User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wikis with shared namespaces

Wikipedias that use Wikidata for infoboxes in green

When wikis with shared namespaces were created (currently Wikidata and Commons), the advantages were obvious. But what about the downsides? The risk of those projects influencing other projects, the risk of policy or administrator actions local to Wikidata and Commons having an influence on other projects? Have there been considerations on how to mitigate that risk? And have efforts been made to improve collaboration both ways? Consider the infobox on es:Jimmy Wales and Jimmy Wales. The former has only 4 parameters and gets the rest from Wikidata, the latter has 19 parameters. Afaik this is because enwiki doesn't trust Wikidata to keep vandalism under control. On another project, an influential administrator prefers not to trust Commons with things that influence many pages. Frankly I can't blame them. Coming up with solutions is easy, but it's not my place. - Alexis Jazz 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think cross-wiki decision making will always be disjointed and hard, particularly around editorial judgments. Smaller wikis (I wouldn't count Spanish in that group, I hasten to add) may make the choice to lean heavily on wikidata in all cases, because they don't have a big enough community to do all that for themselves. Larger communities may make different choices. And they may make different choices due to locally important factors - maybe minor soap stars are a target of vandalism in one country but not another, etc. I couldn't even begin to think through all the specific factors that might lead to different decisions in different places.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The question is why "bigger" wikis even bother to do it all themselves. The same information is being maintained in English, German, Portuguese, etc, etc, just a waste of time. I gather from your response that not too much is being done to determine what the bottlenecks are. I personally know (the worst kind of research) there is at least one technical bottleneck, that being that edits on Wikidata that affect a local article don't show on the local watchlist. But besides that I think it's mostly about trust. Maybe Wikidata and Commons shouldn't have their own administrators, instead having representatives from all the other projects. I don't really know, but I do know that several communities experience at least Commons (which is harder to ignore than Wikidata for the average user) as a forced marriage. Also, please take a look at the map. You'd expect a checkerboard pattern of green and red, but that's not what you'll find at all. - Alexis Jazz 03:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt

I have no idea whether this is the appropriate place to put this, so I apologize if it isn't. Every year the University of Chicago holds an campus-wide scavenger hunt; this is a major event in the academic calendar and is significant enough to have its own page on this wiki (University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt). This year, the most valuable item on the entire list is "87. "A Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team (on its talk page).... User:Jimbo Wales posting his support for your team. (50 points)" Mr. Wales, I am here on behalf of the IHouse Scav team to request your support. Will you please help us by replying to this? Thanks, IHouse Scav 2020 - IHouseScav2020 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@IHouseScav2020: Can we get a link to the list? From reading the article, there seems to be a certain "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" aspect to this. What kind of scratch are we talking about? We wouldn't want any paid editors putting "Hi IHouse" on their talk pages, now would we? BTW (warning - joke incoming), why does this sentence remind me of Wikipedia? "Any University of Chicago student with a GPA above 0.5 may apply to be a judge." Humorously yours, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK the full item with the correct numbering is "88. A Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team (on its talk page). A Wikipedia account created before the Hunt that posts its support for your team. A Wikipedia account with one of the various non-admin privileges (auto/extended/confirmed does not count) that posts its support for your team. An admin Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team. A bureaucrat Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team. User:Jimbo Wales posting his support for your team. [1, 2, 6, 9, 25, and 50 points, respectively"

See top left hand corner Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the full item. I can't speak for any other Scav teams, but IHouse has exactly zero financial resources, so you don't have to worry about any back scratching here. I think we're counting on our roguish charm and clear moral superiority over the other teams making supporting us its own reward. :P IHouseScav2020 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm seriously demotivated here, I'm only a 6 pointer (AP, ECo, IP, Rv) - and not even sure of the 6 points (the IP thingee should do it, it lets me edit in the local library!). "15 years of editing and they put you on the day shift".[1] If I were you, I'd wait for Jimbo to show up. If you are motivated by six points, let me know and I'll give you a 30-60 minute task - an example of how to participate at Wikipedia. This can be delayed, I'll assume good faith. Smallbones_{([[User talk:Smallbones|smalltal, k)} 21:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Haven't been able to confirm that scav404.org is the official 2020 edition of the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt. But assuming it is, that item 88 could disrupt Wikipedia a bit. So..

F*** it. Let's all stand up.

I suggest we all post support for all the teams on our talk pages! Just add {{User:Alexis Jazz/item88}} to your talk page. I pity whoever has to tally up the points.. actually I don't. - Alexis Jazz 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I was probably joking around here too much. I wanted to see more about what the scavenger hunt was all about, and get Jimbo some more information if he really wanted to endorse that team. An apparent tragedy has now struck IHouseScav2020 has been blocked for having a group username and not being here to build an encyclopedia. I won't criticize the blocking admin. IHouseScav2020 can get a new user name just by asking the admin. As far as improving the encyclopedia (this will probably work - but no guarantees), please write up 2 paragraphs to appear in our on-site newspaper for Wikipedia editors, The Signpost, on why U of C students consider getting the endorsement of Jimbo Wales to be worth the top point prize. Just drop it off on my user talk page whenever.

Just because this now looks like a mess, I'll put my endorsement on my user talk page (all 6 points worth). I'll even suggest to the blocking admin that he do the same (9 points worth) on his talk page. (I realize that not everybody shares my sense of humor). Heck, let's go for the whole 50 points! Jimmy, would you please consider giving the IHouseScav2020 team your endorseemnt here?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: it's a shame they didn't make item 88 something like "Participate in WikiGap Challenge to improve the coverage of women (don't be misled by that page: it's not restricted to Nigerian women), win a prize in the WikiGap Challenge, reach the top 3 in the WikiGap Challenge. [5, 15, 150 points respectively]"

Don't spam Jimbo, spam the encyclopedia with useful content! Really, they should retroactively change that rule. - Alexis Jazz 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they can do that too. They are much more likely to do it if we try to be somewhat nice to them! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They would be much more likely to do it if they just did it! But if the event is almost over, well, maybe next year. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Worlds Largest Scavenger Hunt Request

Hi! I am participating in the University of Chicago's annual scavenger hunt. One of the items this year is a shoutout by you for our team. I know its a silly request, but would you be willing to help us out by posting support for snitchcock scav on your talk page? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liabg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: hey, look, another one. - Alexis Jazz 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, multi-spam is a drawback to my approach. I suggest that Jimmy just support the first requester and make a simple statement that he can't support everybody who is likely to come by now. In any case, as I understand it, the contest ends today and it looks like Jimmy might be off doing something else today and won't have time to check this page today. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'd say it would be a much better idea to support none of the teams. Alternatively, if Jimbo or any other Wikipedian wishes to support the event (and prevent spam for other teams), support all the teams. If you support one, the others will just keep begging and come back next year. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I say we do not support any of this, because Wikipedia is WP:NOT social networking. These WP:MEAT puppets are using off-wiki organization to subvert the purpose of Wikipedia.

I don't care how fun it is. I welcome anyone who comes to build an encyclopedia. For you Scavenger Hunt dudes, Facebook and Twitter are thataway. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Not supporting is the best option. The scavenge hunters would be welcome to contribute to the project though and award each other points for that as part of the scavenger hunt. Wikipedia isn't a social network, but there inevitably is a social aspect. Might as well try to take advantage of that to benefit the project. - Alexis Jazz 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Minnow

Plip!

Just a joke xD

User:Ntfresll (talk) Ntfresll (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I stop

By User:Gun23man I have realised the damage I done and am sorry to everyone peace and love! 2A00:1FA0:441E:3B22:F8AF:5973:903D:320C (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you have done, but if it was damaging, and now you are stopping doing it, I thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think they mean to say they are Gun23man. Perhaps this user is very young. Just a guess though. - Alexis Jazz 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Was it okay fo me to do this?

Per Wikipedia policy, was it okay for me to do this? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If I am reading it correctly, then yes it is fine, however I would recommend some additional steps. First, the discussion should be copied to the relevant talk page. Second, I recommend raising some attention at WP:BLPN. Third, if the claim that the website is fake seems in any way credible to you, then a temporary removal of the link from the page seems warranted. As for me, I wouldn't consider it impossible that someone might create a fake website to smear someone, making it look plausible, and linking it in Wikipedia to give it some credence. On the other hand, random people claim all kinds of random things all the time, so it's hard to know. I would, out of an abundance of caution, remove the link unless some reliable source of international repute confirms it to be real.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits to remove unsourced material but I encourage everyone to take a look at this one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger: Wikipedia "scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics"

In the news today.[2] It's on Fox News, so please don't post a load of comments saying that it isn't a proper news source. Although I don't normally discuss politics on Wikipedia, I am not a lefty and don't think that Wikipedia is biased. We must be coming up to an election somewhere, this always happens in Britain as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, He is correct. Just edit articles in the political area and you'll see that. There is even a tracker of admin action that shows how not just the articles are biased but the admin boards and decisions are also biased. A "right leaning" editor can edit an article and get a specific sanction whereas a "left leaning" editor won't, or get a much more milder sanction if any. I don't think it's news to anyone who reads the articles here, let alone edits the articles that Wikipedia is biased. As to how to mitigate it, I'm not sure what the solution is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias is always in the eye of the beholder. I've never come across a Wikipedia article that had an obvious left wing bias, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well, to be fair, fact and neutrality have their own bias, and one largely at odds with Fox.

Any bias we have arises from the self-selection of our editors: what people would be most interested in contributing to an open content project? Fifteen years ago, when I was a new editor, the project was more anarchic, and I think we had more libertarian, lefty, and fringey types than we do now. As we've become mainstream, any bias we've had has become so as well. (For the record I'm not a lefty either and don't think we have much overall bias.) Antandrus (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, agreed...I recollect a vast swarm of 9/11 CTers and Bigfoot believers. Seems the nuttiest moved on or we simply chased them away.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

For a man who isn't involved with Wikipedia, Larry Sanger sure does commit an awful lot of airtime to it. Like an ex he still secretly loves... If we have a left bias, that reflects our sources, I'd say. The most prominent reliable sources tend towards the liberal side. Wikipedia doesn't claim that every article is neutral either, merely that we strive towards neutrality. I'd be very interested to see Larry Sanger actually get involved in a talk page conversation about say, Donald Trump, and see what his suggestions are to make it more neutral. Easy for him to sit back and say we have a problem, harder to help actually fix it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, the problem is as seen here is that many editors are unwilling to admit that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, so how can you sit down and discuss ways to improve when the other side says there is nothing to improve? Do you think Wikipedia has a left-wing bias in the political articles, especially when it comes to US politics? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, it has happened (not about Trump): Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_86#My_$0.02_on_the_issue_of_bias Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Fix ping to CaptainEek Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, Your first sentence kind of negates the rest of your point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Only if you think they stick to the facts. They don't, and it's a problem. What we desperately need are conservative sources that do. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, you are confusing Fox News with the Fox News shows. Do you think Don Lemon or other commentators at CNN or MSNBC are RS? The actual news at Fox is just as reliable as any other news, if not more. As I say, your first sentence negates the rest of your point and proves the bias, as you say, there is no bias on Wikipedia and then show your bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you are still confusing Fox News with a source that reports facts. It used to, a long time ago (see Guy's note below). We need moderate conservative sources that reliably report facts, and have very few; unfortunately Fox is not one of them. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, as I said, your point proves bias, and I don't think Guy is the one we need to be judging sources. Have you seen his rant on US politics and conservatives? I recall watching Rachel Maddow talk about the Naval hospital ship and how terrible it will be and what a poor decision it was to sail to to NYC and that it'll never get there on time, etc. But as Mandruss kind of alluded to, any criticism of left wing sources over here is ignored, yet as you continue to point out, you just throw out Fox merely for being Fox, and then claim you have no bias. At least admit you have a bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I think your error may be in assuming that I think Maddow is a reliable source. I don't. Maddow is an opinion show. Blowout is probably a RS, but the Maddow show is not. The Daily Beast is not reliable. Alternet is not reliable. Counterpunch is not reliable. On social media, I do not share the Palmer Report, Daily Kos, Occupy Democrats, The Canary. My politics are slightly left of centre (in as much as I have a party, it's the Liberal Democrats), but I don't judge sources by whether they agree with me, I try to stick to objective measures of reliability.

What the facts show, pretty clearly, is that left-leaning media, even highly partisan leftist media, are influenced by factual reporting, so conspiracy theories do not easily persist, whereas the conservative media bubble is dominated by an echo chamber effect that causes positive feedback. Which is why if you look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba you see a huge gap between the conservative bubble and the mainstream. It's why Hannity is still blethering on about Seth Rich, joined as of this week by Geraldo, and it's why a guy with a gun showed up to liberate the non-existent children held by non-existent paedophiles in the non-existent basement of a pizza joint.

And let's not forget that the opposite of mainstream is not conservative: the opposite of mainstream is fringe. Guy (help!) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, That may be so, but there is a big difference between Fox News Channel and Fox News. That site doesn't take that into account. I'm not going to keep debating with you since it's clear you don't think there is a media bias and you live in your little bubble looking down on everyone with a different opinion as dumb Americans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Sir Joseph -- you're still accusing me of bias when I merely recognize that Fox News is not a reliable source of factual information.

Let me put it this way: right-wing populism has divorced itself from objective reality and truth. There was a time, long ago, when conservatives routinely used facts, when the fact-using professions — science, medicine, and others — were full of conservatives. They are no longer, because facts matter when you are a scientist or a doctor. Tragically, this has all changed, as right-wing populism now develops its narrative from grievance and emotion, and looks for supporting facts: and if it cannot find them it invents "alternative facts", i.e. lies. Center and slightly left-of center sources still look at facts first; as you get farther left, of course, you find narrative-first, facts-second sources (Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and other such rubbish). Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Trump administration, and cannot be trusted for factual content. Put the facts first and develop the narrative once you know the facts, and the Goddess of NPOV will put her arm around you and give you a big sloppy kiss. And it's good for Wikipedia when you research and write with her blessing. Antandrus (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, Let me know when you need help with your shovel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, one of the problems we have here is that a few of the conservative editors, including you, flatly refuse to accept that there is a serious problem with conservative media's feedback loop, and that this is directly relevant to Wikipedia.

Plenty of us here wish that the US had more reliable right-leaning mainstream sources. Right now, the WSJ is about it, though IJR is interesting. I was a fan of Shep Smith, a moderate and sane conservative voice.

It's not the case in the UK. Most of our heavyweight papers here are right-leaning. And you'd be surprised how often The Times aligns with The NEw York Times despite The Times being quite right-wing (owned by Murdoch) and the NYTR being dismissed by the right in the US as liberal fake news. Guy (help!) 08:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Here's a little secret, I just voted in the Democratic primary a few days ago. I am actually an independent in a purple state. See, it's these little things that you as someone sitting in your castle in the UK don't get. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, oh I am not so isolated that I don't know about open primaries. Guy (help!) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Sorry, my state doesn't allow open primaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, yes, there is a difference between FNC and Fox News. Look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba. FNC is on a par with Daily Kos or Truthout for accuracy and balance, Fox News has the same bias level as The Daily Beast but is about 25% less accurate.

I think you might be living in the past. Prior to 2016, Fox News was roughly equivalent to CNN, but the 2016 election cycle and the influence of Breitbart changed that.

That doesn't mean Fox News only publishes bullshit - up to a third of its climate change coverage is now considered accurate and truthful - but it does mean that you can't trust it, because the distinction between fact and opinion is insufficiently delineated.

Note also that I (and most of my fellow liberal-leaning editors) do not cite CNN. Or MSNBC. Or HuffPo. And certainly not "News & Guts" or Palmer Report or any of the other liberal analogues to the conservative bubble. A rule that strikes out Newsmax also strikes out Mother Jones, and I'm good with that. Guy (help!) 08:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, "The consistent pattern that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms.” - Benkler, Yochai,. Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)}

Fox used to be mainstream, with bias. It's now part of the conservative media bubble, because theyw ere losing shares (and thus ad revenue) and because every time they criticised Trump, they were savaged by Brietbart. It's a dangerous truth that most of the GOP base is effectively isolated from any facts that contradict the conservative narrative. This is clearly visible in charts like this: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Guy (help!) 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Yes, we get it, you love throwing out Benkler every chance you get. The issue here is whether Wikipedia is biased or not. And I think you can say the very same things about left wing media that you are ranting about, rumors, etc. I've seen some crazy stuff being sent out by Occupy Democrats and even Biden commercials that got fact checked. So let's not pretend the media is all one way bias. You are the one who got a bit unhinged and wrote a rant after all. You really shouldn't be the one to tell people that Wikipedia isn't biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, well, that's an issue, but there's another one, which is what the hell we're supposed to do when the vast majority of conservative sources are unreliable. A problem bigger than Wikipedia, I think. Benkler is not the only source to make this point, but that book is unusually compelling because of its mathematical analysis.

Incidentally, you might not have noticed, but I am the one who got Occupy Democrats added to the deprecated source list. I also don't use HuffPo or a dozen other popular unreliable leftist sites. Guy (help!) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, That's your opinion that conservative sources are unreliable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, also the opinion of many others, including reliable independent sources. OAN and Breitbart, in particular. Guy (help!) 22:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile just to go to original blog to bypass the fox spin. Bulk of the post can be summarized on this point here: The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. which I'll let speak for itself as to why that point has issues that is not related to NPOV. The only aspect of his post that I do know is probably in the right direction is on the politics, though I would not say it as obnoxiously bad as claimed, but it is there. We rush to include any type of judgement that may fall on those on the right, but it can be difficult for any type of legitimate criticism of those on the left to be added. It's not that we need to be able to add more criticism to the left, but we need to back off on the criticism of the right (and in general, period, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and to the point of NPOV). --Masem (t) 19:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Enlightening link, thanks Masem. I somewhat agree that Wikipedia has issues of political bias. But I reject Sangers suggestion that our WP:FRINGE policies need changing. We don't give minority scientific viewpoints traction for very good reason (like MMR causing autism or climate change not being real). As the Plandemic video showed recently, the internet is increasingly being used as a tool of misinformation, and Wikipedia is perfectly suited to fight that kind of misinformation. Sanger mentions that "false balance" is flawed, but what would he have us do about that? Portray all viewpoints with equal weight? Let people claim 5G causes Corona?? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that when it comes to fringe aspects that have been disproven based on objective and sound scientific principles, we are fully in our right to disfavor them, hence the point of the quote I pulled. In areas of subjective "who is right or wrong", that's one we should be more cautious about and where I agree to a point that we're not NPOV anymore, just not to the alarmist level. --Masem (t) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I wish that there were some moderate conservative sources. Apart from the WSJ, there's close to nothing that can be used as a reliable source for facts. Guy (help!) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we have to be looking to include conservative criticisms of the left, it is that we should be a lot more resilient from including criticism from any side in the first place, and only after it's clear that such criticism is part of the enduring part of that topic to include. That still might be more liberal than conservative leaning in the long run, but it will absolutely be much closer to a central and neutral view than what we do now. --Masem (t) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, oh for sure. It should pass the "ten year test". Problem is, so many editors want to make Wikipedia into a real-time blow-by-blow commentary. Guy (help!) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Trump articles are really suffering from that, its a big WP:NOTNEWS issue. I think in ten years we'll see most Trump articles get trimmed down a great deal, once perspective starts to set in and we realize what was and wasn't important. But for the time being, we're hyper-reporting, which gives a feeling of great bias. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I like that term "hyper reporting" and that it does apply across the board to even not-as-political areas such as our coverage of COVID-19 in a broad sense, eg Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020 this is laughably not of any use to anyone in this form but its kept up to date. We've established a bad habit mindset of seeing something on the news and rushing to insert it, usually in WP:PROSELINE style, rather to consider if it is information that will be enduring or relavant in ten years or can be merged with other content, or so on. That's above and beyond the NPOV here but clearly feeds into it. --Masem (t) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If Larry Sanger is proposing that we must give equal time, space, and credence to the wildly-discredited claim that climate change is a scientific conspiracy hoax, or the frankly-dangerous nuttery around purported COVID-19 miracle cures/quackery... then we stop containing the "sum of human knowledge" and start containing "the sum of human foolishness and fraud." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, Larry Sanger tried this with Citizendium. He ended up with articles written from the perspective that homeopathy is legitimate, for example, and had to nuke great swathes of content.

I am forced to the conclusion that Wikipedia's model is the worst possible, apart from all those others that have from time to time been tried. Guy (help!) 20:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, after witnessing Sanger’s last abortive attempt to edit here, I can say that’s pretty spot-on. He was little else but disruptive, and didn’t even know or comprehend most our current policies. This was in the area of intelligent design, where he strongly advocated WP:FALSEBALANCE for various fringe views. If Wikipedia had continued the way he was saying he had intended, it would have likely suffered an even worse fate than Citizendium, and would not even be a fraction of what it is today. The project would have failed. Miserably. If he had his way, articles would just become endless coatracks that imparted little actual information, and certainly not in an encyclopedic way. Which would render Wikipedia at least partially useless. I’m sorry, but WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV (in its current incarnation), WP:RNPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:WEIGHT is what keeps Wikipedia ticking, growing, and becoming continually more accurate. Sanger would have us scrap over half of those foundational policies, from what I’ve seen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, indeed. Much of the noise about "political bias" comes from the outspoken conservative editors, who feel (and indeed probably are) outnumbered. But their voices are heard, and, where factual, I think usually recognised in content. We live in extraordinary times, though. Guy (help!) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t disagree that this is a subject that perennially crops its head up. I also feel that’s something of an American versus a global issue; most of the rest of the world doesn’t hold the opinions of that minority (especially nowadays); in fact, they’re actually rather dwarfed by the mainstream views. This is largely due, I think, to a shift in the Overton Window, and thus reliable sourcing with a “conservative” bent becoming less and less reliable as a result (with some exceptions).

Basically, what Masem said below. In this particular context though, I was talking specifically about Larry Sanger. I wouldn’t be surprised if he chose a controversial topic at random, that he knew involved fringe subjects, and chose to be a provocateur. I saw him pop up in a few other places in my watchlist around that time, but that was the only place I saw any sustained conversation. What I described was pretty accurate. He wanted to give equal time and priority to all “sides”, and “let the reader decide”. I also think I was pretty accurate in saying that this would have just turned the topic area into an inevitable mess, a morass it couldn’t emerge from without reliable sources and expert opinions. I believe that whether it be religion, or politics, we can present minority (or even fringe) views perfectly well, and accurately, but that they need to be in the context of mainstream scholarship And opinion, and weighted accordingly. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, that is consistent with past experience with Sanger. I put it down to a desire to be nice to people. The problem with that is also the problem that has sunk pretty much every political experiment in human history: it is in the nature of bad faith actors to exploit niceness, to take without giving. Guy (help!) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help!) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, only one side seems to constantly quote comedians as their source for reality. It really is a joke though I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, No it doesn't. and it's opinions like this that should really get you out of any political editing. It's clear you have some sort of crusade, and you are unable to edit in a neutral manner, whether it's with regards to religion or politics. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it's a joke, but one which is funny because it contains truthiness. Much of the current dogma of the conservative movement is counterfactual. It's also comparatively recent. Richard Nixon created the EPA, George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It's only since the 1980s that the GOP selection process has imposed de facto purity tests on climate change, abortion, unfettered gun ownership and the rest. Guy (help!) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Careful...don't you know that JzG is an ADMINISTRATOR! That means he has a monopoly on the truth, especially regarding American conservatives...which are all rebel flag waving, climate change denying, backward, antiscience, anti-vaxxers, bambi huntin, cousin marrying, well...they also do noodling...etc. Get with the program!MONGO (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, you forgot gun-toting. Which is odd considering the 300 million+ guns in the US and the number of people who voted for Trump something doesn't add up, some evil gun owners might be liberal. As for hating science, here's an interesting read how the left is far more dangerous to science than the right, consider GMO, anti-vaxx, and to quote, "Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others." The Real War on Science/ The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. by Jonathan Tierney I also think there is something odd with the vehemence in how someone from the UK thinks he is able to talk about US politics merely from reading newspapers, and of course leftwing ones at that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very much an Anglophile, even though my ancestor was told to skedaddle from there abouts 400 years ago. But I think its common in Britain to poke fun at the right wingers here, maybe even be scared of them, though in most cases, bet they have never met one of them in person. Its almost as if the noodlers are going to organize their armada of rowboats and set sail across the Atlantic and storm the cliffs of Dover. They are afterall, to the left of our center, so to them, an American conservative is like some kind of wild eyed crazy and armed to the teeth. The reason no liberals own a gun is because Billy Bob and his three boys own an average of 175 guns apiece...least that is the usual talking point.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, yep, same here, I enjoy watching PMQ's for some reason and I love anything British. One of my downtime activities is watching these YouTube videos and I have a few of them are British/Irish/Scottish and they travel to the US and they all can't believe how amazing the US is and more importantly, how amazing the people are. It's perfect timing because the Scottish guy just put out a video yesterday and he said if he can get a visa, he'd move to the US in a heartbeat. He can't stop raving about how awesome it is. This just goes to show you how powerful the press is. Maybe we should start a GoFundMe to bring Guy to the US and show him around. Just as long as we avoid campfires and baked-beans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I have met plenty of right-wing Americans myself. My work has taken me to Fort Worth and Tampa, for example, and there are plenty of conservatives in Philly, a town with which I am very familiar.

I'm not heading off with a gunboat. You buggers hanged the last member of my family to try that. And it's not that we're tot he left of your centre, but that your left is the rest of the world's right. UK political parties align closely with the rest of the developed world apart from the US. Guy (help!) 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Philly? Have you ever stepped foot in Philly? Somehow I doubt it if you think there are "plenty of conservatives." The city council has GOP representatives because it's mandated to have third party seats and they still had to fight with other third parties for a chance. Also out of all the seats in the State House, they have 2 seats and no Senate seats. I wouldn't call Philly a place where you can find "plenty of conservatives." [[10]] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Last time Philadelphians voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 1932.--MONGO (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only 1 district in Philly that elected a GOP member, the other GOP is at large and the other at large is a different third party or Dems. That's 2 out of 17 seats. Also, Philly has been under Dem control since 1951. (Incidentally, it is the poorest large city in the US [3] similar to what happened to Detroit from 1950 to now. ) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Philly is a city where people commute. My good friend Jim62sch (no longer active) lives in the area and I am in daily touch with people from my old firm, SunGard, in that city. They live where there are trucks with gun racks on every driveway.

Bizarrely, though, it was only on the fifth visit that we went out of the back door of the Curtis Center and I realised that the Liberty Bell is right next door. Go figure. This was before I was diagnosed coeliac, so I was able to experience the legendary Jim's. But in five years of visits I never managed to hear the Wanamaker Organ play, sadly. Guy (help!) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Are you going to Britishsplain me the Philly area? I'm going to call BS on your statement that people in Philly have gun racks in every driveway. Nope, sorry doesn't happen. You visited the area a few times and you think you know Philadelphia enough that there are trucks with gun racks on every driveway? I think they were pulling your leg considering you seem to be gullible enough to believe any stereotype about Americans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

SirJoseph, American conservatives are all nuts! You know it, I know and JzG knows it. Even those crazies over in Hong Kong know it.[4].--MONGO (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes you wonder why the US is still the number one country people want to move to, and the number two spot isn't even close. [5] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit articles on politics much but I have been heavily involved in articles on the Bible/Christianity/martyrs, mostly trying to have the articles make clear what can be known as to whether the stories in them are historically accurate. Sanger says in his blog post "the article on Jesus is biased because it would upset a lot of Christians" by saying for instance “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” We do not censor scholarly consensus because it might upset people. My colleague Tgeorgescu has contributed a good essay on this - Wikipedia:Academic bias -Wikipedia has, and should have, a pro-academic "bias". Yes. We are biased and should be proud of it. We are biased in favor of the academic, scholarly, mainstream consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is fine that we have an academic and mainstream bias, but we need to be fully aware this is well accepted as a liberal bias in a broad sense in both what material we are going to draw from and how we may want to present it. Our hands are sorta tied on the sourcing side (as JzG has rightfully pointed out, the collection of reliable, conservative-leaning media is very very thin), and while we are not going to create false balances there are many many ways to temper the liberal coverage to still respect the weight of those sources without exalting those voices, and that's part of the issue that Sanger is pointing out and that I and others have seen. We may be stuck to using only the liberal subset of reliable sources for inclusion on articles, but we're not limited in topic awareness and discussions of how to approach a topic, knowing what's controversial and what's not, what probably is a spur-of-the-moment controversy compared to a actual long-running issue, and the like, and that's the cautions I've put out. We're still going to come out with Wikivoice being more liberal than conservative, but we should be only very slightly off-center compared to the media's placement if we're doing it right. When we blindly follow the media bias without any corrections, that's the problem--Masem (t) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, I'd agree with that. Just because there's a conservative media bubble that behaves differently from the mainstream, that doesn't mean the mainstream is immune from the echo chamber effect, just that in general it is less powerful than the fact-checking ethos in the kinds of sources we consider reliable. Guy (help!) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a left bias on article involving current political and left vs. right themes. Sometimes it's in places where the reader can can just "dial in" for the bias and it's still a useful article. In some other case it distorts or hides coverage of the topic so much that it badly degrades the coverage. It comes from dozens of different places. At the top of the list is wikilawyering to slant the article, a problem that could be helped by tweaks in policies. Unequal treatment of editors based on politics, by admins and even occasionally by arbcom. Editor headcount at contested places is also a cause. Policies that favor "old media" in the US also contribute. WP:NPOV which has nothing that is operationally usable regarding wp:weight is also another big contributor. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Derp. Who is "Wikipedia"? Did Fox ask for a response on WP:Helpdesk or WP:Teahouse or something? And they got no response? How long did they wait, two seconds?

This is not surprising, Larry been trying to compete with Wikipedia ever since he left. I thought it wouldn't be appropriate to post the following link here. It's rude and all. Then I saw Larry Sanger tweeted the Uncyclopedia logo in relation to Wikipedia's neutrality. That's it, I'm posting the link! No, make it two! Do you like Uncyclopedia, Larry? Do you? - Alexis Jazz 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually very, very pleased to see this topic being discussed here. no matter what one's political viewpoint may be, it is always good to revisit this area of discussion from time to time. and also, whether one agrees or disagrees with Sanger's viewpoints, there is a legitimate issue to discuss here, simply in terms of how well we are upholding WP:NPOV.

when I first arrived at Wikipedia, the articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were in a state of total stalemate. no matter what edits one side made, the other side was almost always sure to revert them. the edit wars were becoming recursive and circular, with each side blaming the other for violating NPOV.

With the help of a few other positive-minded editors, I helped to implement a basic but important compromise; I simply said that one side should allow the other side to express their point of view; by doing so, the side of this conflict that made that concession had thereby achieved a legitimate basis to present its own view; in other words, by allowing the views of one opposing side to be fully covered as one valid side of a conflict, this made it acceptable for the other side's views to also be depicted as a valid viewpoint.

I think that what this really established is that in the case of a genuine controversial area, the best way to adhere to NPOV is not to seek some mythical objective viewpoint, but rather to present the two sides, if each side has some valid point, or some valid basis for making the points or assertions that it makes.

I would suggest a similar approach to the current topics referred to above. yes, there is often a mainstream view that does not need to be diluted or counteracted by alternate theories that are no more than fringe. however, if any editors come here with good intentions, and only seek to provide coverage for alternate viewpoints that have some valid basis, then they should be given some ability to do so. I look forward to hearing further insights on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, there is a regrettable tendency for disgruntled grifters (including people like TDA and Kohs) to dominate off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia. Some recent stories have been much better,, though, including the one that looked at the million-milers.

The most egregious example I can remember was when Cla68 fact-washed his wild speculations through The Register and then added them to mainspace as criticisms of Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good example of just how misleading and potentially damaging Larry's line of argumentation is. Beyond arguing that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral, he cites the abortion article: No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” - It's a claim accompanied by high-quality references that meet our particularly stringent standards for biomedical claims, but because "no conservative would write" it, it's an example of Wikipedia political bias. In general, if you're qualifying your edits to medical any articles with "would a [conservative/liberal] write this?" instead of following the highest quality sources, find a different topic start a different project? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, sure, no conservative would write that in 2020. In 1980, it would have been mainstream. The pernicious influence of evangelical "Christians" has poisoned the GOP as much as dark money has. You cannot now be a serious GOP candidate unless you pass the "purity tests" set by Big Oil, Big Armaments, Big Pharma and Big Jeezus. If only RepublicaN jESUS LOOKED MORE LIKE THAT HIPPIE SOCIALSIT GUY IN THE bIBLE... Guy (help!) 08:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

With that I think it's safe to say that we can surely look forward to a very thought provoking and NPOV edition of any article you edit regarding an American GOP member or related article. So pleased to see that we can trust you to offer an unbiased and well, so highly educated perspective.--MONGO (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I mainly don't touch them. But that doesn't change the facts: the diversity that was visible in the early 80s has virtually disappeared. In every sense. How many African-Americans are there representing the GOP in Congress? What percentage of the Congressional GOP is made up of straight white men? Guy (help!) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

So I imagine this means if I sent you a MAGA hat you would be unlikely to wear it?--MONGO (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would go halfsies but only if we get a picture of Guy wearing said hat. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, In contentious interview, Biden says black voters considering Trump over him "ain't black" For someone who loves talking about racial ratios and disparities, you might want to check how the UK or even just England is doing with regards to number of non-whites. The GOP has more non-whites in Congress as a percentage than the number of non-whites in England, by my reckoning. But again, the GOP isn't big on identity politics, Gov DeSantis won in Florida in big part due to minorities voting for him in part because of his stance on vouchers, but you wouldn't know that because it's a hyper-local issue and I don't know if your local castle gets such the local news. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This Sanger guy is basically both-sidesing like Trump did after a Neo-Nazi killed a woman in the Charlottesville. A second of time spent debating such a morally bankrupt person and his indefensible point-of-view is a second wasted. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras, a bit, yes. You also wonder why Fox News would want to undermine a source of reliable information on, to pick a topic completely at random, the coronoavirus outbreak. Guy (help!) 10:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras, I hope you are more careful when editing articles than when conversing on talk pages. Accusign somone of being "morally bankrupt" sounds like a BLT violation, but I can't tell whether you are maligning Trump or Sanger. Can you clarify? Or better yet, redact? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably the most common form of bias isn't lack of giving two sides on some debated topic, it is in applying an unequal bar to what get included and excluded from the article.North8000 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, being "lefty" in America doesn't mean aligning with the left. When neither of the two main parties are on the left-hand side of the political compass it is unsurprising that many in America, including Sanger apparently, believe that even centrists are "lefty". Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare the politics of 60 years ago compared to the politics of today. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Five minutes after this interview, this would be in the Trump article, and we all know this to be true. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. In contentious interview, Biden says black voters considering Trump over him "ain't black" And yes, NOTNEWS applies, but it's not applied uniformly. Look at Joe Biden and see how many RFC there are on the page for RS stuff. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

[6] Anyone who thinks both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US have not shifted left overall is uneducated. No doubt Kennedy's policies and beliefs of 60 years ago would land him as a middle of the road Republican today.--MONGO (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For die-hard Socialists or Communists, Wikipedia has a terrible right-wing bias. Of course, they are rather scarce in the US, but there is plenty of them elsewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how the Communist Chinese could see that considering their far left political machine bans Wikipedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: That's not evidence against my claim, it is evidence for my claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Its evidence that the extreme leftist communist regime there is opposed to free speech, a free press and supports censorship.--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: Which I never denied: free speech is bourgeois ideology as far as they are concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is starting to look like the degenerated American political discourse scene which is basically limited to "bash the other team". Why not just strive for fixing any problems that we have so that we have informative articles. It sounds simple-minded but isn't. It's what we're here for, and is more fun. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia mainly derives political content from modern news sources, nothing will be changing. If your main sources for current topics are CNN, NYTimes, and WaPo, you're going to be able to safely assume what our articles will say. "RS" is now more important than "NPOV," something I'm not convinced is necessarily a good thing. News wouldn't exist if people didn't pay for it, and you've got to satisfy your customers and give them what they want so they stick around. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree: we certainly can use current news sources to build topics on politic issues, but we simply have to drop the commentary facets from it, which is the point of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. If the political commentary itself becomes the news, we have to simply make sure we're reporting factually on that. Eg we'd still be discussing the whole matter of US's response to COVID as there's the entire blame game that's been going around, that's unavoidable, but we've got to be careful of how this intersect MEDRS and the RECENTISM issues, and the less we focus on the he-said-she-said and more on the broad aspects picture is, which we still can do with mainstream sources, the better. The problem is that many MANY editors want to rush to include even the slightlest bit for commentary that is coming from journalists or outside observers that is above and beyond the news itself, and that's where using current media sources is dangerous. UNDUE/WEIGHT absolutely needs a factor related to time, the closer an opinion or opinionated statement is to the event that prompted it, the less weight it should carry. --Masem (t) 21:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV has always been dependent on RS. WP:NPOV is defined as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By definition, this explicitly rejects views which have not been published by reliable sources. It is not the fault of the left that the right increasingly buries itself in echo chambers which publish utter nonsense as a matter of course, and thus cannot be trusted to reliably publish truthful, factual accounts of reality - which is the basis of the NPOV policy. There's nobody on the left who forced One America News Network to, say, falsely claim that the father of a Democratic Congressional candidate celebrated the death of Israelis or spread malicious and false conspiracy theories about the survivor of a school shooting. Those, and many others, were entirely the choice of those who run the network, and those choices have destroyed its credibility as a reliable source. The right has only itself to blame for these issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Guess that means since they published utter nonsense resulting in multi million dollar defamation lawsuits as happened during the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation should we examine if the WaPo, CNN and NBC are also "reliable"?--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And our stance on that situation, just like all other court cases, is "innocent until proven guilty". The only aspect being that CNN actually settled [7] implying, but not asserting any fault. We (Wikipedia) can't take action on that at all though this is my point on RECENTISM and adding the time factor to UNDUE/WEIGHT. --Masem (t) 23:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Guess I have to say "this is a facetious rhetorical question" when I am posting a facetious rhetorical question.--MONGO (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As our article on that incident notes, several news organizations, including CNN, took action to clarify and/or correct their reporting. The Washington Post published a report by its media critic which took issue with some of the paper's own reporting, as well as others, and critically analyzed the situation. I'd invite you to point me to where OANN has clarified, corrected, retracted, or even critically analyzed its claims that George Soros collaborated with the Nazis and funds migrant caravans, or that COVID-19 was developed in a laboratory in North Carolina with the help of funding from Dr. Anthony Fauci. You can't, of course, because they never have and never will. They exist in a universe where facts have no meaning. There is no possible equivalency between OANN and The Washington Post. One is a credible mainstream journalistic reporting organization which occasionally gets things wrong, and the other... is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone sounds awfully defensive. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone seems to want to personalize what has, up to this point, been a civil discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it you? Because you seem to be taking this pretty personal up to this point. PackMecEng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, your sources for that laboratory claim are "The Wrap," which doesn't mention it at all, and MediaMatters.org. You're proving your point by using sources just as trashy as OANN. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see so many words here on Larry Sanger's latest antic. So surprised I'm going to add more words to this section.

Why should we bother about what Sanger says or does any more? Once I had a bit of respect for him, although I didn't necessarily agree with him: he was the Trotsky of the Wikipedia revolution, the leading figure at the beginning who was maneuvered out of the project, & deserved better. However, at every step he's provided evidence that would convince any disinterested observer he had less to do with the success of the Wikipedia model than first thought. His biggest attempt to prove he & his ideas were right -- Citizendium -- is a failure. When he became the CTO of Everipedia, I thought he had hit rock bottom. (All you need to know about that episode are a few facts: Everipedia was founded by two white guys who described it as the "gangsta Wikipedia"; & that Singer planned to use "blockchain" technology to make it better than Wikipedia.) He's managed to gain media attention only thru his vicious, at times irresponsible, attacks on Wikipedia & the related projects. This was the guy who claimed Commons was a source of child pornography. And his latest attack on Wikipedia is nothing more than clickbait for right-wing readers, a boilerplate screed that any conservative columnist could write on an off day. I figure he must be angling for a commentator's job at Fox News. Or to encourage disunity at Wikipedia. Or, since the man has a Ph.D., maybe accomplish both with little effort.

To repeat an old canard, yes there are errors in Wikipedia. The best way to address them is to find more & better sources -- not to fight amongst ourselves & give satisfaction to Sanger, a bitter young man who had one great idea once in his life, failed to find another, & simply needs to move on with his life. -- llywrch (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Because while much of what he wrote is inconsistent with WP's mission and policies, there are parts that at the core do represent problems with WP that have been identified. We'll always be accused of carrying a liberal bias as long as we keep our reliable sources as we do (which is not a problem itself), but we can reduce editor-induced parts of that bias, for example, by avoiding the same political and ideological battles that the media gets involved in. --Masem (t) 00:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw the existence of this discussion in the news. I mostly edit ancient philosophy, but I once got interested in a modern philosophical topic that has a political angle and found Wikipedia's article to exhibit terrible bias. It was an article that had been condemned in several articles in the press for its bias. The behavior of the editors who had staked out ownership of that page towards anyone who dared to question the lack of balance of the narrative they pushed was odious. I wasted a lot of time trying to right that wrong. For non-political issues Wikipedia is doing a good job, but for contentious political issues it looks like we are failing, and probably getting worse each passing day. Hopefully getting called out like this might serve as a turnaround. On politics we need to accept the fact that pretty much all of the sources now are biased, that they are tribal, that standards of reliability that work elsewhere don't work on political topics, and that it is mission-critical that we present opposing points of view in a way that we are not now doing.Teishin (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger, asking for help in 2013:

"Starting http://InfoBitt.com means I am finished with Wikipedia criticism. Quote this back to me if I happen to lapse."

The Fox News article doesn't mention it, but it is worth noting that in his new post, Sanger is also accusing Wikipedia of being biased against "minority perspectives on science and medicine" on topics such as global warming, alternative medicine and vaccines. His views on such matters are not entirely news - more than a decade ago, it was already observed by many that Citizendium (Sanger's Wikipedia alternative) appeared very favorable to pseudoscience (e.g. Sanger personally inviting a "leading proselytizer of homeopathy" - who had previously been banned on Wikipedia - to write Citizendium's article about homeopathy).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's make this specific.

Consider the proposition "Daniel Holtzclaw" is a rapist. If one looks at all available sources, without regard to Wikipedia rules, this is close to provably false, and definitely not proven true. If one follows Wikipedia sourcing rules, the opposite is the case. Why is that? Can it be fixed? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This cretin was found guilty on 18 charges, sentenced to 263 years, sentence upheld by state court of appeals, final appeal rejected by the US Supreme Court. In what possible twisted universe in your mind is this "provably false, and definitely not proven true" ? Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras, Wikipedia:Civility, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Lucia de Berk was sentenced to life in prison in 2003 for five cases of murder and two cases of attempted murder. She appealed and in 2004 she was sentenced to life in prison and TBS (forced mental treatment in a closed facility) for seven murders and three attempts. Because the combination of life and TBS was deemed impossible by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the case went back to court and in 2006 she was sentenced to life. In 2010 she was acquitted on all charges. She was innocent, all the deaths were of natural causes. The justice department messed up big time. I don't know Holtzclaw, but strange things can happen. - Alexis Jazz 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Whataboutisms regarding to different cases. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Check articles by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, HoltzclawTrial.com, etc. And don't judge information by its author, judge by how well it matches up with the evidence. Basically, the sources that have it right are the ones that are not WP:RS. Not the first or last person to be railroaded by our justice system. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Biased sites too close to the source? Hard pass. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Zaathras More importantly, I want to ask you a question. Suppose the courts and so forth are wrong. Is that information you would want to know? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just an extremely ill-informed question. Again, this person was

• Tried by a jury of his peers and found guilty.
• OK Court of Appeals upholds the decision, unanimously.
• The US Supreme Court saw so little merit that they did not even carry it over to a full review.

The man went through 3 levels of the judiciary system, this is why we have these checks on the power of the lower courts, to address and rectify missteps and errors. At some point you have to trust that our system of government is, while not perfect, still very, very good at protecting citizen's right. Running around screaming "it's all rigged", "I was robbed" after exhausting one's appeals is just an invitation for us all to dive into anarchy. I have full confidence in the legal system and the sourcing in the article, that we can say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Daniel Holtzclaw is a sexual predator who raped eight women. Zaathras (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:ZaathrasI'll ask the question again. If the courts have it wrong, would you want to know or not? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, we would like to know if the courts have it wrong. But it is not our task to tell them what to do. We simply report what the WP:RS say, we're not WP:ACTIVISTS. If you want to plead for his innocence, fine, it's a free country. But Wikipedia won't be engaged in WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I think the main sourcing rule in this case is WP:DUE, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." BTW, I noticed that in the Daniel Holtzclaw article there was a paragraph at the end based on Michelle Malkin's work. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Nanny, I will give you the same response; your question is without merit. The man's case went through 3 levels of the judiciary, and I trust in the systems of checks and safeguards that the judicial system has in place that, if he was innocent, it would have been caught and rectified. Therefore, his guilty verdict is essentially ironclad. Zaathras (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Only as a comment, if the proposition is "Daniel Holtzclaw is a rapist" we would never say that in Wikivoice, but acknowledge what Zaathras has said about the admonishment by the courts we would say "Daniel Holtzclaw is convicted on X counts of rape" factually in Wikivoice. While there's presently little to question the courts' net result here, the wording that way allows for those remote cases where a person is aquitted of a conviction late in the process, by simply stating the facts of the conviction. WP should never say, in Wikivoice , that a person living or dead, was a murderer, rapist, killer, etc., outside in limited cases where the person has been long dead and their lives subject to great scrutiny to leave no doubt to that question - typically limited to the situation around serial killers. --Masem (t) 02:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I agree, I didn't mean to imply we would use that literal sentence, it was not a good phrasing on my part. By the fact of being convicted and several appeals denied, the article can and should describe him as a convicted rapist. This is no Leonard Peltier. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• This section is indeed a great example of Larry's point in action: Someone was convicted of particular crimes, all reliable sources frame the position one way, and Wikipedia's article reflects what those sources say. Then an editor comes by to say that Wikipedia is Biased because it doesn't reflect that Real-Truth (which can only be found if you look at unreliable sources). That editor is promptly pointed to the neutrality policy and WP:FRINGE. Yes, this is a very good example of NPOV working. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I also want to show that while we're adjusting our gross dial to avoid the skewed bias towards what Larry's suggesting, we also have to watch the finer tuning to make sure we don't go too far the other way, which I think still is a takeaway of Larry's blog. Just the simple difference in wording between "Daniel Holtzclaw is a rapist" and "Daniel Holtzclaw is convicted of rape" - statements that in the media would be treated functionally equivalent - have significantly different impacts on tone and impartialness, which is what my point has generally be around. The culture wars of the early part of the 2010s with the following #metoo movement have not made this easier, and of course, don't have to talk about current Western politics of how its gotten worse. We, in mainspace, needs to be disinterested even if we're pulling from sources we know carrying a bias and that often just requires careful wording choices and avoiding certain issues at the present for the sake the larger scope of the encyclopedia. It's really really easy as purveyors of knowledge, many of us as self-stated "experts" here, to write a bit influentially on these events and that's where the line has to be drawn. And that I can fully agree is a difficult thing to do as a human being with the average background most Wikipedians have in the current environment. We've been slack in trying enforce this (as there's no real admin type actions to enforce until they blow up as EW or AP2 or similar cases) and goes to several points mentioned above - we need a sea change of thinking about how to write about current events to take any serious bias out of them. Not to correct the apparent bias, but simply just to avoid content that may lead to bias. --Masem (t) 04:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Obama article example

In the Fox article about Sanger's comments there is, "The first example pointed out by the site’s co-founder is that President Barack Obama’s page 'completely fails to mention many well-known scandals' such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal and the so-called 'Fast and Furious' operation."

Is that a correct and fair statement by Sanger? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This is probably where Fox is not understanding WP:SS as well as to the person responsible. We are obviously not going to go into full details of any of these on Barack Obama the page, but:

• Benghazi is linked from the top box (as a major issue in his term) to 2012 Benghazi attack and under THAT page under "Investigations" there's at least 3 additional pages of details of going into what happened in depth.
• IRS Scandal is at IRS targeting controversy but that page does not appear to be linked through Obama's page. The thing is, is this really an Obama issue (compared to his "role" in Benghazi)? Not really.
• AP Phone records is at 2013 articles about the Department of Justice investigations of reporters. Not linked on Obama's page, but same as with IRS - was Obama in this issue? Even more so, this was Holden, not Obama at all.
• "Fast and Furious" is at ATF gunwalking scandal and again not linked to Obama. This has a bit more involvement from Obama (to evoke executive priveledge) but again, mostly from Holder so not really an Obama scandal to be called that.

So yes, we're failing to mention these "well known scandals' but that is because they have little to do with Obama as a person. His administration perhaps, but we're not going to highlight actions of someone like Holder who had been proven to be acting on their own on Obama's page. That's simply not how we write things. Whereas, where I'm sure the counterexample is "but we have all these things for Trump!" is because Trump *has* been at the center of these things. Mind you, I would make sure we take the same care to make sure we don't put Trump at the center of fault for things that he has yet to be shown to be the accountable party for, such as the US Census citizenship question situation.

But this also brings up a point: We should not be hiding coverage of conspiracy theories that we know are wrong as long as RSes have documented them so that we can explain neutrally what those theories are and why they are wrong. In other words, just like we are carrying doing the minefield of misinformation arising from COVID-19 to much praise from the media, we should carefully handle the same when we can reliably source the context of a conspiracy theory. We're not beholden to give false balance to explaining why those that thing the theory holds think its true, but we should explain what the basics of the theory are (to the degree all sourcing and content policies allow) and then as per FRINGE us RS to explain why the theory is not accepted or considered a conspiracy theory. EG: in the above Benghazi situation, it's hard to actually find it based on "benghazi obama conspiracy theory" those that should lead to some hit - not necessary a full article but a least a section to explain "There are some that believe.... . This has been shown false because...." type language. --Masem (t) 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Obama relents in fight over Fast and Furious documents , whether he was involved is up for debate, but to not include the scandal and to say it's not linked to Obama is the height of bias and just proves what Sanger and everyone else is saying. The ATF under Obama was Obama's ATF, just like all of Trump's administration is Trump's, even if you say he wasn't involved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

All of these can be linked through the various Obama administration pages. That's all fair, but again, there's the lack of direct personal involvement at the core of the events that would make for being on the page about Obama more relevant. For the ATF, Obama's personal involvement appears to simply start when Holden asked him to evoke executive privileged and when that was denied, that was it. That's not even skin deep of involvement in the overall situation that was in question. --Masem (t) 16:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I thought your points have been pretty good, but regarding the "personal involvement" argument, that reminds me of Nixon not being personally involved in the Watergate burglary but being involved in the cover up. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to try to analyze the situation too differently, whereas Nixon himself appeared to work actively to cover the situation up and thus got himself deeper involved, Obama (as best we know) attempted one act of executive privilege per Holden's request, was told no, and thus gave in to the information request, refusing to get further involved. People in his adminstration certainly work involved, and definitely was a scandal around his administration, but not around him personally, whereas Watergate was one Nixon personally got himself deeply involved in, if that makes the difference clearer. --Masem (t) 17:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There certainly is a big difference between the Nixon and Obama situations, but then the criticism of the Obama article isn't about prominently mentioning Fast and Furious, but about not giving it even an insignificant presence in the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE applies here; how much of that story has affected Obama as a person or as a President? The argument I'm seeing is "It's a conspiracy, it has to be included", which... no, that's against UNDUE; we don't include every conspiracy theory made about a topic on the page on that topic if it fails UNDUE relative to the other facets about that topic. Watergate ruined Nixon, it better the heck be covered on Nixon's page, for example. --Masem (t) 01:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding DUE, I googled the keywords: obama privilege fast and furious. I looked at the first 4 pages of results and got the gist that this was a notable Obama issue lasting for years.

Well, I'll call it quits here and in closing say that I think this discussion of ours may be an example that supports Sanger's criticism. Discussions like ours may have happened at the Obama article and kept this information out. I think you're acting in good faith and that you are not consciously being influenced by personal political bias. Just my opinion.

BTW, I thought Obama was a good president and that republicans in congress unfairly obstructed his presidency, also just my opinion. I try not to let this influence my editing by following the editing policies of Wikipedia, without gaming them. With that, I'll say good bye. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering DUE is not just about how often its in the news but relative to the topic as a whole or how it is connected to that topic. F&F is much more frequently connected to the Obama administration thn Obama himself, outside of the fact that it was the only time he himself issued an order of executive privilege on the call for documents during his time in office and which no one has figured out why (since those documents ultimately got released). No one believes Obama himself was really involved outside of this in the actual scandal of F&F, but absolutely the people running his administration (like Holder) were. That's why the scandal doesn't make sense on the top-level of Obama's page when thre are a ton of other facets that are much more DUE for coverage related to his personal leadership stype while on one of his presidental adminstration pages, there should be a brief discussion and pointer to the F&F operation page. It's not ignoring it but considering the weight of DUE to the topic and adding it appropriate given that BLP sit applies (Obama received no "punishment" for that). --Masem (t) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The OP says more than you realize. Wikipedia even hid the highly wp:notable "Operation Fast and Furious" scandal itself. (there is no article on it) by burying it inside of a list of less serious less notable similar actions. But, from the period when he was running for president, we do have an entire separate article on Mitt Romney's dog's ride in a shielded cage on the roof of his car years before, which opponents were using as an attack point. Mitt Romney dog incident. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How is it hidden if you linked right to it by name? The Mitt Romney article is completely ridiculous though, I agree. Would a deletion discussion be worth it now? Surely when it was current this was a headline-grabber, but this has not stood the test of time at all. Zaathras (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes and yes. On the first case, we are under no pretense to give a conspiracy theory its own article if it better to be covered in the larger comprehensive scope of the larger event that the theory stems from; in fact, this should be the overridding principle of trying to avoid standalone pages on conspiracy theories as to keep the theories with the sourced facts of the case, and only makes standalone cases when there is no real parent event to connect it to or a size issue comes up (eg Watergate, Pizzagate, 9/11 conspiracy theories). As for Romney's dog article, that's at least a point of discussion summarized on Mitt Romney 2008 presidential campaign and referenced by the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign in a few para. This is exactly the type of article that our hyperreporting results in, we're not thinking of the future, we're thinking of our political leanings (good or bad) and creates messes like this. --Masem (t) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "theory" involved or covered. It was a distinct, highly noted, officially named campaign. Where the attorney general was (semi-bi-partisan) convicted on contempt of congress for refusing to provide documents on, and where the president exerted executive privilege over those documents. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a redirect, not an article. And as I said it is buried by putting it inside of a list of less serious less notable similar actions. In fact, it doesn't even have a section in that article, only a subsection, and all of the other coverage of it (re reaction, aftermath etc. etc.) is conflated & confused (=buried) with the less serious less notable actions. Regarding the dog ride article, the fact that it was created while Rommney was running for president is the key point. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See, people bring up little gotchas like "convicted on contempt of Congress", but fail to mention the follow-up, which in this case is "...however the Justice Department's Inspector General later cleared Holder of any wrongdoing" (from Eric Holder). Being cleared of charges by the literally non-partisan IG's Office is what takes a supposed scandal down a few pegs, from "it's a big relevance to Obama's bio" to "bit of a partisan hit-piece that was deflated". Zaathras (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned those extraordinary events regarding notability, not to argue the case. Personally I'm concerned about being informative even more than balanced. It's when bias detracts from informativeness that I get more concerned. And IMO this highly notable, distinct, large officially named program with extensive coverage by that name not having it's own article, or even a section in an article, with some of it covered in a so-named subsection and the rest of it confusingly blended with other material is an example of that. And this is an encyclopedia where the guidelines stipulate that every assoc/ football/ soccer player who played 1 day professionally gets their own article.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To a degree I agree here: I'm reminded of the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet (South Park)" where they illustrate as straight as they can show (in contrast to the show's usual humor) was Scientology's texts state their faith is, and led to the "this is what Scientologists actually believe". In that sense, we should plainly, neutrally, and impartially make sure that a notable conspiracy theory is at least explained in plain, simple terms. And having been involved with the Gamergate article in trying to keep that neutral, I know the lengths some editors want to go out of their way to avoid given conspiracy theory or similar type of fringe thing the time of day on Wikipedia, when really a short couple sentences without any judgement on the validity of the conspiracy theory's claims, as long as we avoid any BLP, MEDRS and other problem content that may arise and which can be sourced to RSes. UNDUE and FRINGE clearly tell us to make sure that such an explanation in context clearly identifies such claims as conspiracy theories or the like, but that doesn't mean we can't present them impartially at first and then follow up with volumes of why that wrong. So I do agree that the OF&F stuff should be at least clear what that actually entails because I know its clearly not the entire event on the ATF gunwalking scandal but only one facet, and even the section named "Operation F&F" in the article doesn't explain this. I don't know what type of section you'd need here for a brief summary of what the conspiracy theory around this is. --Masem (t) 01:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I brought it up here as simply as a pretty blatant example of bias. Burying a major clearly wp:topic. And juxtaposing that with the dog-ride story article being created during the election. To my knowledge there was no "theory" involved and few facts are in dispute. The one fact in dispute is that the higher ups denied having any prior knowledge of it. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The question to ask is if we really are burying it. If we made a list of all the key factors of Obama as a person - knowing that we have a summary-style structure to handle his various periods in his government offices - and then had to rank per DUE/WEIGHT and make some cutoff where SIZE comes into play with the summary style approach - where would OF&F fit? Yes, it was a significant factor of his administration but himself personally, not that high, compared to Watergate with Nixon, the Lewinsky stuff with Clinton, "Mission Accomplished" with Bush, and so on. Just because it was a high profile scandal that involved his administration does not mean it needs to be covered on the page about his person, which is what I feel is trying to be begged for here, and that's the false balance aspect that we can't create. Any of these scandals with the administration better be covered on the administration pages, that's expected and would be a problem if we were missing those, and that's the feature of using Summary Style. It may seem to be creating bias but its understanding where the information actually best fits (and this includes making sure that on pages like Trump we're not assigning scandals that involve the Trump administration but not Trump on Trump's page -the idea works both ways.) --Masem (t) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

By "burying" I was referring to non-existence of an article on a very large, prominent wp:notable topic, not to non-inclusion in the Obama article. Regarding the latter, well written articles will do as you say; make good editorial decision like that regarding inclusion, including based on scale, degree of wp:relevence, prominence within the topic. (I left out wp:weight) The complain is that this vetting is done unequally. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Neutral Way

There is a neutral way to determine what goes in an encyclopedic biography, like our article entitled, Barack Obama (also note that that's not the only article concerning Barack Obama, just as the article entitled Abraham Lincoln is not the only article concerning Abraham Lincoln, scope matters, so eg. Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, George Washington have to be encyclopedic biographies). This will not work for all articles but for subjects that have already directly gotten encyclopedic biographies outside Wikipedia it does. Per WP:TERTIARY (and because it is a WP:BLP) we can look to high quality tertiary sources(see eg.,[8] [9]) to judge due weight for every possible fluff or scandal du jour, partisan praise or partisan attack, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, Re your comment "Per WP:TERTIARY (and because it is a WP:BLP) we can look to high quality tertiary sources(see eg.,[10] [11]) to judge due weight for every possible fluff or scandal du jour, partisan praise or partisan attack, etc." — See the section "Spring scandals and summer challenges" in your first reference. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've said my point on how to be neutral many many times before , and that's making sure for current topics to respect NOT:NEWS and RECENTISM, and stay to facts and objective statements, and avoid commentary until some X years out from events (unless that commentary is part of the news, such as Trump's tweet that got flagged last night). This is akin almost to waiting out for tertiary sources, but it still allows us to stay current. --Masem (t) 16:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica vs Wikipedia with respect to political bias

The OP's suggestion in the above section "The Neutral Way", where he mentions the Obama article in the Encyclopedia Britannica as a high quality tertiary source, brings to mind a question. How does the Encyclopedia Britannica compare to Wikipedia with respect to political bias? Bob K31416 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute?

Is Sanger a Trump supporter? If he is then I move to strip him of his founder designation once and for all. That such people even exist! I was supporting the notability of Kyle Kulinski before I found out he was a third-partyist. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Serious? PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sanger doesn't have any official "co-founder status" on Wikipedia, AFAIK. Rather this practice always seemed to me to be pushed by folks with a chip on their shoulder, e.g. an early paid editor who has been banned multiple times and across Wikis. The facts as I see them is that Jimbo owned the company that founded Wikipedia and had all the final decision making power. Sanger was the main (or only) employee for awhile but left after awhile when he felt that he needed to actually get paid for his work, i.e. after a while he was just another volunteer who decided to leave on his own. I don't know when he was switched from employee to volunteer, but it couldn't have been more than a year or two. Not to say that he didn't make many contributions, but "co-founder" has always been a stretch. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's cool but what does it have to do with Trump? Was Sanger supporting Trump for president in 2004? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, It's a satirical comment and section heading ... in my opinion. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, Sanger is a Sanger supporter, nothing more nothing less. He's still unhappy (to put it mildly) about how successful Wikipedia is, & that he's been unable to create a viable competitor to it. And he's demonstrated time & again what he's willing to do darken Wikipedia's reputation. I'll repeat what I've said before: he simply needs to move on with his life. -- llywrch (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A more evolved Editor Behaviour Dispute Resolution System for Wikipedia is needed

Hey Jimbo, what do you think of this? [12]

I apologise for the arrogance of pointing this out directly to you. I am a long time contributor of this project but only an occasional one. I have only recently discovered the "dark side" of AN/I and have been shocked by what I saw. So... here is my attempt at WP:BOLD.

I think this is a major existential problem for this wonderful project. If fairness is not guaranteed by solid processes abuses will always be rampant and in smaller communities this could be disastrous. We really need to make a huge evolutionary jump here and I think your participation would mean a lot.

There has been a survey in 2017 regarding AN/I's current handling of complex interpersonal disputes and the conclusions were damning [13]. When asked if they were satisfied with the way that AN/I cases are handled: only 27% of respondents indicated they were satisfied. With an average vote of 2,6. 24.63% gave a vote of 1. 5.22% gave a vote of 5. Unfortunately the community didn't follow up the report. Maybe it wasn't publicised enough.

Most agree AN/I is a big time waste and results in a lot of grief for all parties involved. We should be talking about editing not fighting over editors!

Unfortunately though, disputes will always happen. I think anyone with a little "real world" experience in judiciary matters would agree that those AN/I reports are not fair processes and that they are subject to huge biases.

Wikipedia is too important today to leave such decisions to a quick 72h discussion on a talk page where everybody just casts their stone and piles on. Some structure must be given to resolve unavoidable biases and problems in those matters.

The current system might work for obvious vandalism. Not so much for complex problems involving long time contributors and intricate rules. The project has grown. The rules are more complex. We need some kind of system that can ensure a fair process in those matters. Right to a fair trial is a crucial pillar of civility.

Users with 15 years of editing history should not be "rage quitting" every time AN/I is involved. And new editors should not be left with a feeling of being squashed by a bureaucracy of powerful admins. We can do much better than this. All it takes is a little more structure and a clear process in those matters.

Thank you for your time. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Looks like the Wikimedia Foundation Board is stepping in [14]. There seems to be some wariness that they might try to "supersede" the community. I think it should push us to try and fix this ourselves even more. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Will Trump's executive order impact Wikipedia?

Social media companies like Twitter have developed their own systems to deal with fake news. These systems are not perfect but they are good enough to be an irritant to Trump, and Trump has now decided to hit back by invoking the decency act. It seems to me that Wikipedia might then also be affected by any such action, because we have our rules here too that Trump obviously doesn't like either. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I share some of CI's concerns, but would word them a bit differently. I'll note Donald Trump is a lunatic: Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales I did hear the word lunatic from your lips but my ability to view the video is so bad that I think it would be better just to ask you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Mr. Trump's EO is going to target the Section 230 immunity, which could render the Wikipedia liable for content posted by users, and how disciplinary actions are handled. These are interesting times to live in. ValarianB (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it highly unlikely that anything Trump does will have any negative impact on us. Given that Trump governs through random chaotic rants on twitter, it's actually quite unclear to me at this point just what, exactly, he's proposing. I saw a quote from a law professor in the New York Times saying that she had seen a draft of the order, so I suppose it's out there - I haven't seen it yet (and I'm not a legal expert although I know more than I should have to know about Section 230 and all that). Executive Orders can't override laws that Congress has made, but there's no question that a President with a sufficient degree of lack of concern for the Constitution could tie a lot of people up in court for a long time before getting his ass handed to him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Found this which is said to be the draft.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

From my understanding (and now that draft), it targets the vagueish language of S230 like "in good faith" and allow federal agency like FCC to define that better, back-dooring in policies if that's not met. Which, as long as this is part of the responsibilities that Congress gave to the FCC, then it is legal per several SCOTUS rulings (Chervon deference) for the FCC to make regulations like this, as long as they within the authority Congress gave them. (IANAL but have written up enough SCOTUS cases to know where this is heading). There's still plenty that can be challenged even to that end, but we'll have to see. --Masem (t) 17:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the EO is expected to be immediately challenged by the big Tech (regardless of its state, if it touches S230, they're going after it), and that first step will be seeking an injunction to stop its enforcement while a case progresses. --Masem (t) 17:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

IANAL also and I had a quick reading of the supposed draft, but I don't see how there is even anything to enforce before the election (FCC rules have to be drafted, etc.). So what's Trump's point? Finally Jimbo, do you really think that Trump is a lunatic, or was that just an arguing point? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not my style to put forward "arguing points" that I don't think are true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Jimmy - I did not express myself well there. The question had to do with whether you really called President Trump a lunatic. I just could not get a good connection to see that ET (India) video. I tried again just now and got a better connection (by no means perfect). I now conclude that when you said the word "lunatic" it was in response to an implicitly hypothetical question (about 5:30 on the video) "What could be the worst that could happen?" I understand now that you responded that (approximately) "The worst that could happen is that they (Twitter) wouldn't just ignore him... so that if he were a complete idiot ..." My bad. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: here's more context:

"If President Trump tweets something that is nonsense, we don't accept him as a source in Wikipedia for random things he says on Twitter. We have a group of admins who are very strict and firm on what can be entered.... The president's power does not extend to shutting down or threatening social media platforms. That's illegal. It's not something he can do. We do have the First Amendment in the US.... The worst-case scenario is that they don't have the courage to tell him to go away, that they begin to adapt their policies to his whims because he's a lunatic." — Jimmy Wales, ET Now, May 28, 2020 (Text is from interview.)

A spoken interview does not provide punctuation, so maybe @Jimbo Wales: would like to properly punctuate this part of his statement: "to his whims because he's a lunatic." (BTW, my applause for speaking truth to power! You have integrity.) -- Valjean (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Also probably helpful is that Wyden, 1/2 of the authorship of S230, says the EO is likely illegal [15]. --Masem (t) 18:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump is just as welcome to edit Wikipedia as anyone else. However, WP:FREE says "In sum, in the United States you have the legal right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write‍—‌even if it's "The Truth"." This is also true when Trump posts on Twitter. He seems to have gone through the roof over the fact check tags on his May 26 tweets about mail-in ballots.[16] He sees this as a sign that the tech industry is trying to censor his position. However, people have been thrown off social media after they said potentially harmful things, and David Icke is a good example. Icke is also convinced that he has access to The Truth™.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The best cartoon ever https://xkcd.com/1357/ addresses exactly your points. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Flower Power sort of people never ruled the US. They have slowly changed the society from within instead of seizing political power and dictating their rules to society. Trump apparently seeks to dictate his rules to society, imposing them from above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seen this and felt it important to comment. It is my position that wikipedia should not be an activist website with a political position, wiki is supposed to be a source of uninvolved independant knowledge, you can say it is just Jimmy's personal opinion but as such an involved person in the wikipedia his opinions and statements carry weight. I don't think the founders comments in that interview stating the the elected president of the USA is a lunatic are in any way compliant with wp:npov or wp:blp and as such bring the neutrality of the content especially about Trump but also in general to neutrality here into question. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is supposedly based on what RS say but a lot of those RS provide TRUTH peppered with ideological analysis and personal biases. Perhaps Jimbo thinks Trump is a mentally ill person...aka a "lunatic". But since Jimbo made such a comment off-wiki...we have no control over that and I would be opposed to control it anyway, especially on a UTP, since preventing him from saying what he feels here on Wikipedia would be exactly what Trump wants it seems.--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Govindaharihari: NPOV only applies to article content, and then primarily to editorial conduct (editors must edit "neutrally"), not to content or sources, which do not have to be "neutral" (when properly sourced and attributed). BLP only applies at Wikipedia, not elsewhere. Jimbo is in his right to have opinions and express them, especially such admirable ones. What he said would be perfectly good article content here, as long as it's attributed to him. That's what we do with any opinions which might be controversial. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That draft EO puts forth an interpretation of 230 that if a platform that edits/restricts content beyond the terms of service and the usual exceptions, that such makes them a "publisher" which does not enjoy 230 protection, and directs federal agencies and departments to follow that interpretation and for the rullemakers to draw details to implement that. I 'spose that the good news is that ostensibly it could be read as only affecting the actions of "agenicies and departments", plus the president can't change the law or be the official interpreter of it. Also he can't create the official legal interpretation of the law unless the law authorizes it. The bad news would be if the law does that. The more likely problem that inthe mess of the US liability system anything that can be used to argue that the protections of 203 don't apply could have an impact. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can understand that that would be used against platforms which abide by the principle of free speech, like Facebook and Twitter, but Wikipedia never was about free speech, it is merely a service which abstracts the mainstream academic views and reports from mainstream press. So, even if that would pass as legislation, I don't see how it would affect Wikipedia. E.g. publishing your own article in Plos ONE isn't a legal right, it is a privilege, which Plos ONE could deny to anyone they wish. And another point: Wikipedia is not a commercial organization, it is non-profit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft no longer [17]. Most of the same from the draft otherwise though. --Masem (t) 21:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia is targeted by this order:

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

But since providing a forum for free speech never was the intent of Wikipedia, I don't see how Wikipedia could be engaging in deceptive practices in that regard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Twitter has an equivalent to No legal threats. Even if it doesn't, I'll bet real money (as my Dad would say) that there is a clause in their User Terms & Agreement that says, in effect: "If you prove to be too much of a chronic nuisance we will close your account, no matter who you are." -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see the Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU suing the administration for damages under the Civil Rights Acts and the Takings Clause. There was a First Amendment case just yesterday that in which Twitter, et al. won hands down.[18] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) This is the big nothing - as I said above there's (almost) nothing to enforce. The main things the government is expected to do

• The Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney general are instructed to get together and by July 27 instruct or remind the FCC to make some new rules related to Trumps's views on social media.
• Government agencies should report how much they spend on advertising on platforms that Trump doesn't like, and presumably stop advertising there.
• The courts, presumably, may (or may not) take Trump's advice on the fine points of Section 230. Presumably government agencies may also take that advice, but it's not clear what they'd do with it since it is about civil litigation (IANAL)

I don't really see anything else, except perhaps 1 point kinda applying to Wikipedia.

• Online platforms may not discriminate against people who make money on their platforms according to different political views, e.g. they may not let Democrats advertise but not let Republicans advertise.
  • We could take advantage of this provision (which does apply to us) by putting in our Terms of Use that no discrimination against advertisers will be tolerated on Wikipedia - all advertising is prohibited.

If anybody sees other enforceable parts of this, let us know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In case people hadn't already seen this: But legal experts said they were doubtful the move would have any practical effect on the tech giants. Legal observers described the action as "political theater," arguing that the order does not change existing federal law and will have no bearing on federal courts. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the order (as it is at this moment) is not enforceable. However, it should be seen as a declaration of Trump's intentions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(Btw, please drop any good legal analyses of the EO on Talk:Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if you could please :) --Masem (t) 23:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC) )

Based on Masem's comment immediately above, I visted Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Executive_Order_on_Preventing_Online_Censorship expecting to see a mess (similar to the EO). But no, @Masem: he and others have put together a detailed and well-rounded section on it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

In the end, we should not underestimate the matter: Democrats want to get rid of 230 because Facebook and Twitter have eroded democracy. Biden has also stated he wants to get rid of it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• You've got to laugh... CNN is is blaming social media for the Trump/Clinton fiasco.[19] The sensationalists are blaming the printing press itself, for the choices of the readership which loves them. Note: "war on truth". ~ R.T.G 10:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

It's also ironic that Donald Trump is trashing the Chinese government while proposing the same type of censorship that is found on Sina Weibo. Just try mentioning Winnie the Pooh on Chinese social media.[20]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, isn't that is what is going on with Twitter? All he had to do, was say he'd touch anything, and everybody rises to the occasion. There is nothing so easy to manipulate as your own reflection. And there is nothing which can be trusted less if it is not part of a mirror. ~ R.T.G 13:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

People have to behave themselves if they want to take part in a call-in on their local radio station, and Twitter is no different. Donald Trump would probably get taken off air if he called his local radio station with rants and threats like the one that got hidden on Twitter: Twitter hides Trump tweet for 'glorifying violence' Making threats (thinly veiled or otherwise) is one of the unacceptable things to do on social media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A race riot of the calibre that gets mentioned through history, and that is what he should be saying about it even if he feels on the wrong side. ~ R.T.G 17:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder who wrote it????

I also find it weirdly ironic ( but truly coincidental ) that it came out on the same day as China's "order" that opens the door to its upcoming "National Security Law", in the sense that both may be laying the groundwork for something more powerful. I dunno, I have to be in a certain mood to read through the "Trump" edict, but I hope we find out who actually wrote it. I doubt it was he himself?? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO the biggest threat isn't anything operative in the executive order. It's more from the arena of stupid lawsuits in the stupid US liability legal system, where nothing has to really make sense. The threat of somebody suing Wikipedia, and arguing 230 protection does not exist because of this or the definition that it attempts to create. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if Jimmy's talked to Mike Godwin about this, but here's his take: https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/trump-twitter-section-230.html Among other things he echoes my first thought that (a) Trump can't do that because S230 and (b) Trump should be happy about that because if S230 said what he seems to wish it did, Twitter would have little alternative but to ban his ass. Guy (help!) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Racism on Wikipedia

In honor of George Floyd, I'm going to list some of the subjects on African Americans that should be included on Wikipedia. Excuses aside, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong.

• Draft:Vince Proby
• Draft:Lucius Brooks
• Draft:John Clein
• Draft:Hamilton High School (Memphis, Tennessee)
• Draft:Henry Hayes (musician), I'm sorry this entry isn't better. I'd be hapoy to have help on it rather than see it languish in draftspace.
• Draft:Thomas Cardozo
• Draft:Lawrence Lindell
• Draft:Storm Saulter
• Draft:Woodsworth, North Carolina
• Draft:Henderson Middle School (DeKalb County, Georgia)
• Draft:Ferdinand Gaynair

FloridaArmy (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• These have nothing to do with racism, at least with Wikipedia itself. it is the fact that reliable sources of the past have not given sufficient coverage to many underrepresented groups (African-Americans, women, etc.) and as an encyclopedia, we require good sourcing to have articles on these people. There could other ways that the WMF could support a "Who's Who" of individuals that have met certain factors of importance but that's beyond the scope of WP. --Masem (t) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We've had this type of debate before with articles about women in science etc. It's always difficult to create articles when there is a dearth of reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not mean that Wikipedia is racist or sexist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe there could be a number of "Niche Wikipedias" wherein each one would address specific issues of importance like a "Wikipedia (Racism)" entity which would include all of the RS info which does not, for whatever reason, does not qualify for general Wikipedia inclusion? Just an idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's certainly the idea of a possible Who's Who sister project that would be ideal to allow short bio entries for any person that just meets the basics of verifyability, with outgoing links to the wikis for those that actually have articles there. 1-5 sentences at most for any individual, possibly restricting this to deceased individuals (as I can see this being a honeypot for self-promotion if there's no clear guidance of whom can be added based on what sourcing). --Masem (t) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I like the Who's Who idea, it could actually be fluid as a place where full blown Wikipedia articles could incubate and blossom or where articles for deletion might be downsized to. The restrictions, if any, could be determined after it's up and running. This topic certainly is demonstrating a need for more attention being given to these individuals who have a critical effect upon human society; even if given a short attention span by RSs. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking some of those have RS like substantial obits that just have not been accessed, because such things require library research, and actually looking through a number of archives and specialty books. I think that's probably true for women, too. Relying on just the free internet, and not the library (or paid resources), is a difficulty for Wikipedia. We wish we were not limited by the easily surfaced on today's free internet, but in reality, we are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Regarding Draft:Thomas Cardozo, there is a section about him in the article about his brother, Francis Lewis Cardozo. In the first reference of your draft, which is Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction, there seems to be a lot more information than you put in your draft. You might use the Francis Lewis Cardozo article in Wikipedia as a model to try and write an acceptable draft of an article about Thomas Cardozo and then argue for its inclusion by comparing it to the Francis Lewis Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, On comparison of the two articles with regard to sources, they look similar. In fact, the Francis Lewis Cardozo article uses a source that is about Thomas Cardozo for information on Francis Cardozo! The reason of the reviewer for declining Draft:Thomas Cardozo doesn't seem correct when just sources are considered. However, in the source Thomas W. Cardozo: Fallible Black Reconstruction Leader there is, "Although historians have frequently extolled Francis Louis Cardozo, prominent leader in the reconstruction of South Carolina, as a symbol of integrity, they have generally ignored his brother Thomas Whitmarsh Cardozo, Mississippi's superintendent of education, except to mention him occasionally as an example of Reconstruction venality and corruption." So it looks like Thomas Cardozo isn't as notable as his brother, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, In any case, you can add information to the Francis_Lewis_Cardozo#Thomas_Whitmarsh_Cardozo,_younger_brother section of the Francis Cardozo article. If the section becomes too big, you may then be able to spin it off into its own article. See WP:SPINOFF. Bob K31416 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there is no gray area over whether Mississippi's Black and Jewish Secretary of Education during the Reconstruction Era is notable. Nor is there any real case for censoring the other African American history related subjects I've listed above from inclusion on Wikipedia. An African American architect who served in the state's architectural board, co-designed an African American Museum and a significant African American community library (which not surprisingly also doesn't have an article). An African American recording artist and co-star in Western films who also appears with Frank Sinatra in a film with famed dace numbers. A Jamaican movie director and writer who has whole articles about him in the largest newspaper in Jamaica. An African American comminity in North Carolina. A predominantly African American high school with many decades of history, prominent alumni and faculty, one that's had a role in Civil Rights events and continies to make news. The truth is that African Americans don't have an advocacy group on Wikipedia and until a group like the NAACP or ACLU puts pressure on Jimbo & Co. discrimination against subjects related to African American history will likely continue on Wikipedia. Their schools. Actors. Politicians. Artworks. And community leaders have been deemed by Wikipedia consensus as being unworthy of inclusion. It's a clear as a sunny day sickness of institutional racism. We must do better. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no involvement with the WMF or board, only a volunteer, but as a volunteer, I can tell you the community here is very aware of the implicit discrimination against underrepresented minorities like African-Americans and the like that is a result of what external sources give us to work with, but by no means at all is there any type of active discrimination against these. We cannot create information out of a void to create articles on these, and historically, underrepresented minorities simply did not get the type of coverage that white males got in the media in pre-21st century media. But as Alanscottwalker said, there actually may be information out there but requires more effort to obtain, like actually going to libraries local to where these people lived and worked, rather than relying only on a Google search, as we're not at a point where everything's digitized yet. Key point here is that no progress or policy or guideline allows for discrimination, and that we would take action against editors that actually used their own personal ideas to discriminate on underrepresented persons. It is 100% wrong to accuse WP of actively discriminating here. Again to stress, we are well aware that there is implicit discrimination caused by the lack of coverage from sources for underpresented minorities; we can try to encourage more volunteer time to try to locate more sources, but the absence of sources is not WP fault.

I will say that we do want to make sure AFC standards are being applied equally. FloridaArmy's got several examples here of articles that I agree with the AFC reviewer that they can't go to mainspace, but I worry if we have articles on well-respected groups (white people) of equivalent quality of sourcing that do get pushed through AFC. That would be a problem. From what I've seen of AFC, this is is not the case; such an article would similarly be rejected for mainspace, but we have to be mindful of this Ideally, AFC reviewers should have a racial/gender/whatnot blind eye in reviewing and are only reviewing on source quality, which gets back to the main issue of implicit discrimination coming from external sources, not WP. --Masem (t) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't be the only one who wondered why such a prolific and experienced editor would be going through AfC for all their article creation. After a bit of research, I get the impression someone's trying to appropriate the furor over current events to continue a years-long battle with Wikipedia's concept of notability. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I came to a lot of grief for creating lots of articles on subjects like African American policians and a University in Jamaica. Some Wikipedians were outraged I was unable to include birth dates and background biographical information for former slaves who became politicians. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, For evidence that your proposed articles on African Americans have been discriminated against, you might show existing Wikipedia articles on white people who are less notable than the African Americans in your proposed articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416, That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that doesn't usually work. We probably do have plenty of white folks who don't meet GNG, but have articles. However, many of those were created back before we began the more rigorous AfC process. Many of them should likely be deleted, but are just so low trafficked that nobody has noticed. TLDR: just because other articles are bad doesn't mean yours can be. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Could you give an example? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I got Hugo Jeske and Nathaniel Kahn within the first ten clicks of the random article button. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to offer a, perhaps, somewhat unique perspective ( I grew up in the racially segregated South of the 50s but have lived in Canada all my adult life ) my point would be that if Wikipedia is, to any extent, influenced by Americans or American culture, it will more than likely have substantial systemic racism built into it, without the contributors of said racism being aware of it.

I'll give you one example. When my son was in first grade here in Toronto his best friend was the only black kid in his class. One day I asked my son whether he noticed anything different about L___. My son thought and then the light went on in his eyes, and he said. "He's taller than the rest of the kids".

Ironically, for the purposes of this discussion, some 18 years later my family was considering moving to Santa Monica, California. We had several real estate people showing us properties and every one of them showed us racial demographics about the schools located near the properties. Even I was surprised but my Canadian kids were shocked and 1 daughter blurted out "that's racism" to the real estate saleswoman.

After 1 day of that, the same son I reference above said; "Let's go home, we don't fit in here." Everyone else agreed. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like Wikipedia is very aware of its issues with systemic bias and has taken many actions to address it. That doesn't mean there isn't room for further improvement, but it's not productive to suggest Wikipedia is ignorant of its issues and to ignore what's already being done. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia needs to figure out some way to identify and completely block out of content any systemic racial biases and do it now. If the argument is that racial bias is not here, that is a reasonable position, if true, but to say we are aware of it and doing our best, in 2020, is shameful in terms of our level of competence. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Institutional racism

Of course there is racism on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia it is called Institutional racism. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Please don't be thoughtless and deny that racism exists on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I haven't yet seen an example of Wikipedia (ie, the WMF or groups of longstanding Wikipedia editors) engaging in "discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." As Masem says above, Wikipedia is already taking action to address issues with systemic bias, which is the closest thing you'll see to (but distinct from) institutionalized racism. Such actions are the antithesis of "ignorance" and "thoughtlessness." 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That some people who are Wikimedians are working to eliminating institutional racism, structural racism, or systematic bias seems to make the point that there is a problem and not that doesn't exist. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated, systemic bias is not the same as institutional racism. Conflating the two does not help your case, and misapplying the term "racism," here or anywhere, does a disservice to those who have fought against actual racial injustice. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@FloNight: Once again, do you have any examples of institutional racism through "prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping" by the WMF or a consensus of longstanding en.Wikipedia editors? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

From your comment and question, I believe that we have a different understanding of how structural racism, institutional racism, and systemic bias are related and the manner that they contribute to racial injustice. I don't have my textbooks available to me but an internet search show many books, articles, and websites that explain the way that an institution's policies, procedures and practices enforce racial injustice. One important point is that systemic racism may not be as readily obvious to those privileged by the system. It can be entirely unintentional. That does not stop it from being institutional and structural racism and systemic racism that causes harm through racial injustice. I have a few examples in mind that I can write up and share. It will be tomorrow my time. Thanks for engaging. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@FloNight: Well, even without examples, I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. Systemic bias leads to disparities in our coverage of certain topics, such as those relevant to racial minorities. You consider this disparity to be "institutional racism," as it disadvantages those with interest in these topics, right?

While this is a reasonable stance, I take issue with the use of the term "racism" for this phenomenon. Systemic bias does not target just racial minorities, it affects all groups which lack coverage in reliable sources. Systemic bias also doesn't target racial minorities on the basis of race, again, it's a matter of topics that concern any minority groups only receiving a minority of the coverage in reliable sources. It may seem like a convenient shorthand to call this "racism," "sexism," or "[whatever]-ism," but such terms are misleading. To say there's a problem with "racism on Wikipedia" is to say that addressing "racism on Wikipedia" will address the problem. But of course, neither the WMF nor the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are racist, and many will take corrective action against any perceived acts of "racism." The claimed "racism" is merely a symptom of the overall systemic bias. Unfortunately, there is (to my knowledge) no widely-accepted term for the systemic disadvantages felt by underrepresented groups in general. But using the term "racism" necessarily draws focus when it's only one part of the larger issue of systemic bias. It distracts from the relevant aspects of the problem almost like a red herring, and inhibits discussion of the broader issues. It also leads to unnecessary confusion, as we had here. If FloridaArmy had instead said that systemic bias was preventing him from writing articles on certain topics, he would certainly have had less objections and more support. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

+1. It is always explained clearly when WP:GNG was the reason for declining a new article for submission. It isn't helpful to throw around allegations of racism or sexism in this situation. This doesn't, however, solve the problem that some people (including important living academics) do not have a great deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There has been a long discussion about this at WP:ACADEMIC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm commenting on Jimmy's talk page, but I have very strong reservations with people insisting that systemic bias shouldn't be equated with institutional racism. Unfortunately, and I speak at this coming from a minority community on the English Wikipedia, it is emblematic of institutional racism, and I'll be very blunt here: many English Wikipedia editors from the Anglosphere — and especially some who've participated in this conversation so far — have absolutely no idea what we go through just to get our articles to stick, especially in the last 5-10 years.

The English Wikipedia's insistence on "perfection", whether at AfC, AfD or elsewhere, is particularly detrimental for us from minority communities. How many Wikipedians from the Philippines or India or Nigeria or elsewhere have been driven out of our community because some editor from the U.S. or the UK nominated the articles they put a lot of effort into making for deletion, all because they didn't have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG? I myself have had to deal with this, and at least I've survived long enough not only to be here today, but to also give a presentation on it. But because we're a minority community, we have to navigate through structures that the majority of our community — who just so happen to be composed of highly-educated white males from the Anglosphere — have built, and have built without any consideration for how it can affect those of us who aren't from that community and have to deal with all the handicaps that come with it. We used to allow stubs to stand and have others jump in to improve our work, but now we insist on having a perfect article the first time around or it will be nominated for deletion or declined at AfC? What on Earth happened to us?

Yes, Wikipedia isn't outwardly racist, and casual racism is something that doesn't prosper here. But we cannot deny that systemic bias exists, and that as a result there is a structural racism that we must continue to challenge and destroy so that we can have a more equitable, more equal and more open project that is accessible to all. But we are nowhere near there yet, and we have a lot of work to do. If I, with all my privilege, can recognize that systemic disadvantages exist on the English Wikipedia that happen to benefit a group of people at others' expense, I hope those who happen to be the most privileged (who also happen to be the very people having this discussion to begin with!) can recognize that too. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you've read my comment above, you haven't understood it. I have other issues with your comment, such as your claims about stubs and your repeated assumptions of the demographic makeup of this discussion, but I see no point in engaging if you haven't digested this section yet. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Explaining to a person of color that he doesn't understand institutional racism is a new low point even for this page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I know I said above that the racism claims are like a red herring, but that actually is a red herring. Good show. It seems that "inhibits discussion of the broader issues" was prophetic. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've read through your slides and that's not anything like institutional racism. You're identifying the fact that we have too many people that coming to Wikipedia without spending anytime to learn policy and guidelines and quickly grow frustrated and leave when their edits and contributes aren't kept. That's a systematic disadvantage but no specific group except for new users who have no patients to learn. We try to welcome new users but far too many run off to the worst possible places to make their first contributions, often driven by personal interest - such as running to pages about Trump or COVID - which creates major problems that we (experienced editors) can't afford the time to explain why there's problems with that. Or they come and try to write articles on people or topics they think are interesting but spend no time to read on WP:V and WP:N and we are forced to delete their contributions. Or a number of zillion reasons Ive seen. I come from the pre-Endless September days were "listen and lurk" was the recommended practice before contributing to a community but that's loooong gone today. People want instant gratification, but we require their contributions to meet very specific requirements. So yes, we are systematically acting against these types of people, but by necessity to keep the quality of the work, not because we don't want their contributions. This is blind to race, gender/etc.

Now you do raise a good point on topics outside the Anglosphere, but I do stress that our sourcing policies do not require English language sources except in the case of exceptional claims where we need at least some clear English translation. But we do have the issue that most of us in the Western countries NA and EU don't have good familiarity of what are reliable sources outside the Anglosphere so I can see a valid point that an AFC may be rejected because the reviewer can't make that distinction while they'd keep an AFC of similar sourcing quality based on clear English sources. That is something we wish we could do better on and that's not so much "racism" but "language-ism". All we'd can really do is hope that AFC creators are more helpful to explain non-English sources to AFC reviewers and AFC reviewers are more open to what are RSes from nonWestern countries. --Masem (t) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First off, as someone who's been on Wikipedia since 2005, I can see on its face that the creeping bureaucratization of Wikipedia over the last decade or so has had a visibly detrimental impact on those who are less able to keep up. I have difficulty as it is keeping up with the volumes of policy and guidelines we have on the English Wikipedia, and that's despite me being very privileged for someone who happens to be a person of color. What about someone who doesn't have the capacity to keep up? As it is, we have difficulty retaining editors as it is in the Philippines owing to the many social, economic and political factors that coalesce to deter people from effectively participating. What more if they have volumes of policy that they need to comprehend on top of that? (Not to say that having policy is a bad thing, but in this case, perfect is the enemy of the good, and it clearly shows.)

We cannot deny the fact that there are people who are disadvantaged by the way Wikipedia is structured, and the ones who are often disadvantaged are people of color. For those who happen to identify with the majority community, they don't realize that there are clear injustices that can be perpetuated in the name of policy. No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources, yet major sources in the Philippines — despite being in English! — have had their reliability questioned (which was my point re: sourcing). No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity, yet African musicians need to have a Grammy to be considered notable. You can insist 'til kingdom come that our policies are "blind" to gender, race and language, but while that may be the case on paper, it is rarely the case in practice. I know, because I've lived it. Many of our editors of color have lived it. You're likely extremely fortunate to not have to go through what we face, so please, don't you dare tell me that I don't know what the institutional racism on Wikipedia perpetuated by systemic bias looks like.

The fact that I'm probably the only person of color actively involved in this discussion (a cursory glance at user pages tells me most of the participants here are either from the U.S. or the UK, with one person from Romania) says volumes about the immense privilege many English Wikipedia editors have. We're too busy with real life to edit Wikipedia, and yet when we're privileged enough to be able to edit Wikipedia, we fight the uphill battle to ensure our nations, our histories, our cultures and our languages are adequately represented to begin with — something that you are privileged enough to not have to experience. While you get to enjoy having meta-discussions on policy and culture, we have to contend with fighting for the reliability of sources, advocating for oral citations just to get our stories adequately represented, and, heck, just ensuring that we can even continue to exist on Wikipedia, given what we face to even get to the door. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a single editor questioning that source at that AfD, and the AfD (on a topic most relevant to the rural Philippines) ultimately received nothing but Keep !votes. This is an example of institutional racism? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"No one questions the reliability of U.S. or UK sources," yes, they do, all the time. Look at WP:RSN, or any of a number of AfDs. "No one questions the notability of a U.S. or UK celebrity," yes, they do, all the time. Articles for thousands of minor and aspiring celebrities have been deleted, including many from the US and UK. I hate to be insensitive, but please consider that your bias may be holding you back, just as you claim "most of the participants here" are blinded by their "privilege."

The only evidence provided in support of the idea that "racism" is the underlying problem here are appeals to emotion and claims that those participating 'just don't get it.' (FloNight left us high and dry) It's true, we don't get it, and that's because the arguments aren't very convincing. I can only imagine the emotions these discussions must bring out, but we need to have high-quality discussions if we want to resolve these problems. These comments based on passionate appeals and personal grievances are devoid of substance and do no one any good. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to stress to @Sky Harbor: that none of Wikipedia's policies and, only speaking as a volunteer, as best as I understand the Foundation's policies/principles, support any position that would allow racism or any form of discrimination towards an editor as a person. We actively fight that when we see it happen or are notified when it happens. This is something that the WMF appears to also be establishing to roll out across all its projects in terms of handling civility, harassment, and discrimination towards persons. This is where when people call "wikipedia is racist!" its a very iffy charge because we absolutely do fight that when the discrimination is directed towards editors as persons.

What most of your presentation was about - and what most of this discussion has been about - is the racism/discrimination of the contributions of editors, which we do not give any bearing onto the person itself, outside of behavioral issues that tie the contributions to disruptive behavior that has to be dealt with (eg someone going around adding a negative slur to all African-American articles and clearly non-apologetic for it when asked about it- which we'd likely quickly ban per my first paragraph). Someone going around editing in good faith African-Americans is fine, that implies nothing to us about the editor outside their interest in that topic area. It is just that now, we're talking an area that we know systematic bias can occur: that this is an underrepresented group and sourcing difficult if not impossible to find to justify full articles, and there's not many volunteers that share that interest to help in that area. That we may not allow many drafts of articles on African-Americans to stay in mainspace, or even have these deleted is not a reflection on the editor supplying these articles at all -- which is where some your argument seem to be directed at - only the fact your contributions to date may have problems with the systematic bias that Wikipedia has a hard time overcoming.

There are things Wikipedia can try to do better like getting more volunteers involved in various underrepresented areas (like the Women in Red project does) or other similar article drive attempts, but there's only so much we can do about the lack of sourcing issue that comes from how history has treated these underrepresented groups and that is something that an encyclopedia we simply cannot overcome. (Hence, why I suggested maybe whos' who type project within the WMF bounds that would serve this better?)

And I would emphasis that why WP is not being racist or discriminary to you as an editor, only your contributions, is that if you also edited in articles that were outside underrepresented topics, where there was plenty of sourcing, in addition to your attempts to bring underrepresented topics to mainspace (assuming all contributions made in good faith), we'd still readily accept the other contributions, as your contributions int he underrepresented topic area against have no impact on you as an editor or affect your other contributions. This might be a point to try to get across to new editors better: that working in an article area that is better covered in sources as your first experience rather than something obscure is likely going to make your initial editing experience better, or that if you opt to spend all your time in underrepresented topics that you're likely to see a lot of difficulty getting your topics into mainspace because of the known systematic bias and provide resources to groups that might be able to help. But to the point: none of this is reflecting on any racism or discrimination on the editor as a person themselves, only their contribution.

This is probably where a lot of new editors do leave WP early because they don't understand that WP makes this distinction between the editor and their contribution. They seem their edits reverted, and feel that we've slighted them as a person and run off. Again, maybe we can set up our newbie documentation better to make is clear that just because they were reverted, or their article wasn't accepted, that they would feel bad about themselves. This might help make it seem less like we have any racism/discrimination occurring from that point of view. But there's only so much we can force a new editor to read before they hit "publish" for the first time, and there will always be some that don't see a word of that , and then come running calling a reversion of their edit as "censorship" or "racism" or whatever to an ANI board, which is obviously no the case. --Masem (t) 16:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've started a discussion of the "Who's Who" idea here, as this section is getting unwieldy. 2601:194:300:130:F405:9C39:A641:A0B2 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC) <- Same anon, different IP

(Apologies for not responding yet. I had several unexpected visitors yesterday.)

First off, I want to say that I’m engaging on Jimmy’s talk page to have a dialog about a topic that I believe to be of utmost importance to the success of Wikipedia. I understand that racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from. But in my view, organization and people who now pause and reflect about the ways that they perpetuate racism will be viewed in a positive way. Here and now, I encourage others to look deeper into the way that words and practices result in racism in our movement orgs and to provide a safe space for reflection about how change could happen.

Next, I want to make clear that I’m not an expert on institutional racism, structural racism, and systemic racism, but I did deliberately study the topic of racism over the course of a decade as an adult at a university to gain a better understanding of why racial inequity is persisting in major organizations (in particular health care orgs) in the United States. After I began editing Wikipedia in 2005, I expanded my studies and reading in order to gain a better understanding why Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is failing to meet the mission of providing free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Why does Wikipedia continue to attract a narrow demographic of people making it impossible to create unbiased content? How do the sociotechnical structures create barriers to participation?

I can see that recognizing and correcting the flaws that allow for systemic racism in Wikipedia will improve the lives of millions of people and change the course of human history. I’m not here to argue point by point for a win, or have anyone’s ideas dismissed as irrelevant because they are based on emotion, or someone's views declared invalid by the majority on this page. This approach is not going to move us toward having a community that is more welcoming of people who are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement and on English Wikipedia.

I believe the vast majority people in the movement are not racist or sexist at heart and are capable of meeting the challenge. We need to make it a priority to look deeper into all of our processes and policies to see how they are impediments towards diversity and inclusion.

I also request that we show empathy for people who express concern about racism and other types of injustice especially as they share their stories.

I understand that some of these items I identify below are challenging to change based on the traditions of the movement. But it is essential that we look to the future instead of the past if we want to achieve our mission.

• The success of Wikipedia is largely based on volunteerism where well educated men from North America and Western Europe are spending their leisure time creating article content and enforcing policies. Niche paying jobs like Wikipedians in Residence and ED, Event Coordinators, and Trainers are limited to a tiny segment of the community. Programs that allow for compensation by way of stipends or jobs to create content are regularly quickly dismissed by the majority of the community as undermining volunteerism. There are many cultures or subcultures that do not allow for leisure time to spend engaging with Wikipedia. People of color are significantly more affected by this. Because this is a known fact, I believe that this is an example of systemic/institutional/structural racism because our community has devalued the significance of lack of leisure in people of color from creating Wikipedia content and kept it as a barrier to creating content.
• The moriturum/slow movement toward growing larger new affiliate Chapters is resulting in the more people of color being in smaller affiliates known as User groups. These smaller groups have smaller budgets resulting in a disporpatate amount of funds and resources continuing to go to the existing Chapters affiliates.. I have concerns that this overly cautious approach to funding affiliates who are in parts of the world that are underrepresented in the Wikimedia movement is rooted in systemic racism. This affects the ability of these groups to do the amount of training and recruitment needed to bring in a more diverse group of users.
• The nobility policy needs to be reevaluated because it is not working. Far too many articles about people of color that have encyclopedia type content are deleted because of lack of understanding of their relevance to their culture. We own this problem and need to find the solution instead of placing the blame with the outside world.

I'm sure that some of these are hard to accept, especially on first reflection. But I hope that we can open a dialog about them in the coming months. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 00:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FloNight: Thank you for your continued engagement. I too hope something productive can come from these discussions.

racism is an ugly word and something that people want to distance themselves from True, but not relevant to this discussion. As I stated above, referring to systemic bias as "racism" is simply incorrect and leads to confusion. You insist that we not dismiss concerns rooted in emotion, yet this seems just like an attempt to dismiss an argument because (you claim, despite evidence to the contrary) it's based on emotion.

I agree with you, in spirit, on many points. Systemic bias is one of the most serious and widespread issues affecting the content of the encyclopedia. Finding effective methods to further reduce the effects of systemic bias would greatly improve Wikipedia, and thus the experience of millions of people who use it.

As to your first bullet point, it is true, and unsurprising, that the editors of the English Wikipedia are mostly from English-majority countries, and that this contributes to systemic bias. Increasing editor participation from other parts of the world would help reduce the effects of systemic bias. I do not, however, understand how this would be considered "racism." People may not be able to contribute due to a lack of time or resources, but their ethnicity is not what prevents them from contributing. The same applies to people in the ethnic majorities who happen to be poor, busy, or uneducated. Nobody is barred from the English Wikipedia on the basis of race.

I can't speak to your second bullet point, although like many in the community, I think there needs to be greater transparency and accountability with how the WMF applies their ever-increasing budgets.

I disagree strongly with your last bullet point. The notability policy is one the most fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Notability is not a measure of importance. Articles are not deleted because someone thinks they lack "relevance." Notability is purely a matter of sourcing, and whether sources are available. This does put many cultures at a disadvantage, because they may lack the well-documented and widely available sources as had in the western world. But Wikipedia, by design, can only contain information available in reliable sources. To change that would mean that Wikipedia is no longer a tertiary source, and thus, no longer an encyclopedia. There are no easy solutions to this. All we can do is make the effort to locate, access, and promote reliable sources that cover the topics areas in which we're lacking. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation could fund and promote projects to improve access to reliable sources in developing countries, or even to create new reliable sources of information (ie, help to publish books and promote local media). But these solutions are tangential to Wikipedia itself.

And therein lies the crux of my contention. Changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The WMF and the Wikipedia community can exert their influence on the outside world in ways that benefit Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, by design, shouldn't be exerting it's influence on anything. It's very tempting to think that the solution to these problems might be as simple as changing a few lines of code, or a couple of guidelines, or reallocating some budget, but the issues driving the problems are far larger than Wikipedia. It is absolutely worth the effort to improve access to information and increase representation online for marginalized groups, and I applaud those who do so. But changing Wikipedia, in an attempt to change the world, will not only have minimal effect on the world, but would also result in massive collateral damage to Wikipedia. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

^^^ IP here has captured what I was going to reply with. Particularly with #1, we really need to not call this racism or discrimination. That's systematic bias we work as hard as possible as a volunteer project to convince editors and whatever outside forces (like school projects and editing drives) to help correct but it is not going to be a correction that happens naturally. But it is not racism and calling it that hurts this discussion. And the point on notability is spot out (outside that it is a guideline and not policy and we have some wiggle room at times) - it all starts with sourcing and that goes back to the systematic bias of where volunteers live and where the necessary sources actually are.

A good reminder to keep in mind; WP is always considered an unfinished project. Hopefully as technology catches up, we can get more local sources digitized, making them easier to source from anywhere in the world, and then searching becomes easier, and then we can add them. We've got the framework ready for when that can happen. It is not possible now because of the systematic disparity in the world, which is nothing WP can do to fix. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This was a very interesting read, even though I disagree with much of it. The point about bias resulting from well-educated Westerners' greater leisure time is interesting. I went and checked the stats for two countries, India and Nigeria (both large enough to have clear numbers, and free enough that the WMF doesn't need to hide editor stats to protect the people there), to see how far we still have to go, and to what extent we are failing to convert readers to editors outside wealthy countries. The stats were quite far from what I was expecting: India makes up 8% of ENWP's readers and 8% of ENWP's editors, and Nigeria makes up 0.4% of ENWP's readers and 0.4% of ENWP's editors.

I am surprised by these numbers. I don't know quite what to make of them, especially since even if lack of leisure time somehow didn't affect editing, there are plenty of other things that I would expect to affect it in the same direction. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Examples

User:Bob K31416 to answer your question, almost every article subject we have on politicians, judges, and athletes is less notable. Every pro athlete is automatically notable. Every run of the mill state rep, often real estate agents and small business owners, is considered notable. But these extraordinary men and women who achieved firsts and major exploits, some as former slaves, the Wikipedia community has deemed unworthy. You can come up with all the excuses you want. All of the above articles clearly meet inclusion criteria but they face an uphill battle. So yes, it's racism and if you want a scientific example here are my first three hits on a random article Jerome B. Friedman, Koala emblems and popular culture and Mali, Nepal. Yes, it's bigotry. And it's disgusting. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Re "You can come up with all the excuses you want." — Don't look at me for excuses. I'm just pondering all this stuff. There's another thread on this page, Larry Sanger: Wikipedia "scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics". Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

When the left and the right are both accusing us of bias, you can be sure we're pretty close to neutral. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the rest of the world, both Republicans and Democrats are right wing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, true dat. Joe Biden's platform is closely aligned with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Guy (help!) 23:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Could you give examples of articles that you created about African Americans that have been accepted? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are lots and lots listed at User talk:FloridaArmy.--Salix alba (talk): 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Actions, not words

I feel, as several above have pointed out, that our lack of coverage of minorities reflects the bias of our sources and society more than it does our editors. However, us sitting and talking about whether or not we have racism is not as useful as asking: if so, then what? For argument's sake, lets assume Wikipedia is racist. How do we fix that? What would we change? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate action to take is to accept and improve article subjects on African Americans and other unrepresented article subject groups that meet our inclusion criteria as those listed above clearly do. If someone disagrees and wants to take them to a deletion discussion all the better, as they will close strong keep and be further improved along the way. Enough with the excuses: the wrong action to take. We shouldn't need balkanization and an "African Americans in Black group" or any other special interest group to advocate for inclusion in order for these very notable subjects to be included.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

They do not meet our notability guidelines based on the sources provided, that's the point of why they have been rejected at AFC. They haven't been outright deleted because there is a slim chance that there may be more sourcing there for them but they fail notability to be put into mainspace at this time. To get them into mainspace, someone needs to do the legwork to look for more sources to show that either they meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, or more sourcing actually exists. You cannot just handwave and claim them notable because of your person importance standard. And this is where we have to be careful, we're not calling this out as being a matter of this being African-American subjects and thus require an apparent strong goalpost for inclusion. This is being impartial to what our policy and guidelines are for sourcing. If these were about white people in the exact same positions in life with the exact same type of sourcing, we'd be also not promoting them into mainspace and asking for more sources as well. Trying to twist this back to being about WP being racist doesn't help, we know what our limitations our with the systematic bias and do our best to fight it without losing our purpose as an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, so if someone is notable in, let's say the Philippines, but there aren't enough sources that would satisfy WP:GNG despite being notable, they aren't notable? The English Wikipedia as it is has editors who question the reliability of sources from outside the Anglosphere, so even if the policy on its face doesn't intend to perpetuate systemic racism in nature, practice suggests otherwise. Not to say that white subjects don't fail AfC, but the way the world is structured gives them advantages that allow those subjects to more easily pass AfC than, let's say, a non-white subject. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First, we're talking en.wiki's definition of notable, not the real-world definition. If you have reliable sources from Philippine papers that would meet the GNG (independent, in-depth secondary coverage - just not necessary in English) then we'd still be able to use those for GNG notability and sourcing; we don't discriminate against foreign-language sources. One key factor though is that en.wiki's definition of notability is not the same as the other sister wikipedias. Those other wikipedia may help point point to sourcing but just because an article exists in those doesn't mean we'd have an article. --Masem (t) 22:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that this is systemic racism, not institutional, though for some that’s a matter of little distinction given the democratic nature of this project. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• We would first need to know in what ways Wikipedia is racist. For example, if there's a group of racist editors causing disruption or pushing their POV, then we should have policies that allow us to block them for disruption and develop a neutral point of view. But we already have that. If editors are insisting on using low-quality sources with overt racial bias, then we should develop and enforce guidelines on reliable sources. But we already have that. If we can get some better examples of this supposed racism, we might be able to devise targeted solutions to the problems. But changing Wikipedia won't solve problems that aren't actually Wikipedia problems. The evidence thus far suggests that the issue lies outside Wikipedia, with the available reliable sources. Wikipedia, by its very nature as a tertiary source, is a victim, not a perpetrator. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I don't think Wikipedia is racist (though we occasionally turn over a stone and find a racist here). We do have systemic bias, and always have had. Guy (help!) 23:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Editor group projects. Do edit-thons, etc. with people who have access to libraries and research skills (students/teachers/librarians/academics/NAACP members/ACLU members/HBCU's etc. etc.) and want to write on the topics (see, eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to digest here, and I'm still digesting...for the moment I wanted to zero in on CaptainEek's comment, above, about how to fix racism/bias.

One thing I do, when I consider what subjects I want to edit: I look for scholarly dictionaries or encyclopedias on undercovered topics that will at least help me establish a foundation of notability for my articles. See Fati Mariko for an example (a couple of other Nigerien topics as well). They may not help me overcome the sourcing issue raised by Sky Harbor, but I hope they will at least keep such articles away from AfD. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article reviews on FloridaArmy's Talk Page

I looked at FloridaArmy's Talk Page and found reviews of the account's many submissions, including 30 archives! And the FloridaArmy account is only a year and a half old. This account is an extremely prolific article creator.

I certainly couldn't look through all of the reviews, but as I started to look at the reviews on the current FloridaArmy Talk Page I didn't see a pattern of racism. There are so many articles in the 30 archives that I'm not surprised that someone could pick and choose the relatively small list that we were shown for the claim that Wikipedia is racist, which may be a misrepresentation. I'll wait to hear from FloridaArmy before deciding what to think of this. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Subjects related to African Americans and the African diaspora are far and away the hardest to get accepted. Even after they have been accepted they are the ONLY ones I've had dragged to deletion discussions. As the lengthy list of excuses above makes clear, subjects about Black people are largely unwelcome on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it. Good luck with your articles. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate they are being rejected because of the subject matter. And to do that, you need to find articles of near equivalent "quality" in terms of the sourcing, the person of the topic of the article in terms of their status in life, and other similarities except race, and show that we routinely keep those at AFDs (or at AFC, do not challenge them and let them go to mainspace), as to show we are implemented a bias that is beyond the systematic bias related to sourcing. We've already established there's a sourcing bias against minorities, you need to normalize that out to proof that WP has its own bias beyond that. --Masem (t) 04:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, you've done nothing to establish your assertion. If you feel that you can do that, Masem has provided a framework. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that AFC inherently will have a slightly higher "bar" for notability. Probably the biggest reason is that a reviewer has to put themselves on the line to say "this is wp:notable" for it to pass, and that other people may be looking at their decision later and so are probably more likely to "play it safe" and make sure it is not borderline. Whereas, later on it needs somebody to decide "this is not notable" to AFD it. So the borderline ones are less likely to make it through AFC. Also because AFC might be a bit of a teaching / mentoring area for new editors, where holding one up for improvement or finding more sources for wp:notability could be seen as a part of the teaching / mentoring process. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A new WikiProject?

After stating "We shouldn't need... an "African Americans in Black group," FloridArmy has created Wikipedia:WikiProject People in Black, seemingly by copying Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (without attribution, oof). I note that a less ambiguous name might be "WikiProject:Black People in Red," and that we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, who should probably be involved with anything like this. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point about attribution. My mistake. Hopefully anyone who thinks Wikipedia should cover notable subjects related to African Americans and the African Diaspora will sign on. Sad that it's needed. But as the discussion above shows, it clearly is needed. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean wp:notable, that is already the norm, and you've done nothing to support your claim otherwise. Repeating the accusation (as you again did implicitly again in the above post ) does nothing to support the accusation. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update of article draft list in OP

Six articles in FloridaArmy's original list have been accepted. Here's the updated list with the accepted articles indicated without a bullet.

Vince Proby
Lucius Brooks

• Draft:John Clein

Hamilton High School (Memphis, Tennessee)

• Draft:Henry Hayes (musician)

Thomas Cardozo
Lawrence Lindell

• Draft:Storm Saulter
• Draft:Woodsworth, North Carolina
• Draft:Henderson Middle School (DeKalb County, Georgia)

Ferdinand Gaynair

I did a little editing on the Thomas Cardozo article. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Effective use of false racism charge

It looks like FloridaArmy just used a false charge of racism to help get articles through the AFC process. Reminds me of a scene from Beverly Hills Cop. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please use the deletion discussion process to eliminate any article on African Americans or their history you don't think belongs on Wikipedia. Your argument that Wikipedia isn't racist but that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace is farcical. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say "that we are correct to omit these article subjects from mainspace". In fact, I even edited one of your articles that I got interested in.

I support your efforts to create articles related to African Americans. It's a noble project that you have done magnificently and I encourage you to continue creating articles and also to expand articles that you created. I just think your racism charge was wrong and that it was unfair to editors at AFC who are working hard for Wikipedia. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

KP: I recently saw an article that zoomed through AfC, fat, lush in its fullness of facts, repeated as information, then reformulated (again) and restated with different quotes from different parts of the same serialized publication (each cited separately), decorated with copyright violating images, and replete with some amusing SEO name-positioning. Insta-Pass! Being a bit more prolix (wordy) might get you through AfC more easily, I don't know, FA. What I am sure of is that I'm glad you & KP got me to read that JSTOR article about Thomas Cardozo. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of racism

I've now been hauled before ANI, as I was after creating stubs on the African American Reconstruction Era politicians of Georgia. The hearing resulted in my being severely restricted.

Here we go again. The articles used as examples of my horrible editing include entries on African American politicians who were elected in North Carolina. Many were murdered soon after. But User:Guy doesn't want them included unless they are DYk length.

But No No No. No racism on Wikipedia. We can't have an editor adding entries on these subjects but it's absolutely not racism. No racism here folks. Absolutely no racism. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, bullshit. The problem is the creation of large numbers of undersourced stubs. You did that in mainspace, it overwhelmed AfD, so you were told to send them through AfC. Rather than banning you form creating articles (we have done that before), I advocate that you are reminded to at least put enough effort in to meet the standard of ...And?

If you are smart you will realise that this way you get more articles to mainspace and less drama. Which, it seems to me, is what everyone in that ANI wants. Guy (help!) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, undersourced stubs on African American politicians, Cameroonian cuisine, and the military school where the Netherlands trains leaders of its former colonies. YOU ARE RACISTS. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This is name calling. Most Wikipedians are not racists, if this is defined as prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. Various people have pointed out that trying to interpret WP:GNG and making good faith decisions based on it is not racist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: Calm down. There is no excuse for personal attacks. You're just giving them a reason to block you. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is an established problem that African Americans or notable academics may not have enough secondary sourcing for a decent length article. We have been through this many times before. Once again, systemic bias is not the same thing as racism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Let the racists block me.

Here we are on Blackout Day when we're supposed to be honoring George Floyd, an African American father killed with a knee on his neck as he begged for air and his life for 8 1/2 minutes. And a large group of editors is working stop me from creating articles on subjects about African Americans. The examples THEY targeted are Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush. Guess what these people all have in common?

Let the racists block me. I'm not going to calm down or be quiet. I was attacked for asserting Wikipedia is racist. Not enough evidence. Honestly what more evidence do you need??? So let these Racists block me. It will be fitting. Especially going down after this discussion on Jimbo's page. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: And how will playing the martyr help your cause? 71.234.210.113 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm upset and angry over the Killing of George Floyd but it isn't helpful to throw around accusations of racism when an article for creation request is turned down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What do they have in common: they were Republicans. FWIW: I see the two black men's entries are now in mainspace, while the two white guys' stubs are still drafts. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, the determination to ascribe motives is rather depressing. I hope that no experienced Wikipedian would be unaware of the fact that Republicans were historically progressive, and that the link between the Republican party and racism was a deliberate policy to hoover up disaffected racist Dixiecrats after the Civil Rights Act. Guy (help!) 10:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, it is rare to find any human who is entirely free of racial bias, but calling me and others racists is not going to win you a lot of friends around here. Asking for at least a minimal level of sourcing is not racist, it's Wikipedia 101. Guy (help!) 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, I looked over there at ANI[21] and so far you haven't been restricted more than your current restriction of requiring AFC for new articles. So far it stands at 3 admins for further restriction, 5 opposed, and 1 neutral.[22] Also, they don't seem inclined to block you because they think you're a net positive for Wikipedia.

Apparently the issue is the high rate of new article submissions by you that is difficult for AFC to keep up with. How would you feel about reducing your rate of new article submissions? You could use the extra time to expand your existing articles or expand articles before submitting them. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggested the solution which is to remove the requirement I go through AfC. The community made clear that it doesn't want one or two sentence stubs so I don't by and large create those any more. Occasionally I do make exceptions. But I aim to please and always try to respect community consensus as best I am able. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

First off, I'm not familiar with the workings of AFC. I went over there[23] to try to see how articles are chosen for review. As far as I could tell, the review of articles was voluntary. So it seems that if FloridaArmy was submitting articles at too fast a rate, editors at AFC would have the freedom not to review them. I'm probably missing something and maybe someone can help clarify. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, that's not going to happen for the exact reason that the AfC drama is happening. If you can't be arsed to write enough of an article to establish why we should care, then don't write the article. I'm astounded that you are so extraordinarily passionate about having these people on Wikipedia, and yet this passion stops short of being prepared to write a proper article. Stubs were fine when we had ten thousand articles and no Draft space. Now we have millions and the expectation is that a new article will be more than a directory entry. Guy (help!) 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't control whether racists care about African American politicians or article subjects from Africa and Jamaica, but if the subjects meet notability criteria they should be included. I understand that not caring and not liking these subjects is widespread. Racism is a BIG problem especially here on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416 , I can at least reply to this, not barring Guy’s response, given my familiarity with AfC. There are a multitude of factors behind the acceptance of an article, though notability as guided by the GNG is paramount. With caveats for different subject areas, and POV forks. Perhaps you could provide us links to these AfC submissions so we can comment on specifics? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, here's a clue: if you write more than a single sentence, the notability question becomes obvious. Wikipedia is not a directory, and writing what look like directory entries is a recipe for drama - as you already know. A lot of us support what you do, but your militant refusal to accept the validity of any concerns does you no favours at all. Guy (help!) 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Pardon the interruption, but Guy, you seem to be familiar with the workings of AFC. Could you respond to the request for clarification in my last message? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416, I don't think it's a problem creating large numbers of articles.For under-represented communities that can be a real boon. The problem is that FA has been restricted to creating articles via AfC, due to past issues with sourcing as far as I can tell; he resents this and it's becoming increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that he sees this as some kind of challenge, to force reviewers to either accept his word on trust (i.e. abrogate the AfC process) or pick fights with them.

Saying, as FA does, that everybody who fails to appreciate the innate worth of every article he creates is a bigot or a racist, is profoundly unhelpful. It comes across - really rather strongly - as playing the race card. And I think if he continues to call individual editors bigots based on his own personal interpretation of their motives, rather than any objective evidence of bigotry, then I think he will end up blocked, which is a shame.

So to answer your question: I don't think anyone cares how many articles he creates, but they need to unambiguously establish notability before he clicks Submit. The most I saw created in a day was about six. That's not so many. But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time. Guy (help!) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, Re your comment, "But it's too many to have to go and look up the subject in your library every time."

If any reviewer feels that way, does the reviewer have the freedom not to review FloridaArmy's articles? Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Liars and bigots do not belong on Wikipedia. If my article creations on African American, Jamaican, and African related subjects are upsetting to some that is their problem. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  FloridaArmy, no, the problem is your refusal to write enough of an article that AfC reviewers c an easily see that the subject is notable.

  You know this. You know this is why you have to send articles via AfC. At this point you are doing a stunningly accurate impression of someone who wants to make it as hard as possible for AfC reviewers, because they resent having to go via AfC. And the irony is that both issues would be fixed if you just took the time to write a couple of decent paragraphs on the subject before hitting submit.

  AfC reviewers would stop bitching, and the AfC restriction would probably be lifted.

  Please meet people halfway and at least establish, in the article, why they should care. Guy (help!) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedist Editor

You got the Wikipedist Editor badgel because for 19 years you was there for Wikipedia! Thank you!

Best regards, Pirócai (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

• From the editor: Meltdown May?

• News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

• In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

• Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

• Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

• Featured content: Weathering the storm

• Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

• Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

• Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

• Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

• News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

• Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

• Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

• On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

• WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

• On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

• Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to Robin Stevens (author)

I've just fixed it up completely by reverting to the version before this weird edit. Yay for article histories! Graham87 06:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter

We should do it. It is the right thing to do.--Jorm (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We are a force for good. We should do good things. We have, at our disposal, the largest information platform in the world. We should use it.
There is an idea that we are "neutral." We are not. The simple idea of "free knowledge" is, in and of itself, the most radically progressive idea that has ever existed in the minds of humankind. We are not neutral. We will never be. We are always, forever, a force of progress and progress is only ever good'.
We should act like it. We should do good things.
I am not the smartest person in the world so I don't have all the ideas. We can black out the site in solidarity with the lives lost over time to police brutality. We can use our vast money collection engine to pay bail or medical expenses for those injured by the police state. We can use our money to buy legal advice. We can provide direct, powerful fact-checking for free to millions of people.
Let's do some good.

--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, Jorm is correct to state that we are not neutral. On that, I'm in agreement. Let's work on becoming more neutral, not less. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The platonic idealized Wikipedia is completely neutral, has no rules, lets literally every person edit, and builds a endless free reliable encyclopedia with a welcoming community where everyone contributes in good faith and always assumes good faith of others. Everyone is bold in making edits, and collective decisions are made by complete consensus. Ever notice how many of Wikipedia's policies and principles are unusually aspirational? --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand The platonic idealized Wikipedia doesn't exist. I've nailed myself to the cross and shouted for everybody to listen but nobody cares. Jimbo knows what I'm saying, he remembers me as user:Stillwaterising trying to organically change the cp thing on commons on coincidentally the same week the co-founder Larry Sanger went public with " the wikiporn scandal". My heart was sincere but was just dismissed as a concern troll. Technophant (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Technophant, commons is a cesspit. At least on Wikipedia we generally recognise that just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should, let alone must. Guy (help!) 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment JzG, this is exactly the idea I had when this was first proposed. I knew that given the political diversity in editors a blackout wouldn’t happen, and I understand the sentiment of wanting to provide information about these events. But I think whatever our political stripe (with certain outliers), we can all agree this is an issue the global majority of Wikipedia can get behind, and even more so, raise money to support. A banner with a request for donations to well-vetted organizations that support racial equality, police reform, and equal justice would be ideal. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yair rand, Yes our goals are typically aspirational. For example, I spend a lot of time working on copyright issues, but I would never say that Wikipedia history of copyright violations; I might say that we strive to keep it as free of copyright problems as possible but it is a never-ending task. If some editor attempted to add copyrighted information and argued that it was so important that the copyright violation ought to be overlooked because after all we do have some copyright violations I wouldn't buy that argument. Similarly, the fact that we do not reach our aspirational goal of being neutral doesn't justify supporting a very non-neutral action. I say this is someone who supported our prior blackout on the basis that the issue involved was truly an existential threat. However, I've noticed that every few months someone proposes a new blackout noting that we've done it before and this issue, too is very important. there are a lot of important issues we should not be planning a blackout every time something is important. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well said. --Yair rand (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• A whole lot of work for one day of music industry specific changes? Turn off the news and go talk to your neighbors. Technophant (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• A blackout seems unlikely, per the feelings at VP. But a BLM edit drive seems likely, likely based out of WP:WikiProject African Diaspora, which could use some help from y'all. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, I'd support a banner promoting that editing drive. Guy (help!) 10:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

--More--
I've spent the last 2 weeks geeking out to retro 80/90's computer video, Facts of Life, and classic Fish era Marillion aka the best album in the world and my first CD ever purchased Misplaced Childhood 1983. Yeah, I'm an early 80's kid but there's a lot of loose ties and a lot of work to do. I've done a major revision [24] on the worst virus of 2009, Clampi and working out exactly what my auto-immune challenged cat will or won't eat (Farmers Market dry and premium canned salmon). So supposedly theres wp:norules and I've taken some liberty in userspace here XOR elsewhere? You really need to draw a FIRM LINE between what's Namespace Zero and "everything else". The Wikipedia project is a code base for presenting wiki type material aka Wikimedia. The finished public product worht billionw of dollars are the result of everybody's blood sweat, tears, and uncompensated time. Technophant (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The only time I recall Wikipedia blacking out was due to SOPA/PIPA, and that was because the law was an existential threat to Wikipedia and its mission. This isn't. The only time we as a community should be inserting ourselves into politics is if not doing so would damn Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

¬ this Technophant (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)