many of the best articles are specialist and may be rarely accessed or edited. Stephen B Streater (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If in three months only 2 people have accessed a BLP, it may well be that its usefulness is lesser than the risk it presents.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That right there is where I'm getting lost... what risk does a BLP that isnt "popular" (for lack of a better word) pose? Kenmore Hotel is a nice article, and I hope since I created and wrote it that it is indeed notable, but few will ever see it. But it keeps information around for the future, information that was scattered, information that may get lost in this digital information age, and allows for future bits found here and there to be brought here to one place in the future. I see Wikipedia's role as being more than an encyclopedia, more like the seed-banks around the world that save seeds from all the world's plants for the future in case of natural (or man-made) disaster so that we have diverse crops with different immunities and characteristics. Our goal, in my eyes is to save knowledge and history and science, etc. That's just how I personally wish Wikipedia was, though. So if the article is doing no actual harm, what's wrong with keeping it?Camelbinky (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the conversation is more about the damage that can be done to subjects that are of little notability apart from local when given long term continued exposure to a national readership, indeed global readership, your article is very nice but is a different kettle of fish and about how policy can be tightened up to stop such articles being written about minor not notable people when they are involved in a small local controversy that only raises the subjects actual real world exposure for a very limited time. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So, let me ask this- if there had been no mention of this guy's involvement with a current event controversy, and the article had just been about him being a superintendant of the largest city school district in NY's Capital District and about how he is both recognized and sought out by the state and media as an expert on education and education funding/budgets; would the article have gotten noticed by someone to put it up for AfD and would everyone be so adamant about deleting it? Is the fact that he's involved in a local current event the reason this article is getting noticed for deletion? If not for the current event I think it probably wouldve glided under the radar.Camelbinky (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article was written because of the current event, without it it I doubt it would have been written. Without the one event issues I doubt if personally there would have been so many votes for delete or perhaps not even an AFD we will never know, clear harmless articles about semi or little notability linger around and sometimes don't ever get nominated, basically unless it had been written by the subject or a fan of some kind it would never have been written, it is a dirty linen on the wiki washing line type article now. One thing is for sure, it won't be of much use in helping him get a job. This size of the actual interest in the controversy and actual notability of the controversy is reflected in the viewing figures of the article also during the AFD many of these views are internal, it is quite common for actual controversies about notable people to get for a limited time, viewing figures in the many thousands. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is a hit piece. We should not host hit pieces, especially not on marginally notable people that no other encyclopedia would ever be interested in. --JN466 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It;'s also a blatant violation of WP:TABLOID. This guy is simply not notable, a clear case of I wouldn't know him form a hole in the ground, and the article is being kept largely just because we can - Wikipedia as an experiment in free speech (something which also we are not). News belongs on Wikinews, biographies of individuals of lasting significance belong on Wikipedia. What significance does this individual have? None that I can see. This is actively impeding the need to remove attack pieces by undermining what has developed in recent time into a strong and robust consensus against faux-biographies which exist solely to disparage the subject. What do we do if he complains to OTRS? Guy (Help!) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I come back to WP after a long pause, and what do I see? Another thread of deletionists screaming WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. We have an article with 52 references, and people claim that he's not notable? Let me repeat: Notable != "everyone knows it". Notable = "there are reliable sources about it". An encyclopedia covering only what everyone knows is the definition of useless. --Cyclopia^talk 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes 52 fabulous refences all from national articles discussing at length a notable person, they look more like local blogs and minor comments in minor publications and such like, no one can seriously dispute that this article was written about the controversy. What we are discussing is not why this article should have been kept under current guidelines but the original question brought here is how we can stop this sort of thing happening in future. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is: we shouldn't stop that. Quite the opposite. --Cyclopia^talk 20:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. --JN466 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clyopia. If you support the publication of the lesser known controversies of lesser known people to the world wide web then you would perhaps be better getting yourself a blog and your own 5000 dollar an hour lawyers. This is perhaps one of the ways such issues could be reduced, if the presumed protection from the wikipedia that editors think they have from lawsuits was moved to a more realistic point that editors are legally responsible for any lawsuits that their edits create, I think this would stop a lot of the publish and be damned, I am untouchable type editor attitude, it is about personal responsibility then and presently there is an assumption that the wikipedia expensive lawyers would protect the editor under all circumstances. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation is pretty immune from prosecution, as they're not legally responsible for what anonymous editors post on its site. However, they would not protect an editor either. The difficulty that victims of Wikipedia-based libel have is that they need to identify the editor who introduced the libel. This is difficult, but it has been done in a couple of cases, with the cooperation of the users' ISPs. I think the relevant court cases haven't been concluded yet. --JN466 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As interesting as this discussion has become, and I truly do find it interesting and I've learned alot from those here with opposing views- perhaps this discussion would benefit from being being moved to the village pump (policy)... it would get a bigger audience, though honestly I dont see anything actually being done to fix any "loopholes", Wikipedia inertia being what it is and all. If Jimbo wanted to step in I would assume he'd have stated something in this thread to that effect.Camelbinky (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss anything you want at any location you like, please provide a link if and when you open your discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... ok... not quite the response I was looking for... For one I didnt want to split up the discussion as that can cause quite a bit of confusion and split the ability of people to follow what is going on... Second- I'll assume you didnt mean your post in the tone it came out as when I read it. Anyone with a constructive opinion on whether or not it should be moved wish to chime in? Personally I think this discussion should be opened up to the village pump, not that many regular editors who will actually be affected by new policies watch Jimbo's page, probably no newbies either. A policy change decided based on a discussion taken place here, even if it was done by Jimbo Himself, would probably get quite a bit of backlash from certain editors as "behind the scenes" and in badfaith, even though this page is open to all and very welcoming.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to give you the response you are looking for. I meant the commentary as I said it, you want to open a discussion elsewhere, please present a link here when you do. As for your other comments, this is a simple discussion about a situation that Jimbo commented on and a discussion has arisen here, I don't see any problem with that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

z:::::Is that what this is about? Jee, I didnt know that seeing as how I commented on the original AfD (in fact you can find my post being the one posted right above Jimbo's), I also started a thread here above regarding his !vote/comment before this thread was started, and I commented on this thread before you showed up. Glad you could set me straight on what this thread was about. In fact you may want to read WHY this post started, not as a "simple discussion about a situation that Jimbo commented on" but instead asking Jimbo about actually changind policy so that the same situation doesnt happen again, it didnt start as a place to discuss and rehash Eric Ely again and again. I'm frankly done with this topic, any personal responses you have may be posted on MY talk page where Ill see them; personally I think if Jimbo was interested in getting involved in changing the relevant policy He wouldve commented in this thread to that effect already. Having this discussion here serves no purpose other than to keep it from the larger Community where more input could be sought for changing relevant policies.Camelbinky (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue, without mentioning the elephant in the room, emotionally involved editors with personal involvement in the person or issue to the detriment of policy decisions. One way of over coming such issues could be a professional panel of independent adjudicators who are judged to be well schooled and NPOV in regards to policy that could override users consensus, especially amongst editors in contentious decisions especially in regard to articles about living people.(or in situations like this where there was no consensus) Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, honestly, ever heard of this? Looks very much like what you want WP to be: why don't you join them? --Cyclopia^talk 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have Jimmy's page watchlisted, which is my only connection here (aside from - in the interests of full disclosure - some previous unpleasant encounters with Off2riorob which I truly do not care to revisit) but after reading the archived discussion and the lengthy mass above which approaches WP:DR, my impression is that the discussion here has reached the point of diminishing returns. The community could not reach consensus on deletion of the article, and so it stays. Some feel policy should be changed. I'd like to bemusedly suggest the participants either move on, or take this over to village pump (policy) as previously mentioned. Jusdafax 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it would be nice if the person that didn't want the discussion to continue here had actually opened a discussion at the location he mentioned, the pump, I am stll waiting for the link...Personally Justafax, your coming here and mentioning that you lost a POV discussion about a worthless content in an article you where quarding is tiresome, get over it, you win some and you lose some. Oh and I just have to mention that I lost a POV discussion last year with off2riorob and I am still upset about it, move on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the discussion here has run its course. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Can_the_procedure_be_improved?, listed in Template:Cent, and I suggest that any further community discussion can take place there. --JN466 10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Off2riorob, the reason I didnt take this to the Village Pump as I proposed is;

• one- it was a proposal, an option that no one else at the time spoke up in favor of and I wasnt going to forum-shop this discussion around and have duplicate discussions IF this one had stayed active (which I knew it wouldnt once I left anyways);
• two- this topic frankly bores me, I have little to no stake in the outcome as I dont work on biographies;
• three- any discussion that does happen, including the above mentioned by Jayen466 will most likely already have present those I've worked with in the past at various policy talk page and forums (I get around) and so my views will be amply represented by those that share my opinion anyways. I only like to get involved if I think its a divisive issue that could go either way. This is not one of them.Camelbinky (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that an article with 53 references gets a "no consensus" from AfD and they're still complaining about it. The proposals to set an arbitrary limit of 10,000 biographies, to delete little-read biographies, to delete biographies that wouldn't be in "any other encyclopedia" - they all get to the point that the deletionists can't stand the thought that Wikipedia could go beyond all other encylopedias - which it has, and which it should. But I'll ask you this - if tens of thousands of editors spend days or weeks or months or years of time editing and all they'd come up with in the end is a normal encyclopedia any normal company could have made, then doesn't that prove that people should just shut up and pay their copyright fees and reject public-domain work as a hopelessly inefficient Communist scheme? Which would finally give the deletionists what they really want. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. if you've seen BLP issues in the article then you could fix them, no?

Wnt, I can't think of anything much more unhelpful than this rant. I think you'll find it useful to step back and try to put yourself into the position of those you are critiquing, under an assumption that we aren't thinking any of these bizarre things you've put into our mouths here. Do you really honestly think that my position on BLP's amounts to "people should just shut up and pay their copyright fees"?

In this case, we have a very sketchy biography with very poor referencing (albeit, with great quantities of poor references, yes!) about a marginal figure. A biography that is entirely and completely unbalanced, being primarily about one professional difficulty that the guy had, a biography which is very likely to be extremely damaging to his life and career. It is a serious case of WP:UNDUE. So, people are quite naturally, and quite correctly, wondering if our procedure needs to be changed.

I do think that arbitrary limits like "10,000" or "wouldn't appear in other encyclopedias" are not the right answer. But I think it is not at all helpful for you to ignore the real concerns that people have and to put strange arguments into our mouths. Please reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

— ! sorry, I meant plural "you" there, not you, Jimbo. You make a very eloquent argument for improving the article, and I'll agree, but I don't think deletion is the answer. Wnt (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree with your assessment of the article. I do not understand why this article has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, since it is an obvious political attack piece. Further, I do not understand why the main editors Bearian and UpstateNYer have not been asked to resign their admin bits. If admins cannot be trusted to uphold the principles of Wikipedia, should they remain admins? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That may depend on whether you are a gradualist or not. The point of a collaborative effort is that we don't all need to be perfect at everything, which is why I didn't want to unduly distress these editors, despite opting for delete. Leading by example (as Jimbo has done here) is better than stressing editors out so much that they leave. I think Jimbo has moved the bar up a bit further for bios as a result of the AfD and subsequent discussion. For comparison, I have started a new bio on David Bell. There are ridiculously many biographical sources for this man (as opposed to passing mentions), and although I haven't glued them all together, researching for it had a very different feel to it than Eric Ely. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be thinking about the distress we may be causing to the subjects of such BLPs as opposed to the distress we may cause editors by asking them to behave responsibly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps both. When people have chosen to put themselves in the public gaze, the understanding is that they generally take a more robust approach. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read Jimbo's comment below, it seems that this particular man may not have volunteered for public gaze, though an earlier post said that he had been increasing his profile over the last few years, which could be why this case attracted so much attention. I argued for delete because the sort of people I know with articles generally have a lifetime of outstanding achievement in their area of expertise. This man was mostly just doing his job. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, while of course I agree with the 'delete' I think you give too much credit when you assume that this "case attracted so much attention". A relevant point is that the case has attracted basically ZERO attention outside of the small town media where the man lives. He's just not that important, the case is not that interesting to anyone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is entirely possible for reasonable people to differ about where to cross the line, and these two editors are good editors who have put in a lot of work to construct the best possible biography. I would consider their work to be an incredibly valuable experiment seeking to answer the question: is it possible to create a quality biography on a small town school superintendent who would never have been heard of were it not for a WP:BLP1E situation?

I think the answer is clearly no. We've given it our best shot here, and we've failed. Those who don't agree, I ask to engage in the following thought experiment with as much love and emotion as you can.

Imagine that you are Eric Ely. Everything that I am about to write is a view on the events from how it very likely looks from his perspective.

"I went to university with a dream of becoming a teacher and coach, and I did. And I worked with great pride at my job. I advanced over time in the usual way, rising from teacher to principal to assistant superintendent and finally to superintendent. At all of these jobs, I was a quiet ordinary citizen/teacher, widely liked by my students and colleagues. I assumed that I would retire in this job."

"The issues I faced were sometime difficult - as they are for all school district superintendents. I handled them in a way that I'm proud - although I must say that I didn't do anything all that remarkable.

"At one point, I was surprised to learn of an investigation into one of my employees. No one told me that I wasn't to tell him about it, so I did what I thought was the best thing to do: I asked him about it, and he denied it. People complain that I didn't fire him on the spot, but I take seriously the rights of employees, and under our current policies, it is not possible to fire an employee based on them being investigated.

"The newspapers made a lot of noise about it, calling me his "enabler" and so forth, but those allegations really don't make sense. The police and prosecution grandstanded about it, presumably for their own reasons. When I reflect on my performance at this time, I think I acted honorably and responsibly. Of course I regret deeply, with the benefit of hindsight, that this guy went on to commit crimes in the middle of the night in other counties - but I had no way of knowing that, and don't know what anyone expected me to do.

"I was not charged with any crime. An internal report, which has now been released, exonerated me completely. All of the information anyone could want is out there, and this all amounts to nothing.

"I am still seeking to do the honorable thing. I'm looking for work in another school district. I'm doing my job. But I've been smeared in the media and it's hard to find work because of it. If you google my name, you get this bizarre encyclopedia article with a huge section on it that would leave anyone wondering if I'm some kind of terrorist accomplice myself. It's sad, and it hurts. I think what makes it hurt the most is that this one thing has such an undue impact on my life. I didn't do anything wrong, I have the support of my school board, and yet I'm painted in this way. I don't understand why I'm even in Wikipedia - were it not for this criminal doing these horrible things, no one outside my town would even know my name - and even inside my town I'd just be yet another government employee just doing his job."

Please take this to heart. As far as I can tell, having read the case, this is all just about perfectly accurate. I don't know Eric Ely, I don't know if he is reading about this on Wikipedia, I don't know if his family or friends are reading it. But I do know that he's probably right - our article is harmful to him, even if it is 100% accurate in some hypertechnical sense. It's a bad biography because it is not a proper profile. It's a hatchet job, written ironically enough with no malice on the part of the authors. It's still a hatchet job, though, because that's what the press has done to him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree there may be BLP1E concerns: yet to address that the only necessary thing is to rename and perhaps restructure a bit the article so that it concentrates on the event and not on the person. See WP:BLP1E, WP:ATD. That said, there are too much references and too much material to simply delete the thing altogether. User:Wnt concerns were meaningful in my opinion. Also, I am especially concerned about this comment of yours above, Jimbo: He's just not that important, the case is not that interesting to anyone. - That's in my view a superficially reasonable, but deeply destructive attitude. He's personally not that important to me too, but who are we to decide what is important to who and what not? We should avoid such personal selection biases. I am sure rhombozoa are not that interesting to anyone expect some odd specialized community of biologists -yet should we delete it? Of course not. We should collect reliably sourced information and present it as neutrally as possible -no more, no less. I understand the ethical concerns, but as much as we should firmly avoid to libel people, we should firmly avoid the opposite: to be negatively biased about everything bad sources say about people. --Cyclopia^talk 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I understand what you are saying and agree with you in principle, but I fear that I was not clear in my point. It isn't about whether I think he is important. My point here is that the sources about this man's life and accomplishments and problems are just too thin for us to write a good biography - this is clearly evidenced by the excellent and detailed work that Bearian did on the article, which has still resulted in a bad article. If the man were important, we'd have enough actual material to write a decent biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I was wrong about moving this discussion on. Jimmy, you urge nothing less than a complete reassessment of WP:RS. I for one consider this a tectonic shift in the way Wikipedia BLP articles are sourced and indeed allowed to exist. How would you suggest a policy shift of this magnitude be brought forward to the community for discussion and potential implementation? Jusdafax 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not advocating for any "tectonic" policy shift at all, and absolutely no changes to WP:RS. This is a bad biography. If I'm suggesting any policy shift at all, it is a minor shift to how AfD's are closed. We have an article in clear violation of WP:BLP as it exists, with no obvious hope of fixing it. (Indeed, I compliment the primary authors of this article for having done a stunning amount of work researching and documenting what little there is - thus demonstrating quite clearly that no good biography is possible here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: by my count, there were 14 delete votes, 10 keep votes--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to put in my own two cents that I agree with Jimmy Wales on this. I hope the relevant policies can be changed to reflect this approach. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are deletions done by vote count now. Weakopedia (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We still do them by Consensus. A vote saying "per nom" or something short is worth much less than one which has a long paragraph description. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please start migrating this discussion over to Talk:Eric Ely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of taking this back to afd. It needs more than 24 people to reach a proper consensus on this one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination).--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the policy pages be changing that much?

Jimbo Wales, I'm curious what you think about the constant changes to the policy pages [1]. It seems a lot of things get changed back and forth by just a small number of people who argue constantly until one side gets their way. Very few people actually participate in these things. Years go by and not a single policy or guideline page seems stable. Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia wide vote on major changes, or at least approval from the Wikipedia Foundation on the policy pages? Right now a group can gang up and force through whatever changes they want. Dream Focus 23:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the Wikimedia Foundation isn't well equipped at all to have any say-so on the details of policy pages. And in fact, policy over time is generally quite stable overall, although the details do evolve. Finally, I don't think it is true that a group can "gang up" and force through any significant policy changes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, your suggestion couldn't have come at a better time. See the next topic below! ;-) Scott P. (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Verify has a part that reads: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This has been added and removed and added again time after time. Do you agree with this change? There are hundreds of thousands of articles without references. Many books are on the New York Times bestsellers list, but don't get reviewed, either because newspapers don't bother with their genre, or just don't have time to review all of them, or don't believe their audience would be interested. Notable things sometimes have no third party sources to be found, and they do get deleted at times. There is a daily effort by some to delete articles about notable fictional characters, because even if they appear in different cartoon series, video games, comic books, and toys, they don't always receive any coverage in third party sources. Also, a manga might be very popular in Japan, featured in one of the most popular manga magazines for years, with that magazine having millions of subscribers, but since it is rare for any manga to be reviewed at all, it still gets deleted. I've seen that happen far too often. And even if you say to ignore all rules, some still insist on following the policies, and have cited this bit as a reason to delete something. Dream Focus 07:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." is a good policy. To take the example of a popular book that receives no reviews, what kind of encyclopedia article could you write about it? You could write an original review, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could write a plot summary, but that isn't an encyclopedia article. You could do some kind of original research, but that wouldn't be an encyclopedia article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think that a gang can work against an established consensus, check out the Ely AFD and all the "delete per jimbo" votes. Weakopedia (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the "established consensus" was no consensus last time. Since then some of us have had a long discussion and the article has been considerably amended. Perhaps we are now ready to form a consensus (for the first time). Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Original Research now equals Original Thought. We need your input.

Dear Jimbo,
For the last few days a huge battle has been waged over at WP:NOR about the correct meaning of NOR. Three well established editors who have basically been running the NOR article for some time, are now claiming that your definition of WP:NOR is no longer applicable, and that it has recently been 'refined' by them into something better. Here is what I mean, please see, "We are more 'specific' now." This 'new Wikipedia policy' according to their own new definition, and in their own words, means that we no longer, "distinguish between original research and original thought." ^source As a result of this new 'expansion of the meaning of original research' that they have defined, now not only are edits and citations being routinely removed if they are incorrectly sourced themselves. Now if any wording or citation might somehow tend to lead a reader to merely "think" a thought that cannot be found nearly verbatim in the edit's supporting citation, it is being routinely removed. A mere unstated implication that the publishing of an edit or source may lead to, is now treated exactly the same as if that mere 'unstated implication' were 'in the actual wording or text of the specific edit itself'.

Here is a specific example of what I mean. This edit: The historical context section of the Hutaree article completely deleted, was made using this specific logic, as in the words agreed to by the editor making the deletion: "the cite is OR because the implied conclusion is not in the cite." You can follow the editor's reasoning on the article's talk page. When this edit was pointed out to the three editors running the WP:NOR article, they essentially supported the deletion, and I was harangued and told by one of these three that I might do best to consider leaving Wikipedia and go to WikiUniversity instead. I was told by them that I was confused, and simply incapable of understanding their 'higher logic'.

It seems to me that this new 'expansion' of the role of WP:NOR, which has apparently been gradually carved out by these editors over the last 4 years, is not what you had intended Wikipedia to do. The expansion of the policy particularly seems to focus on the WP:SYN aspect of WP:NOR. It seems to me that if this policy goes unchecked, Wikipedia will eventually be stripped of many good edits and many good editors. It will also eventually entirely change the fundamental nature of Wikipedia, severely reducing the amount of 'thought provoking' material allowed in it. I believe if not checked, this expanded policy will cause Wikipedia to be 'dumbed-down' in a very major way in the coming months and years. I have already noted some good editors who seem to have left as a result of this new expansion of WP:NOR. I may be amongst them (though I am sure I'm actually not one of the better ones to leave, but I guess perhaps that one editor's suggestion that I should leave may have been accurate after all.) The newly implemented WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy seems to me to have already caused a good deal of concern in Wikipedia talk-space. A simple search for the term WP:SYN on in Wikipedia talk-space points to many editors already expressing much disillusionment over the new WP:NOR/WP:SYN policy.

I don't think any one of the editors involved in creating or enforcing this new policy expansion has any hidden agenda, they are all just in some sort of a state of confusion over it for some reason. It seems to me that this expanded policy has been allowed to gradually creep in over the last 4 years, beginning with the acceptance of the "nutshell template" on the WP:NOR page stating that Wikipedia "does not publish Original Thought" back in 2006. At any rate, I was wondering if you might please be able to look in on this and if possible, to please comment on it either over at the WP:NOR talk page, or maybe here.

I wish you all the best of luck in convincing the Icelanders to get their darned volcano to behave more responsibly once again. :-) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Some additional dialogue that may be pertinent to this discussion at SlimVirgin's talk page has recently been posted. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jimbo, it seems that you're in a position that might not allow you to get back down into the 'trenches' and to deal with day to day policy debates. I can fully appreciate this. Still, maybe if I just ask you two simple questions here, that might help us all. So here they are, two very simple questions:

1. Do you think that the current WP:NOR policy which has been expanded over the last 4 years to also include a prohibition against 'Original Thought', and which was expanded again last summer to specifically ban 'implications not specifically cited' is the same as what you first had in mind when you explained what you meant by 'Original Research'? Yes or no?
2. Do you think the current policy regarding 'Original Thought' as it is enforced today is a Wikipedia policy step in the right direction, or in the wrong direction?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the text you are objecting to has been pretty stable since at least April 2008 your title text is missleading.©Geni 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NOR has never distinguished between original research and all the other originals—thoughts, arguments, opinions, implications, ideas; see July 2005, for example: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'

This has been explained to Scott by several editors, though it hasn't, as he said, been a huge battle, or indeed any kind of battle. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I wrote a long response to this, including a somewhat detailed analysis of the specific case in question, and then hit 'save' and went to dinner and neglected to save a 2nd time, and then closed the window when I got back from dinner. Therefore, my response was lost.

Suffice to say, this summarizes it: 1. I don't think policy has materially changed in a very long time - others have now already said the same thing. 2. I don't agree that this policy loses us good authors. Well, perhaps a few good authors would do a great job of original research, and we do lose those. But at the same time, we lose a lot of really bad authors who would drag us into endless and irresolvable conflicts with their original thoughts. 3. In the particular case, I don't understand what the 3rd century remark has to do with this contemporary hate/terrorist group. I mean, it does make sense - and is easy to do with reliable sources - to point out that this group's views are fringe and not within the mainstream of Christian thought. But a throwaway line about 3rd century Christianity... what's the link? I wouldn't reach the question of OR before I'd remove it - even if a source happened to say it, I would still question whether it would make sense at that point of the article. (It is possible, but it would have to be written in a more comprehensible fashion, so that the reader is not left wondering "huh? 3rd century?")--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for responding Jimbo. So in summary, you seem to agree primarily with SlimVirgin's position, but you still think that the editors probably used the wrong rationale to delete the cite, no?

Actually, I can now clearly see your reasoning, Jimbo, now that someone has actually pointed this out to me. I agree with you about an apparent relevance issue regarding that 3rd century cite, and of course, that the cite wasn't truly OR.

But, here is where I feel that the policy has changed ever so slightly, and I feel that this slight change is what is causing folks some difficulty. Last summer was the first time, to the best of my knowledge, that the WP:NOR policy wording first started trying to incorporate specific wording about 'implications'. OK, perhaps there is a need to deal with them in the policy, but the subject of dealing with mere implications in the policy wording is where I think the differences of opinion about OR really began. The fact that so many editors, all of the regular WP:NOR editors, and the two other editors at the Hutaree article, all agreed that the cite was OR, is to me a sign that there may be something about the current policy that is somehow causing folks to get confused about the true meaning of OR.

Personally I think it is because for the first time in 9 years there is now wording in the policy that attempts to specifically deal with implications. Like I said earlier, maybe the policy does need to deal with implications specifically (despite my personal preference that it not) but if it is going to deal with them, then I definitely think that there is a clear need for the policy wording to be made clearer than it is now.

I think that the whole idea of a good or a bad implication is generally a much harder concept to work with than dealing with a good or a bad written phrase. It seems to me that good policy regarding implications is much harder to write, and it is also much harder for a typical editor to understand. Thus what seems to me to be this confusion, no consensus on whether or not the 3rd century cite was OR.

That is why I proposed taking out the fairly new "implication" wording from the policy page altogether, at least until a broader consensus and understanding on it might be reached. That is all.

Scott P. (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be more clear: I do think that 3rd century bit was OR in that context. What I mean when I say "wouldn't reach the question" is something I've picked up from reading too many Supreme Court cases over the years (my geeky hobby). One principle that courts wisely follow is to avoid "reaching" a thorny question, in case there is an easier and more obvious principle to be applied. In this case, it doesn't really matter if the 3rd century stuff was OR or not, simply because it wasn't relevant (or at any rate didn't have any obvious relevance) to the article at hand. The beliefs of 3rd century Christians is simply not relevant to the beliefs of contemporary self-styled "Christian" terrorists - not unless there is some specific link between the two which we didn't give.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see what you are saying. One reason I chose to highlight this particular cite to discuss here was because it is what I would call a slightly 'loaded' cite. Whenever questions of religion, belief, and faith enter in, it seems to me you almost automatically have what I would call a 'hot button topic', from the start. Questions start to automatically enter in like 'is this guy trying to preach to us?' If so, then obviously OR,.... or perhaps not I say. OK, you might ask yourself, does this editor have a 'personal agenda'? In my particular case, this is how this edit came about. Someone asked me to insert a cite about the Baldwin fellow, this 'Christian' pastor who is a sympathizer and a vocal supporter of the Hutaree.

After inserting the Baldwin info, I reread the article and said to myself, "now any kook could read this and think that the Hutaree might be the best thing since sliced bread". So, I thought, we need to balance something against the Baldwin info...... Walaa, the 3rd century cite. Next thing you know, the 3rd century cite was deleted as OR, leaving only the Baldwin info as the most supposedly 'certified christian expert' speaking on the page once again. OR policy apparently favored publishing info about Baldwin over info that would lead readers directly to the teachings of the founder of the Christian movement. Fortunately some other editors have since fixed the imbalance that the removal of the 3rd century cite created.

I don't believe that the fact that the earliest followers of Jesus tended to very strictly eschew violence is very common knowledge. Since by definition, the Hutaree position begs us to ask if their supposed 'militant-Christian' philosophy might somehow be fundamentally sound, I still can't see why the article should be kept from trying to address this question in a well sourced and logical fashion. Jimbo, do you think it might be possible to somehow work the 3rd century cite back into the article? Or is it simply too 'preachy' to be allowable here?

Perhaps any in depth discussion of religious issues should simply generally be kept out of most Wikipedia articles, as a topic that is generally too much of a 'hot button topic' to be reported on in any great detail here? I don't know.

I hope that I'm not just beating a dead horse here. If you want this to be my last post on this topic to your talk-page, just say so, and I'll be glad to finally shut-up. If I am just being the "jerky squeaky wheel" here, just say so. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this is fine and interesting. What I would suggest here is that the point you want included in the article is a sensible one to include. A reader may well wonder to what extent Hutaree beliefs or "Militant Christian" beliefs reflect mainstream/historic Christian belief and practice. I don't personally see any reason to privilege 3rd century (or 6th century or 12th century) variants in that analysis, but the general idea of making sure that the reader does understand that Hutaree beliefs are pretty unusual and not consistent with mainstream understanding of Christ's beliefs and teachings is of course a fine thing to include.

I believe, though, that the observation you want to make is not particularly original or creative (no disrespect intended, of course, I think you know what I mean!)... it's just a sensible point. As such, therefore, it must be easy to find plenty of contemporary critics of violent Christian sects who will make this sort of obvious point? No need for us to make it ourselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo we have been over this with him but he keeps trying to put his point point in to the article with his OR, then complaining and trying to change policy when he can't put in what he wants said in his way. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that we're not here to judge or direct the thoughts of any kook that might happen by. Whether you agree with their opinions or not, this article is not the place to debate them. You won't find mention of Einstein's theory in the Newton article. The goal of an article is to define the subject, but not to define what it should or should not be. An analogy would be adding to the Elvis article that so-and-so dislikes peanut butter and banana sandwiches. That would be irrelevant to defining the subject ... Elvis and his own views. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Zaereth, I know some may see me as beating a dead horse here, but I am hoping to find out if Jimbo would agree with that assessment. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are times when original inferences seem like they should belong, but this is a case where they don't. 3rd century Christianity and Hutaree Christianity might not be the same religion, after all. Remember, many 3rd century Christians were Gnostics, thus heretics worthy even of execution under Christianity as founded by the Emperor Constantine I. Early Christians viewed polytheistic gods as the Devil while Constantine equated God with Apollo; early Christians believed the only authority came from God while later they were expected to believe that anything the government promulgated was authority coming from God... I could go on and on - what seems like a simple comparison sometimes isn't. When the comparison is simple and direct it should be allowed IMHO. Wnt (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when the comparison seems "simple and direct" to one editor, it may not to another. This is why, per WP:V and WP:NOR, we require a reliable secondary source directly supporting any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged, including a comparison. Crum375 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand why this difference of opinions. When the Christian church was essentially "Romanized" under Constantine in the 4th century, its doctrines were also "Romanized" to a certain extent. One of the reasons that early Christians were persecuted for the first three centuries is because they typically refused to serve in the Roman legions, as they were forbidden by their religion. By the time of Constantine, after 3 centuries of struggle between the Roman empire and the Christian church, it seems both sides were ready for a "compromise". So under Constantine, the earlier Christian proscriptions against military service were gradually removed from Christian policy. Naturally, making such a major policy change in the Church required a little "revisionist license" on the part of Church historians of that period. But the earlier record remains. So essentially, what happened was that the Church's shift in policy amounted to a certain type of 'OR', claiming something that was not true. Now for the last 1700 years, almost all Church policy has permitted military service by Christians, and almost all Christian confirmation students are taught absolutely nothing about the early Church's policy on military service.

So, essentially what has happened here, from my own perspective, is that editors here have had an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to seeing this information about the early Church's position on non-violence. Instinctively they say to themselves, this cannot be true, and delete the information as OR, because of this. Most editors, following their instincts here, have become defenders of the OR of the Church of the 4th century, without even knowing it.

I feel I've said all I need to say, and I think I've probably finally reached the end of my rope on this one, so to speak. I simply won't write again about early Christian pacifism on Wikipedia, or any other potentially controversial topic where it is likely that a majority of readers might tend to have an instinctive reaction to want to disagree. Thank you Jimbo and all others here for taking the time to hear me out. Scott P. (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with the Church's early history. If you find a reliable secondary source which directly compares the Hutaree to any other group, you can cite it. If there is no such source available, you can't make up your own home-brewed comparisons, as that would violate WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Similar to this old discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dont insult poor fellow by comparing him to Grundle2600, I think this guy is trying to defend his fiath becuase he see it being slandered by Chuck Baldwin, thus need to balanced by OR. What he hasn't paid attention to is we already have a Catholic deacon saying basically what he wants his OR to emphasize. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I've emailed you my reply, thanks. Scott P. (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this can be done?

Excerpts copied from above, continued...

No, this is fine and interesting. What I would suggest here is that the point you want included in the article is a sensible one to include. A reader may well wonder to what extent Hutaree beliefs or "Militant Christian" beliefs reflect mainstream/historic Christian belief and practice. I don't personally see any reason to privilege 3rd century (or 6th century or 12th century) variants in that analysis, but the general idea of making sure that the reader does understand that Hutaree beliefs are pretty unusual and not consistent with mainstream understanding of Christ's beliefs and teachings is of course a fine thing to include.

I believe, though, that the observation you want to make is not particularly original or creative (no disrespect intended, of course, I think you know what I mean!)... it's just a sensible point. As such, therefore, it must be easy to find plenty of contemporary critics of violent Christian sects who will make this sort of obvious point? No need for us to make it ourselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you need to find a reliable secondary source which makes the point for you, directly about the Hutaree. If your point is that the Hutaree are un-Christian, find a reliable source which says that, summarize it and link to it. You can't make stuff up, that's the essence of WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not MySpace or a forum where we post our personal opinions or observations about the world. Crum375 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Biography Barnstar
		Awarded to Jimbo Wales, for his efforts to improve the quality of Wikipedia biographies, and for restoring my faith in the heart and humanity of Wikipedia with this post. --JN466 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim

I occassionally "trip" through you talk page/"neighbourhood chat room" and it just occured to me, do you ever feel like This Guy ?. Hey have a great day. And if you have a sec. It would be an Honor "Guessbook" Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Cyclopia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and thanks for taking the time of chatting with me. It's kind of an honour. --Cyclopia^talk 17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)