User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Mediation Committee - as discussed, your opinion requested.

Hi Jimmy,

I appreciate the time you've taken in the past to talk with me about my views of the Mediation Committee, both in the past via email when I was a WMF Community Fellow, and more recently at Wikimania. In Hong Kong, you suggested I start a discussion on your talk page, and in the meantime I have done a bit more digging to get my facts in order. I am aware that many watch this talk page, so I'll give a bit of background to myself and my comments that I will provide here. I apologise in advance for the length.

I've been on the English Wikipedia, on and off, for a bit over five years. Most of that time I have dedicated to resolving content disputes as well as working with other editors to try and improve the dispute resolution process overall. In July 2011 I created the dispute resolution noticeboard, which has two main ideas behind it; make dispute resolution overall less complicated both for parties and for potential volunteers (by simplifying the process), and create a many-to-many relationship between these parties and volunteers, to reduce the potential burnout that can be created by other processes like the Mediation Committee and ArbCom. This has had some success, but like all processes needs more work, which is ongoing.

Around 6 months later, we noticed a drop in cases filed at the Mediation Cabal (an informal process, very similar to the Mediation Committee's process) and after some analysis, figured that as the new DRN process performed largely the same role as MedCab, that it'd be best to mark MedCab as historical, and that was done. That largely leaves us at the present day with some very informal processes, DRN and the Mediation Committee. I feel the problem is that the Mediation Committee is not performing it's role, and have started questioning it's value. Let me explain in a bit more detail.

When I was doing research on dispute resolution last year, I analysed success rates of various processes, and also asked the community their opinions on how effective they felt certain processes were. While it didn't fare too badly (24% rated formal mediation as "Good" or better - page 15), I dug deeper. Over the last 2 years (April 2011-2013) there have been 99 case requests. 86 were rejected for one reason or another (not all parties agreed to mediation, request not suited to mediation, malformed and so on). 13 cases were accepted, of these, 8 were closed as outright unsuccessful (failed), 3 were closed as mediation no longer required, and two were closed as successful. These two cases were open for 19 months and 5 months respectively, which while successful is a bit of a concern. So, overall, we have 99 requests, 13% were accepted and 2% were resolved successfully. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the members of the committee, and I get along with most of them very well, but I feel that the process itself is broken and question whether going forward it is a workable process that we can continue to use.

I have raised my concerns with both individual members of the committee in the past, as well as with the chair. Last year, myself and others raised concerns about the Mediation Committee's current structure, among other things (Mediation Committee policy is governed by the Mediation Committee, members are self-appointed by other members, and so on). Essentially, I feel that the community has no say in general on the process (unlike ArbCom, where members are directly elected by the community). Some have commented that if the process is not working well, then it's not a big issue, as it's doing no harm. I feel that we should try and be progressive in our approach to resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and recognise that while MedCom has served a useful purpose in the past, given its current state it is in and that efforts made last year to revamp MedCom had little success, that we should consider the value in its continued existence.

I come to you as you are the original creator of MedCom. It was suggested to me that as MedCom is a process that you created, and due to its longevity, that I'd have little luck in getting it closed. The lack of an alternative process has also been noted. I don't just come with problems, but I do have a potential solution. A content dispute would go through a regular DR process (like DRN) to try and resolve it through normal discussion and compromise. Failing that, at present, it would just go to MedCom, where much of the same would take place. Instead, I would propose a moderated discussion be held, where the question/dispute at hand is clearly defined, then opened up for wider discussion to the community - somewhat similar to the Jerusalem and Abortion article titles discussion. I think this could be effective, and am happy to take the lead on creating this process.

I apologise for the length of this post - I have quite a lot of thoughts about this and hope you will take some time to reflect, and consider the points I have made. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should hold elections for medcom, and run it as you suggest. seems like a good idea. let medcom deal with content disputes, and let arbcom deal with conduct issues. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point though. It was that overall, the process as it stands right now is not working. I'd be open to binning the whole thing and starting it again from the ground up, but I don't think changing the membership model to direct election by the community will solve all our problems. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have participated in the Jerusalem RfC. I think that sort of binding RfCs should only be used as a last resort when all other DR processes fail. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Steven neglects to refer to the fact formal mediation is not working simply because it is not being used. Nobody is referring disputes to RFM. All disputes start at WP:DRN, and Steve temporarily and presently co-ordinates that noticeboard, so why has he not simply made a greater effort to have disputes referred up the chain when so required? The simplest solution is the best. In the meantime, and until a greater effort to use RFM fails, this vague and aimless proposal seems like a solution in pursuit of a problem. AGK [•] 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The fundamental problem with MedCom (iirc) is that it cannot impose binding solutions. Thus, it is a huge waste of time, unless both people agree beforehand to follow the MedCom's solution. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think the case against Medcom as an effective DR route is quite compelling. But I also think there are major hurdles to 3-closer RfCs as a replacement. It isn't a properly formalised process and, used more widely, it would be pretty vulnerable to abuse without machinery being built around it (it seems acceptable at the moment, for example, for closers to appoint themselves and each other). The Jerusalem RfC, IMO, showed the problems that can arise if there is not a handed-down locus of dispute for the mediation. It means that the participants end up at cross-purposes as to why they are there. Without Arbcom as a referrer, where does the locus of dispute come from? Most importantly, nailing down WP content is a fairly drastic step which we take only rarely and in cases where it seems like the only answer. Making it standard operating procedure wherever people disagree would be a very big change to the way Wikipedia works and would require a lot of prior thought.
  • BTW. Steven, I don't think you should "take a lead" on this. You're welcome to work on a proposal, but I don't think the psychology of leadership is a healthy thing on WP. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • @AGK: As I said above, I'm quite fond of most of the members of the Mediation Committee, and consider some of them (yourself included) friends. Please don't take my comments here or elsewhere as an attack on the committee as a whole, for this is not how I feel. This is not a "death to MedCom" thread, but I do think that the process of formal mediation in its present form has become somewhat outdated and that we should have a serious discussion about it's future. Now, I did have a discussion with MedCom a month or two back about the idea of DRN referring cases to MedCom, and they were welcoming to this idea. I spoke to several people at Wikimania and after some reflection and analysis I think that sending more cases to MedCom may not resolve its problems. If we look at cases sent to MedCom this year, 12 were filed in total. 10 were rejected, and 2 were accepted. Both of those accepted cases were unsuccessful, for one reason or another. Looking at this (though I will in further depth later today) it may seem that just sending more cases to MedCom won't necessarily be of benefit.
    • @FormerIP, I'll comment in greater depth shortly, but my proposal will not just be a straight adoption of the current 3-closer RFC format. I'd agree that just adopting that model won't work. When I said "take the lead" I meant it as "actively work on a solution". At work we call it "taking ownership" - I didn't mean to imply that I will make myself the boss of this or something. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I think this idea could work if the policy is changed and Medcom has some support and the ability to make binding resolutions. Otherwise, its just a waste of time. For example, since the Arbcom is the only ones that can desysop an admin for cause, there is no point in Medcom taking a case against admins because they couldn't do anything with it anyway. Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
        • @KumiokoCleanStart: Since MedCom is for content only, I'm not sure they'd do anything with it even if they could ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Good point but the reason I mention that is because Content disputes can and frequently do contain issues of policy violations including those from Admins. In some cases the Medcom folks can mediate but frankly more often than not any mediation either fails or falls apart in short order. If the Medcom had the ability of placing topic bans or other preventitive measures then it would be much more useful. Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, Medcom really isn't working. For whatever reason, It now has become a redundant form of DR/N and now hardly ever used at all. It seems to be less structured than DR/N and many editors are intimidated by the suggestion of a referral to formal mediation (that still appears to be non binding) many editors even push past MedCom to go directly to Arbcom as there is no formal structure to DR. I agree with Steven Zhang about using moderated discussions but I would want this to be listed on the RFC page in some manner. I see it similar to an RFC/U but this would be RFC/M. However, I don't know if that alone is enough. I really don't. Could we not strengthen MedCom to make its positions elected and give them the power to sanction in the same manner as ArbCo (as per another suggestion above). My personal experience with MedCom was incomplete but I regularly refer cases to MedCom and mention it as a an option. But Dispute resolution on Wikipedia needs to be looked at and something really does need to be proposed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just one personal opinion, obviously, but I think a lot of the questions regarding mediation of content can't really be necessarily resolved by any group without clearer guidelines and policies regarding content, and, honestly, in a lot of cases, a way to maybe make it easier for people involved in mediation to find what other reference-type sources say on a lot of topics. In short, "infrastructure" for content. Some of the free database subscriptions and similar efforts might help a lot in these regards, but even there they won't include a lot of the more recent works which might not be included yet. And, yeah, for a lot of topics, like Islamophobia, racism, and whatever, even there the existing reference sources might not be as good as we might like. For other topics, like Justin Bieber albums, I doubt if the topic is old enough to be covered at all. I could maybe see, maybe, if necessarily, the foundation maybe paying a few databanks for a subscription which would allow the subscription manager to e-mail various sources to those involved in disputes, including mediators, if that might be useful to help resolve this. But, like I said, I'm not sure how useful it would be in a lot of cases, even though I also think, basically, according to policies and guidelines as they exist today, something of that type might be about the only way to really be able to make such content mediation effective.

For content mediation to really work, it has to succeed in two areas. One, the easier one, is about making content conform to policies and guidelines in the broad sense. That part isn't easy, but it is probably the easier of the two situations that will be faced. The hard part is when it has to deal with the matters of things like weight, reliability of sources, and the like. That will be much harder. Those people involved in mediation of abstruse topics will have to believe that the mediators are as qualified on the subject as they are, and the only way I can see that happening is to give the mediators access to evidence hopefully at least equal to that the involved editors, many of whom will consider themselves to be some variety of experts on the topic, already have, to make them apparently roughly as informed on the topic as those already involved. Anyway, just an opinion. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a member of MedCom, but I'm also very active at DRN (and 3O, for that matter). The fact of the matter is that most content disputes pass through DRN these days and by the time they're done there they either (a) have received no attention from a volunteer at all, which means that they cannot go on to MedCom for lack of prior DR or (b) have been debated there until going on to MedCom would be just a do-over and few people are interested in that. The most important difference between DRN and MedCom, however, is that anyone can volunteer at DRN and it's not unheard-of for a dispute to draw a volunteer who has little or no experience at WP or who has little or no experience in DR at WP or both; at MedCom the membership process at least attempts to insure that members are experienced in both DR and WP in general. Though MedCom is not receiving many cases these day due to what happens at DRN, I would be loath to see it go away if for no other reason than the pool of "certified" experienced DR folks it provides even if they're not being used in the MedCom forum per se. One thing which could be done is for MedCom to drop its prior-DR requirement, but there are considerable pros and cons to that idea. About content arbitration: (If at the end of the day, someone other than the community has the right to decide content questions, that's arbitration even if the decision is only binding on the participants in that particular dispute.) That's a perennial suggestion which never succeeds, probably because it flies in the face of the Wiki model. I support such a venue, but I believe that it must be designed to only work in the most difficult cases, must only be binding on the parties in dispute, and must make as much provision for community input as possible (as I propose more fully in my old draft of such a system). If someone wants to take another flyer at such a system, I'll probably !vote to support it, depending on the details, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to be adopted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm also a member of MedCom, in fact I'm the chair at the moment, although my term has almost expired. Anyway, I largely agree with TransporterMan's comments above, especially that we should experiment with removing some of the requirements for MedCom to accept cases. Also, as it happens, I wrote my own essay about binding decisions on content disputes called Wikipedia:RfC Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with AGK. Cases are not being referred from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (WP:DRN) to the Mediation Committee. I've been a member of MedCom since 2008 and have watched this remarkable decline in cases since the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard replaced MedCab. This change was largely engineered by Steven Zhang, so I find his proposal to now scrap Med Com surprising and disappointing. Clearly, as cases are not progressing from DRN to MedCom we need to fix that. The simplest way to do that, IMO, would be to remove the requirement that cases must go to DRN before MedCom. MedCab was never broken, yet we "fixed" it, on Steven's recommendation, by instituting DRN. Let's not "fix" MedCom by eliminating that too. Sunray (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just want people to know that I was in no way necessarily saying that there should be a Content committee, although, honestly, for at least a few topics, it might be welcome. But I very much believe that, in at least a few cases which go to mediation in some form, one or more of those involved may well be him- or herself less than objective about the topic. I think I know of at least a few such cases personally, and in several of them the person perhaps supporting a fringe position is in fact supporting a personal belief, which might happen to be fringe, and in fact promoting that belief might be one of, if not the only, reason they edit in the first place. In instances like that, it I believe very much would help if anyone seeking to become involved in mediating a topic were able to themselves rather quickly be able to find other existing highly regarded material on the topic, so that they can more easily find out if one or more of those involved might not themselves be clearly promoting the neutral development of related content. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Sunray:, I didn't come to Jimmy's talk page to call for the heads of members of MedCom, nor do I think that shutting MedCom down is the best solution here, in fact I would rather it remain but in its current form it's not being overly effective. I do think that we should discuss ways to improve MedCom overall, as at present it has not had a lot of success. I think removing the requirement for prior DR could make things worse, as it would literally become a free-for-all and could see MedCom requests for very trivial disputes. Perhaps making MedCom a process that can only be used through referral, or after other DR has been requested, tried and were unsuccessful. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps separate page for Zimmerman

WP still has redirect "George Zimmerman" to article "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" (Feb. 2012) rather than a separate bio page, despite yet more news coverage about police investigating claims of domestic violence in Lake Mary, Florida, including allegedly shattering his estranged wife's laptop computer and a fight against her father (source: CBS News, "George Zimmerman taken into custody after incident with gun", September 9, 2013 3:11 pm). I would think that the coverage in wp:RS sources has exceeded wp:BLP1E, and now a separate page is needed to explain his background with guns, crime watch, and the current police investigation about claims of domestic violence, after his wife filed for divorce. It surprises me how some separate BLP bio pages are thwarted, even when their activities are widely reported for years. Any thoughts about this case yet? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many good reasons for having a separate BLP on Zimmerman. Recent scandal-mongering is not one of them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

His being a private individual would argue against having an article on him alone. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing outside of the Trayvon shooting is notable. WP is NOTNEWS and certainly NOTTABLOIDNEWS. The press' fascination of him post-acquittal is equivalent to a gaper's delay. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Except this was a high-profile event with Zimmerman as the center, so his reputation is not aided by making his page a redirect to that event. He would be better served by a bio that does not treat him as an object in a controversy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd have thought he was likely a BLP1E, and the problem with a separate article about someone is that it's a rubbish magnet, particularly if they're controversial - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

He would not be "better served"[1] by an article that focussed on him. Our presumption should be in favor of privacy. We should assume that such focus would would be unwanted. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You can talk about privacy all you like, but we have articles on the trial and shooting, as we should, and these both focus heavily on Zimmerman. Zimmerman is all over those articles already so his privacy is shot to hell. The only difference is that, not being bios, they focus only on Zimmerman as a person to the extent that it is relevant. In other words, we get a lot about alleged anger issues and his race with some glowing character references, but little more than that. So, yes he would be better served by an independent article since it would allow him to be humanized in a way the current do not humanize him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I see this as a difficult editorial judgment call that we often have to make. There will be no simple formula answers, but there are some general principles that we can follow. First, I think that BLP concerns should lead us to not start a biography on someone who has been uncontroversially a BLP1E just because of some small additional news event. But it is also clear that at some point (writing a best selling novel? successfully running for Mayor?) the person becomes notable separate from the original incident that led them to be notable in the first place. Some of the factors (but by no means all) would include whether the 2nd event is an ongoing sustained new chapter in life (book author, politician) or another 'incident' (as in this case) which would not be notable in and of itself had the person not been somewhat famous already due to the BLP1E situation. To make my point more practically in relation to this particular case: random dudes have domestic altercations of the type Zimmerman was involved in more recently all the time and it hardly even makes the papers. This made global news because ZImmerman made global news when he shot Trayvon Martin. For me, this doesn't add very much at all to Zimmerman's general notability in terms of having a separate article about him.

Here's an interesting philosophical question, and I'm going to use terminology that I think is not really great but mainly because I think it makes my point clearly. I reject the idea of using percentages in the following way, except as an illustrative analogy. Suppose we need 100% on a notability metric before we will have an article about someone. Suppose that person is involved in a BLP1E and they get to only 75% on our notability metric for an article about themselves, rather than about the 1E itself. Now suppose that person is involved in another BLP1E (presumably of a completely unrelated nature, but this is a hypothetical, so think through several alternatives) and if we considered this one on merit, the person would get to 75% notability on this one as well. Do the points "add up" to 150%? Or not? In what circumstances? That is, can a series of events, each of them not notability-granting enough, add up to notability? I don't have a strong view - I just raise it for contemplation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in WP:BLP1E that would prevent an article on George Zimmerman. In fact, it can be argued that it isn't even a case of one event, since there is the shooting and all the events that followed over the next year and a half, and which are continuing. The next significant and notable event coming up in Zimmerman's life may be the civil trial against NBC or a corresponding settlement.

Regarding the 75%, etc., idea, the answer might depend on how each 75% is made up. If each 75% is from very significant sources but they are respectively only 75% in number, then 75%+75% would be enough sources for notability. If each 75% came from sources of not too much significance, then it's not clear if 75%+75% would be enough for notability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is only the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Jimbo Wales argues cogently when he says "But it is also clear that at some point (writing a best selling novel? successfully running for Mayor?) the person becomes notable separate from the original incident that led them to be notable in the first place. Some of the factors (but by no means all) would include whether the 2nd event is an ongoing sustained new chapter in life (book author, politician) or another 'incident' (as in this case) which would not be notable in and of itself had the person not been somewhat famous already due to the BLP1E situation." Zimmerman has not written a best selling novel nor has he successfully run for Mayor.

"[T]he events that followed over the next year and a half, and which are continuing" are merely consequential to the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article on Zimmerman would be overkill. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, the Trayvon Martin shooting made Zimmerman a celebrity of sorts. This often happens in high-profile cases in the US. At this point, not having an article on him as the subject of news coverage is just delaying the inevitable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That prediction may turn out to be correct, but we actually manage to hold the line over this most of the time, even in high-profile cases. It's true that we also sometimes deviate from the rules, but less often than you might guess. Zimmerman does fit the profile of an exception (21st century, lots of news coverage in the US), but it would be a good thing if Wikipedia is just able to keep calm and stick with the article it has, which it the right place for any encyclopaedic information about Zimmerman at the present time. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems to have raised a general issue regarding what is in Wikipedia policy. I don't see anywhere in policy that when events have their origin in a single event, they should not be considered separate events for the purposes of WP:BLP1E but instead part of the same event. It would be helpful if someone could quote the excerpt from policy that supports that assertion. Thanks.
• Also, even if one considers the shooting and everything related to it in Zimmerman's life that followed as the same event, could someone quote the excerpt from WP:BLP1E or elsewhere that applies to not having an article on Zimmerman? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a more specific policy that applies here, WP:CRIME. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you quote the excerpt from WP:CRIME that you are using? Thanks.

Also, aside from policy considerations there is the practical point that Zimmerman is an extremely notable person and I think readers interested in this case would like to know more about him. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:CRIME is the first sentence. The point here is that the incident and the individual are indistinguishable, from and encyclopaedic perspective. There's nothing in the shooting article that would be irrelevant to a Zimmerman article and nothing that could be included in a Zimmerman article that doesn't have a place in the shooting article. So the two articles, properly written, would contain exactly the same information, it's just that one would begin "George Zimmerman is...". Redirects come free of charge, so we do not need two articles. Plus, in this case the article that exists is contentious and problematic. Why create an additional contentious and problematic article? There is no upside to doing so whatsoever. Formerip (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the incident that is "extremely notable". What about Zimmerman is extremely notable apart from the incident at the center of his notoriety? Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both the event and the person are extremely notable. Zimmerman became notable because of the event, i.e. the shooting, and his notability grew because of events that occurred subsequent to the shooting. For a couple of weeks after the shooting, he and the shooting were relatively unknown. It was only after the efforts of Martin's mother to get him arrested that the shooting, Trayvon Martin, and Zimmerman became well known.

Regarding WP:CRIME, in addition to the first sentence, there is also the second sentence. Here they are,

"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."

The existing article is Shooting of Trayvon Martin. There is a section on Zimmerman but it has been limited so as not to digress from the topic of the article and because of space considerations. As I mentioned in my previous message, I think there is the practical consideration that readers interested in this case would like to know more about Zimmerman.

An article on George Zimmerman was created yesterday. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the exemption in the second sentence applies, then it applies. Which is fine, so long as editors are being sincere and diligent with regard to it being "necessitated". Formerip (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Something else just occurred to me regarding WP:CRIME in general. Does this section apply if the person was found not guilty in a trial? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, Zimmerman's biographical information has been extensively documented. Is that because of the Martin incident? Almost certainly, yes. Does that matter? No. Either we have sufficient sourcing to sustain an article or we do not. If we can sustain articles with "Jack Crack played for the Midvale Someproteam for 5 minutes off the bench in 1991", we certainly have sufficient information for a biographical article on Zimmerman. Why that coverage has arisen is irrelevant. The fact remains it has, and the coverage of Zimmerman covers him biographically and completely, far beyond his involvement in this one incident. BLP1E is meant to prohibit biographies when the only thing, or near it, we can say about X, is "X was involved in Y". That's not the case here, and why the sources chose to cover him so completely is irrelevant. They did, we can support a full article, and we need to write it. We follow reliable sources' lead, including to answer the question of what is notable and what is not. It is a violation of neutrality to second-guess them. In this case, they have clearly decided Zimmerman, in his own right, is notable. We must, to remain neutral, follow their lead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

JImbo, FYI, it might have gotten lost in the discussion, but I responded to your 75%+75% idea in the above. I just thought I would mention it here so that you are aware that your idea wasn't ignored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps separate page for Trayvon Martin

Same practical consideration as above for Zimmerman, that readers interested in the case will want to know more about Trayvon Martin too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If anything, it's arguably more justifiable, as Trayvon Martin wouldn't be a BLP and so doesn't raise quite the same problems. Robofish (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There might be some considerations per WP:BDP until 2 years after death, which would be Feb 2014. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should act on the assumption that BLP/BDP continues to apply to Trayvon Martin for the foreseeable future. WP:BDP says: "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This case was gruesome enough, and even if not, the words "such as" mean other situations can fall into that category as well. I would say that one of the highest-profile criminal cases of the decade, with family members of the victim still very much alive and presumably reading the Internet, is enough to bring Trayvon Martin within BDP. As for the time period, I don't think we should assume that BDP suddenly winks out on the second anniversary of the incident. The term "an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside" is hardly a model of scientific precision, and it probably ought to be fixed. That "two years" obviously was not handed down on a stone tablet and we shouldn't treat it like it was. Neutron (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here's the part of the policy section WP:BDP that is about the time after death exception and what it is an exception from.

"Generally, this policy [ WP:BLP ] does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin was really only notable in his death. He was just a kid! Is it fair that George Zimmerman can continue to go around the country potentially getting involved in further news coverage while Martin's story is done? Many think not. But that's not our fault. Wnt (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "Is it fair that George Zimmerman can continue to go around the country potentially getting involved in further news coverage while Martin's story is done? Many think not." — Could you explain this remark? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

One of them is still doing things, and the other isn't. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about 'Author requests deletion'

Hi, there is a user who is speedy deleting tens of his articles using {{db-g7}}. When I asked the reason, the user said he wants to put the articles to his own blog. His blog is copyrighted so we can't copy the articles to wiki again. Is that a 'good faith for G7'? --Taranet (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Which user, as I can't see from your contributions who this is? As a quick note, at the bottom of every page you edit there is confirmation that "...you irrevocably agree to release your contribution"; the effect of this being that no-one can't their edits by tagging "their" article with G7 (or indeed any other method).Pedro :  Chat  11:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This user. Lots of the articles has been deleted.--Taranet (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of us here can't read Farsi (which is what I assume that is, at first I thought it was some version of Arabic but then I looked at the domain name and took the hint.) Are these deletions taking place on English WP or Farsi WP? And while Jimbo is a man of the world, I doubt he knows much Farsi either. Neutron (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the language is important. Persian WP's Criteria for speedy deletion is the same as en.wiki and the problem is a paradox in the CSD:G7: G7 assumes the only author as the article's owner!

In this case I found out that the user was accused for trolling in Dec 2011 and since then he is slowly deleting 10s of articles using CSD:G7. So I don't see the case as 'a good faith'. But the paradox in CSD:G7 should be solved soon. Does a user own their article or they are publishing them 'agreeing to the Terms of Use, and they irrevocably agree to release their contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.'?--Taranet (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no paradox. CSD:G7 is a maintenance process for cleanup of unwanted stuff, not a way to own the article. The author can request articles to be removed from view, but this will stick only for uncontroversial removals. The content is still CC-licensed and available in the article's history. If deletion is disputed, anyone can request its content to be undeleted or userfied and freely use it for any purpose; the license that the author agreed to when submitting the content can't be revoked afterwards. There's a need to take some care with attribution of the content to its author, but it can be done. (I don't know if Persian policies for deleting and restoring articles are similar to English ones, but the CC license certainly works the same everywhere). Diego (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't read Farsi, so I'm unable to understand this particular situation with any level of nuance. I can offer this general advice, though. The legal situation is almost never of any practical relevance. The fact that someone has irrevocably released something under a CC license is true enough, but seldom particularly important. It can often be the case that when content has been added by a user who is now unhappy - for whatever reason - the right thing to do is to delete it or let them delete it. There can be some exceptions but generally speaking, no one person's work is so fundamentally valuable that it's worth a big fight about it. This is particularly true in G7 types of cases, i.e. the person in question is the only substantial contributor. If the topic were all that critical, someone else would have added something about it.

We had a similar discussion recently about a user who was apparently under 18 and who wanted to delete images contributed to commons. I would as a general rule say that no good comes of big fights about such things - just let the content be deleted. Again, there can be some rare exceptions - if someone of sound mind contributes a particularly useful and irreplaceable work and then decides to remove it for some reason that isn't very sensible, I think it could make sense to oppose it. But some people oppose all removals of information in a way that I think is unnecessary and unpleasant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is spot on, but just to clarify, I'd say this only applies when the material can be excised fairly easily -- images, for instance, and articles where one person is the only contributor or overwhelmingly the major contributor. Trying to remove material that is intertwined with other's work is too hard, technically (and would also open a different can of worms). But that said, it's true that a stance of "OK, maybe you didn't fully understand the details of the licensing or later repercussions of your contributions or whatever, but tough titties cos we gotcha so go pound sand and next time read the fine print, sucker" is probably not a good attitude for building an encyclopedia which relies on voluntary contributions. Herostratus (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The only last addendum I could give is that one exception is if someone wants their own contributions deleted for some sound legal reasons. One might be copyright violations. If someone says "Hey, wow, I'm really sorry but when I started contributing a year ago, I didn't know anything about copyright, and I added a lot of material from an old book that's still under copyright. Lots of other people have edited the content, but it's still recognizably a derivative work of that original. This really sucks, but I need us to delete it and I'm sorry." Well, I think we should frown at such a person, but we need to do the deletion. I'd tend to say the same thing about a contributor who is underage, although that's a more complex matter and if it ever did come up, I think we'd want to seek advice from the Foundation's legal team. (What I'm thinking of is someone who says "I contributed this content when I was 16 and didn't understand the legal ramifications of what I was doing so now I want to delete it and I'm very sorry about all the other people's work that is mixed in with mine that has to be deleted too.") I don't know the answer in such a case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on mutual alliance with Macrothink Institute

The Macrothink Institute is obviously a big-name donor to the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's very pleasing to see that their recent generous donation to the WMF has received a laudatory response from Sue Gardner, "You are wonderful!" I can't imagine how much money was donated, but surely it will help keep Wikipedia running for years and years. Again, congratulations, Jimmy, Sue, and the whole WMF staff! - 2001:558:1400:10:7D8A:726D:8BD:87F7 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You might like to start here -- the blog of a University of Colorado librarian who includes Macrothink in a list of 225 "predatory publishers" and recommends that “researchers, scientists and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards or reviewing papers from them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of author misconduct.” A view that differs somewhat from Ms Gardner's. Writegeist (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, get a grip. Yes, it looks like a dodgy publisher, but this is a thank you mail shot. Sure, if there's anything WMF can do to get them to remove it, they should do it, but there probably isn't. Formerip (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite droll to see the appeal to a fantasy figure juxtaposed with "get a grip". :-) Writegeist (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree. The letter looks to me like the standard form letter sent from online donations. To my knowledge (but I wouldn't be the right person to ask) this is not a donation from the major donor program or anything - just a routine online donation by what appears to be, as FormerIP says, a "dodgy publisher". As to what the WMF should do about it? Well, the range of options is fairly narrow. The Foundation could issue a press release denouncing them and return the money. I would advocate that in some instances. The Foundation could contact them and let them know that it is unseemly for them to pretend to some kind of relationship if there is none, but as far as I can see, their press release is 100% true (I'm assuming they did donate something and got the form letter response). In this case, they seem to do this with other institutions too See also the press release. It is a bit of an odd practice but... so what? Unless more evidence surfaces, I think that the Foundation doing anything would likely be net unproductive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of "so what?", it has to be said that someone visiting their homepage without clicking through might get the impression of an endorsement. So it's a bit of sharp practice. But I don't think it could have been reasonably foreseen and I also can't see what WMF can do about it. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I just visited their home page and don't see any mention of the WMF at all. Did you mean to say, visit their page where they print the donation form response?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It's on the homepage. RH side under "latest news". Formerip (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes this ship has already sailed and therefore, as Formerip says, there's not much the WMF can do about it. But in future it might be a good idea if the letter sent in response to online donations doesn't gush "You are wonderful!" in instances where "You are dodgy!" is more apposite. Writegeist (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This comment makes me sad.

An editor posted this comment, and I find it disturbing. How can we engage in our mission if some of our editors don't feel comfortable contributing due to the hostile comments of others? Powers ^T 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Truly a mess of wikipedia's own making, exacerbated by the vindictive pursuit of those who boldly made the move while ignoring those engaged in transphobic hate commentary♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In the link you gave:

Re "Then I saw her name changed back on Wikipedia" — It was the title that was changed back, not the name nor gender. Here's the first paragraph of the article.

"Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. She was sentenced to be confined for 35 years and dishonorably discharged from the service. This was reduced by 112 days for harsh treatment received during pre-trial confinement at Quantico. With credit for other pre-trial confinement and good behavior, she could be released on parole after eight years.

I have the impression that there is a belief by some Wikipedians that the move of the title back to Bradley was motivated by trans-genderphobia, rather than what editors honestly considered good editing practice. Is that the case here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As the linked comment makes clear, the problem was not so much with the move itself as with the commentary that accompanied it, much of which was highly offensive. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this issue was discussed in a previous section of Jimbo's Talk page here. I think that editors should be sensitive to other editors' feelings in general, including discussions involving transgender issues. Unfortunately there seems to be a significant number of editors that belong to a combative subculture in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not about the Manning article; this is about how some editors feel that it's not even worth the effort to try to educate others because of the pushback and hostility they receive. This specific case is about trans* editors, but it also applies to female editors, and is a major cause of our gender gap. We should find ways to encourage more editing -- and more talk page discussion -- from female and transgender editors, not discourage it. Powers ^T 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "We should find ways to encourage more editing -- and more talk page discussion -- from female and transgender editors, not discourage it." — Any suggestions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish I did. I was hoping to spur some discussion and harness the wisdom of the crowds. Powers ^T 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

For the case of transgender issues for example, a template might be created that puts a notice at the top of a talk page that has discussion about transgender issues, to caution editors about the sensitivity of the subject. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't to blame - this is altogether a confused situation. We have a perfect storm of factors, including:

• The name change isn't fully legal. Manning still wants to be known as Bradley in official correspondence and for appeals, which means that many petitions, motions, and ensuing publicity will be under that name.
• Manning was known as Bradley during all major public appearances, and now is essentially unavailable.
• Manning is not permitted to do things to assert a female identity - people are still passing around a really bad picture from 2010 while she was still generally presenting herself as male.
• Manning has ticked off conservatives who may indeed be trans-phobic who deny the validity of the transition - but who also have legitimate concerns about whether taxpayers should pay for treatments. We may discount their opinions but it still affects how certain media report the issue.
• Manning has at least confused liberals who had been sticking to a script that Bradley was a gay man who was unfairly discriminated against by the military in a way that had a strongly counterproductive effect on national security. Saying she was a pre-transition transsexual who needed sex reassignment therapy opens up a huge can of worms. (Is it reasonable to expect the military to enlist a soldier who needs significant surgery and hormone treatment, and if so, should they be willing say to enlist a 400-pound soldier, pay for bariatric surgery, and pay his salary while he slims down?) So there's deep root confusion on both sides.
• Outcome of all this, not sure of the weighting, is that a news search still seems to prefer Bradley even for present articles. Which suggests that the move was premature, since typically we follow the sources.

Basically, it seems like about as confused a case as Wikipedia is likely to run across. We are ultimately no better than the data we have to work with. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So, this user, who registered 2 days ago and whose user page says that they used to be another named user, who registered a month ago and whose user page suggests that they were a long time IP editor (presumably with some time to consider a user name before registering) thinks that it is tragic that Wikipedia did not instantly change the title of an article after the subject was known by a name for 25 years but, according to some sources, chose a third name 3 years ago chose to rename themselves? Did I get all of that right? UnbelievableError (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, my point has nothing to do with renaming the Manning article. I brought this up because when we have a user who feels intimidated against editing because of anti-trans hostility and insensitivity coming from fellow editors, that's a serious problem. Powers ^T 13:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it is a bit of a wake-up call that it is time to learn how to deal with people with opposing points of view. The truly hostile and derogatory comments made in those discussions, if there were any, will be dealt with via the Arbitration hearings going on right now. "Insensitivity" is a catch-all buzzword for "things I don't like", quite honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well what other word would you use for comments that disparage transgenderism? Surely you couldn't describe them as being particularly sensitive to the feelings of such people? Powers ^T 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. No response to my last message. Oh well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the real problem being not so much trans hostility as Manning hostility form US patriots outraged that anyone should support Manning, who has been convicted of espionage, i.e. giving away US govt property to wikileaks. There are too many rumours of editors who have supported the Chelsea name and she pronoun being made to "pay" for daring to defend Manning, a "traitor" in the eyes of some editors though not in my eyes but I am not American either♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this thread doesn't seem to be moving towards solutions, but rather towards battling. I tried to move this thread in a positive direction in my discussion with Powers, but that seems to be ignored. Are all of you sure that you want this kind of uncooperative environment for Wkipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see battling. It's a complicated situation because Manning is so otherwise unsympathetic. Without diffs or quotes it's hard to know if this is a real problem, blowback from Manning being (at least arguably) a not very nice person, just life in the big city, or whatever. I'm inclined to be supportive because I've seen evidence of a frat-boy vibe on the Wikipedia before, but can we get some diffs or quotes? Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Re "I don't see battling." — Actually, I wrote that it seems to be moving towards battling, in contrast to not moving towards cooperation. Perhaps you have a different impression that the discussion is moving towards cooperation or is already cooperative and working on solutions to differences?

As I mentioned in my last message, I tried to move this thread in a positive direction in my discussion with Powers, but that seems to be ignored. Did you want to contribute anything to that discussion? The last message in that discussion was mine of 01:08, 12 September 2013.

Re "I'm inclined to be supportive..." — Could you clarify what you are inclined to be supportive towards? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The WMF response to the Visual Editor RFC is disappointing and insulting

Jimmy I just wanted to stop by and leave a message about how seriously disappointed I am in the WMF right now. Not only did they release Visual Editor months before it was ready (and it still isn't) when the community held an RFC and got a conensus to make Visual Editor opt in only, the WMF tells us to F off. Now it may not seem like a big deal that more than 800 individual editors voted and more almost 500 supported the proposal but its a huge deal. Its unprecedented to get that many editors to vote on anything let alone get a consensus like that. Then you have WP:FLOW on the horizon and all indications are that it will destroy all the talk page templates and pretty much eliminate all WikiProjects and a lot of the other support infrastrcture we have built up over the last few years that use the talk pages. So, since the WMF clearly doesn't give a damn about us volunteer editors and doesn't care about what we have to say, I am taking a break from editng. Maybe a few days, maybe forever and I don't think anyone will care that I'm gone. But I wanted to let you know that as passionate as I am about the success of the project, we as volunteers deserve better treatment from the organization that is supposed to be supporting the project. Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think that response evaluates to "F off", you have a serious perspective issue. What I see is more along the lines of "We've tried to accommodate the community's concerns, but going opt-in isn't an option for these reasons." Powers ^T 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The response is basically that they will continue to provide access to VE to a group of editors that isn't skilled enough to monitor their edits for damage or to have any understanding as to why things went wrong because they consider testing VE to be more important than the Wikipedia project itself. It may not be "fuck off", but it certainly smacks of "out of my way with your petty concerns".—Kww(talk) 21:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a cynic about these things, but it seems to me this whole Early Introduction And Damn the Torpedos Full Speed Ahead Even Though The Boat Ain't Seaworthy approach is related to the annual WMF fundraising cycle. WMF pretty clearly has an agenda with Visual Editor and they aren't gonna let pesky established editors get in the way of it... Carrite (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention the unseemly institutional enthusiasm (wanting to seem cool?) for the oh-so-trendy and entrepreneurial "release early and often" screw-em standard of software user abuse. Ahem - bit of an embarrassment, that. It's an encyclopedia - software stability and usability should be of paramount concern. The opt-in consensus of the community should have been honored without hesitation. --Lexein (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  Software development is not well suited to mob rule. Powers ^T 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• And can I add a criticism from a slightly different angle? The Foundation admitted two years ago this month that it was a mistake to let community processes involving programming run all the way through before telling the community that they weren't going to do it no matter what the community decided. Even though they were clearly more reluctant and open about this RFC they could have saved the community a great deal of trouble by just saying up front that they weren't going to do this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I took their response as more along the lines of "we screwed stuff up, but so what? It's shiny!" Having a captive audience shouldn't be an excuse to operate this way. Especially when the people working on this stuff are volunteers. It might do well for some to remember that. Intothatdarkness 17:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• I guess the founder has no opinion on this Visual Editor debacle. I would be interested to hear his thoughts on this and if he is in support of the WMF's decision to ignore the community. 24.107.244.140 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been no decision to "ignore the community". Nor is Kumioko's characterization of the Foundation's position as "F off" even remotely accurate. I think the Foundation is broadly doing the right thing with the Visual Editor, and I also think there were serious mistakes that must be learned from going forward. In particular, I think TransporterMan is onto something when he suggests that the Foundation could have been even more clear that RfC's are not the right way to design software (although ever since the Flagged Revisions debacle, that's been abundantly clear). The Foundation is NOT, and I repeat this very loudly, NOT pursuing a software development strategy that ignores community input. Anyone who says that is either not paying attention and deeply misinformed, or just trying to cause trouble. It is important to draw a very clear distinction between "they didn't do this exactly how I think they should have done it" and "they are ignoring the community".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to comment but I do disagree with one thing. By telling community they will not support a consensus they are, by definition, ignoring them. So although the F off comment may have been pushing the limit, its more a matter of perspective to me. Is the more important thing to build an encyclopedia or to have the community test software? If the WMF doesn't need the community, then they can surely ignore them. If they don't need the community then they should probably work with them. 24.107.244.140 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, are you blind? The foundation said this - We aren't following your consensus. We don't care about your consensus, it doesn't control us. That goes against what the WMF is supposed to be there for. You need to step up and smell the consensus, and act upon it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you expect me to respond with kindness to an insulting question like "Jimbo, are you blind?" Well, I will respond with kindness but you really should think about whether it's productive to insult me rather than have a thoughtful conversation with me. The Foundation did not say "We aren't following your consensus. We don't care about your consensus, it doesn't control us." You wrote that. What the Foundation said was very thoughtful and more nuanced than that. It's very easy to get yourself in an emotional outrage to the point that you are calling me blind, but a little moderation and careful reading will be quite valuable to you. I recommend you go back and read the statement again, but with love in your heart rather than anger. I think you may re-evaluate where there might be some blindness. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you actually thought of the community as what they are - above your own opinion - and tried to resolve this issue, then I wouldn't feel so insulted myself as a member of the community so as to need to be that blunt. Being more "nuanced" and more "thoughtful" or "thought out" does not change the message that they were conveying - We control this, and we are not going to do what you say just because you have consensus. When I read their statement, the only thing I had in my mind was "What are they saying?". Not anger. You have this "WMF IS RIGHT" ideology, and in this case, the WMF is exercising an authority it should not have. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not the message they were conveying at all. I do not have a "WMF IS RIGHT" ideology. If you can accept that I'm saying those two things in good faith, you may be able to go back and reread what they said and what I've said in a more cooperative spirit. There are several options on the table now, all of which are better than the current situation. Which one do you support?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why take the time to support any of them? The WMF will just do what it thinks is right. --Onorem (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the community consensus - which the WMF has said that they will not do. Them offering their options is not the same as accepting consensus. Consensus is very in favor of opt-in, not opt-out. The WMF is saying "we don't care, but here's what we'll accept as your consensus". You asking me which of the WMF options I support is irrelevant - it doesn't matter what the WMF gives us as options - they should accept the consensus for what it is. Whatever it is. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, it's not a matter of them not doing it "exactly how I think they should have done it." They were grossly irresponsible by releasing it too early, and have been steadfastly deaf to pleas to put it back under controlled test until it works. The RFC wasn't a method of design, it was trying to get them to listen and understand basic facts, and they proved that they are unwilling to recognize that their inability to test their software is not Wikipedia's problem.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Suffice to say, I do not agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I bet their minds would be changed if all or a lot of the supporters didn't edit for a while like the one who started this discussion. One person leaving won't change anything but a bunch of editors leaving would I bet. Or if they just stopped using it and stopped testing it. If no one is using it or supporting it then it won't take long for it to sink in. It really doesn't matter to me, I got here on accident anyway. But I'm sorta starting to see why there aren't many new editors signing up. If the community and the company that owns the software don't get along then the community members probably won't either. 24.107.244.140 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What is it that you don't agree with? Do you think that intentionally releasing software you know to be broken is responsible behaviour? Or do you think that using inexperienced editors as test subjects is an acceptable test strategy? Or that failing to allocate staff to monitor the edits produced by those inexperienced test subjects in order to repair them is responsible behaviour? What's the defense?—Kww(talk) 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok let's go through this step by step. I think it was a mistake to release VE when the Foundation did, and the Foundation agrees and has apologized repeatedly. I do not think it was 'irresponsible' - it was a poor decision, but not all poor decisions rise to the level of irresponsibility. I think that if we want to improve the software with a key goal of helping newbies become editors, then yes, we must test the software with newbies. I think that's patently obvious. In terms of monitoring for problems created by newbies using the new editor, I have seen no evidence - least of all from critics who seem more interesting in slinging around arrogant insults than in helping - that the rate of reverts is dramatically different for newbies using the VE versus newbies using wikitext. Facts matter. I do think that a key focus of bug fixing should be to focus on any bugs that are causing newbies to break things without realizing it. If you agree with me about that, let me suggest that the best way to accomplish your goals is to stop throwing around completely false claims and inappropriate moral judgments.

Now, that's a response to each of your questions, but let me additionally explain what was wrong with your original statement. The Foundation has not been "steadfastly deaf to pleas" - they have been working hard to find solutions to real problems. Some people have been "steadfastly deaf" to the Foundation's thoughtful responses. It's possible to disagree without engaging in completely silly apocalyptic dramaz.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Comparing the RfC results to the WMF reply leaves a bad taste, and the Wikimedia response of 'never mind, we'll do it anyway, we have reasons for it'---does come across as a tad arrogant, as does the notion of 'Don't tell us how to develop software'. Such comments just invite cynic/sarcastic commentary. I have worked in software developing teams without being an SD myself. From that experience I can tell you that VE was not beta on release date, it was alpha. Releasing alpha software and afterwards putting warnings in place, fixing known major bugs, providing links to alternatives, etc. is indeed somewhat irresponsible, not of the individuals involved but of the team as one entity. Are WMF and community working together, or are they working against each other? --Pgallert (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo,to apologize retroactively and say, ten weeks later, that they finally understand that they made a mistake rings a little hollow. We told them they had made a mistake ten weeks ago. Why didn't they listen then? We're telling them now that the software is still badly broken. Will they admit 10 weeks from now that we were right?

I don't make false statements. Claiming that the revert rate is no higher is one thing: the problem is that someone has to check each and every edit looking for the problems because the software is untrustworthy. We do continually uncover bugs that lead to article corruption. We have identified sources of article corruption that they refuse to fix. They still can't perform that basic tasks required to edit most articles.

I firmly agree that once the code works, it will be necessary to have a phase that tests it with newbies. Since the code doesn't work, there's no need to test it with newbies right now. That's all the RFC said: it didn't say "Never have a Visual Editor" or "Visual Editors suck", it said "this particular Visual Editor is in such bad shape that it is not suitable for deployment." That's not a false statement.

And yes, the initial deployment may have been a mistake. To refuse to undo the deployment when that mistake became painfully obvious was irresponsible. It still is.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Vaguely speaking, of the approx 10 things that a newbie needs to know to do basic editing in Wikipedia, they created a complicated system to make the easiest ONE (editing basic text) easier. That doesn't help. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo - I could take this to mean "let's test BLP additions without references". Because what you're saying is, in essence, let's test this on those who already have trouble referencing, and make it super easy to add claims, but super hard to add references. Have you looked at the interface? It is not intuitive at all. New users have been using less references, but adding more vandalism and unsourced claims since VE was enabled. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, VE makes Wikipedia evil/suck/etc. The fact that many articles on my watchlist lights up with Visual Editor tags indicates (1) we now seem to filter VE edits in the same way we filter vandal edits and (2) instead of me making one good edit, I'm going to spend three times as long checking a VE edit has been made correctly. Is this helping Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Trustee to be head of UK Public Relations Body

It has been announced that Alastair McCapra, Secretary and Trustee of Wikimedia UK, elected June 2013, is to become the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the principal trade body for PR in the U.K. There is a discussion here about whether this constitutes a conflict of interest. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously a conflict of interest and clearly demands a choice between one or the other. There is no shame in that - such is the nature of nonprofit work. But especially for Wikimedia UK, with a history of problems in this area, it's absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt something that has to be handled with the utmost defensiveness about the reputation of the organization. I trust that Alastair will do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how did Arne Klempert handle his obvious conflict of interest when he sat with you on the Wikimedia Foundation board from May 2009 to July 2012, while simultaneously serving as PR firm Fleishman-Hillard's director of digital media, beginning October 2010? Was that situation handled with the utmost defensiveness about the reputation of the WMF? Please describe what measures were taken to ensure that Klempert's obligations to his public relations firm did not conflict with his obligations as a non-profit trustee of your charity. - BTMxDMaccount (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he would be better placed to answer those questions than I am.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You have mail. And, a Latin American topic

Courtesy close of completed discussion by request of participant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Jimbo, just a note, firstly, that I sent you two emails, one on August 28 and one on September 2. The second contains a copy of the first, so if you find that one, you've found both :) On a largely unrelated topic, I've recently talked a little with a very enthusiastic Wikipedia editor from Cuba. Just like the student editors from mainland China that I've worked with in the past, this editor doesn't want to edit about politics or to become involved in any commentary on how internet matters are handled there. However, they have seen some obstacles to their Wikipedia editing that are perhaps a bit unexpected, and I think this is of wider interest. From my understanding, in some (not most) circumstances in Cuba, reading and editing the English Wikipedia is totally unrestricted. That's great, and you can imagine how even a country that doesn't want certain "Western" influences to get out of hand, can see the benefits of access to the knowledge that's available here. (Things like the carefully neutral lead to our article Cuba probably help with that.) However, it also appears that even in these same circumstances in Cuba where English Wikipedia is totally unrestricted, a whole swathe of other websites, including Wikimedia Commons, are totally blocked. It's been noted that this makes editing English Wikipedia itself very difficult - the editors can't search out sources on the internet to add to articles, they can't verify or comment on internet sources added by others, they can't add media from Commons to articles they're working on, they can't participate in discussions about what content from Commons to include in English Wikipedia articles. They presumably can't get involved with Meta or Wikidata or other projects. Commons has rightly had some criticism over aspects of how it's run and some of the material stored there, and indeed some of that material would not be considered acceptable by those who make such decisions in Cuba. However, I would hope that a case could be made that most of the material stored on Commons is still educational in nature and intent. I realise you can't pick up the phone and say, "please put me through to whoever is in charge of the internet in Cuba", nor would it be useful to start publicly campaigning to change a rather arbitrary (and for all we know, temporary) set of restrictions that apply to a small portion of a relatively small country that isn't rolling out internet access in a big way. However, Cuba doesn't operate in a vacuum; its leaders and policy makers and other influential people are regularly in touch with similar people from a number of other Latin American nations with a similar viewpoint on the world. It would perhaps be useful if, where opportunity allows, you were to ask about how those countries regard access to Wikipedia and its associated projects, and about how Cuba deals with such things and whether there are things they could do to improve that. Or things that might alleviate some of their concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I haven't looked into the situation in Cuba in a while, so you've prompted me to go and review it. Meeting with government officials in hostile jurisdictions is something that I do whenever the opportunity presents itself, because I think in many cases we can have a positive impact. Far too many people in the tech world simply look the other way and suck up to bad governments because they want to do business there - we can press the human rights case and offer positive experiences and reasons for them to change. But of course there is no magic bullet, and words from me can realistically do precious little.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Alan Phillip Gross is an interesting read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Commons and other sites are not completely blocked in Cuba, just in the place where I work. My decision of no talking about politics it is personal, nobody else is involved and I don't want to get involved in any discussion about this matter. Please. Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I have been mentoring Miss Bono for six months, and much of what I do involves assisting her with research that she can't complete herself because of her internet access challenges. I respectfully ask all editors to refrain from trying to discuss politics with her, as she has repeatedly made it clear to me that this topic is off limits for her. But she is always grateful for assistance with research regarding U2 and Bono and also tips on English language usage. She is an excellent editor, and I am proud to have her as a friend. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Jimbo, don't you think that before pressing the human right cases in Cuba you should press the human right cases here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.225.100 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC) People choose to work here, they dont choose to be born in Cuba or wherever and editors get blocked here not sent to prison so how are the 2 cases comparable♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Well it's worth saying (in reply to SqueakBox) that people get sent to prison in lots of different countries, for lots of different things. It's difficult to identify one particular country that sends more of its population to jail. Well... OK there is one. Sorry, I was not originally intending to politicise this :| --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, I didnt really mean to sound anti Cuba, I am more pro Latin America (as a "gringo" over here in Latin America) than anti Cuba and deeply laments its isolation from the rest of Latin America, I dont think comparing wikipedia to any govt is right though not least cos we are here volunteering out of choice♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Demiurge1000 and SqueakBox Nobody is going to prison, it's just that I want to be in a low profile. I am ok with my Internet situation, my mentor makes some research for me, and when I have access to the Internet I do the other part of the research. Can you please drop this section? I don't want to be involved in any discussion about this matter, so please I am asking all of you, leave this stuff, I've spent more than six month in Wikipedia and I haven't had any problems here because of my Internet poor access at work, and I strongly prefer it stays that way. I find Internet very dangerous, people stealing identities and those kind of scary stuffs, so I am cool as I am right now, I've achieve some really good stuffs here, includong a GA-Class to my very first article and a revived project. So I am cool. Can I ask you, Jimbo, let me stay as I've been doing so far? Please. Thank you very much. Miss Bono [zootalk] 12:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia controversy

I'm not interested in running any kind of "war" or crusade against Croatian Wikipedia, but I think that Wikimedia Foundation should seriously look into the current media allegations against its administrators. The controversy is covered by at least three of the five largest daily newspapers in Croatia.

Although the accusations against Croatian Wikipedia are nothing new, latest controversy began when Jutarnji list published an article (appeared on the front page of printed edition) which cited examples of "historical revisionism" and "right-wing bias" on Wikipedia and accused administrators for harassing and blocking all editors who tried to remove biased statements in articles. It is possible that the initial media coverage is driven by the facebook group Razotkrivanje sramotne hr.wikipedije (Exposing shameful Croatian Wikipedia). The story was then picked up by dozens of major newspapers and portals in Croatia and across the region (for example, in Croatia:Novi list ([2]), Index.hr ([3], Slobodna Dalmacija ( [4])...)

Administrators of Croatian Wikipedia issued a statement in which they "denied accusations", but if you read the statement carefully, you will see that they didn't deny anything. The first part of the statement is unrelated rant about political situation in Croatia, and the second part is a general talk about editing Wikipedia. They used "site notice" to post a link to this statement on every page of Wikipedia. Text of the message in "site notice" is "Official and public refutation of yellow journalism of the Jutarnji list".

Željko Jovanović, Minister of Science, Education and Sports in Croatian government, issued the following statement:

We can only say with regret that the possibility of open and relevant source of information that Wikipedia can be and should provide, is completely undermined in the Croatian version, which surely has never, even now, been the goal of Wikipedia founders, nor the huge number of people around the world who generously share their time and knowledge with this media. Croatian Students are thus damaged and, unfortunately, we have to point out that much of the content in the Croatian version of Wikipedia is not only questionable, but also clearly falsified, and we invite them to use more reliable sources of information which includes English version and other language editions of Wikipedia.

Croatian Wikipedia is perhaps the worst offender (although we don't know for sure), but many other small Wikipedias have nationalistic tendencies, including all those in languages of Former Yugoslavia and Balkans. The Foundation should put more effort into monitoring the situation on smaller projects, so that they can timely respond in similar situations if necessary. Regards!--В и к и T 14:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on every aspect of this. I will make sure the Foundation sees your notice and will ask them to look into it. To me it seems particularly damning that the Croatian Minister you reference has made such a strong statement - if the complaints were coming only from Serbian sources, it becomes more complex for an outsider to evaluate it. My long held view is that it was always a mistake to have separate Wikipedias in this part of the world, since the language would be regarded as the same language under any objective standard. (The way it is written is not relevant - there is nearly perfect machine translation because it is just a change of script between Latin and Cyrillic.)

However, I ask your help as well. Could you please help me to find English speaking people from Croatian Wikipedia to have a thorough conversation about the situation?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Croatian Wikipedia and Category:User hr.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC) and 17:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to have time right away, but this seems urgent, can someone ask as many of them as is practical to pop here for a discussion? I'd like to see as many eyes on this problem as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Question on how Wikipedia language versions are chosen

From Jimbo's statement in the thread above on Croatian Wikipedia, I got to thinking- how does the Foundation (or the Community here on Wikipedia) decide on what "language" is proper to have a Wikipedia version, and what is not a properly distinguished language. I completely agree with Jimbo that Croatian and Serbian are indeed one language, separated only by script (and culture and religion, as Croatians being Roman Catholics and Serbians being Eastern Orthodox being what led to their initial split culturally and in script). How do we decide that Ukrainian and Belorussian are distinct from Russian, that Czech and Slovak are distinct, Macedonian and Bulgarian are distinct, that Cypriot Greek is different that Koine Greek, and even American English and British English. It can be pointed out that those in Spain and Portugal can often read each other's language newspapers with little to no difficulty (and that doesn't even count those in Galicia, while in Spain speak closer to a Portuguese dialect), those Spanish who speak Catalan in the region around Barcelona sometimes speak a language closer to the French spoke in Provence than they do to Castilian, Hebrew dialects in northern Israel are only slightly distinguishable from the Arabic dialects all the way into southern Lebanon, Bahasa Indonesia of Indonesia and the Malay of Malaysia are hardly differentiated as well. What criteria do we use, if any? Just a curious questionCamelbinky (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a language committee. But many decisions predate the language committee. There was a time in which we trusted the ISO codes on the theory that this was an international standard with expertise behind it. Unfortunately, the ISO code turn out to be highly politicized and just wrong in some respects. You raise a lot of interesting questions and unfortunately there are not really easy answers to them. Some broad principles can be put forward, but it's tricky in the details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

Dear Jimbo, do you get tons of notifications, or do you have them disabled? --BDD (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have them disabled on en.wikipedia and most other wikis. I have them enabled on a few wikis. This is not systematic really, it's just the way I have it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)