User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Does running for office confer automatic notability for an article?

I have seen a recent increase in bio articles about candidates running for office, especially now that many states have wrapped up their primaries, or presumptive nominees are locking up their chances ahead of time. Is it standard practice that someone whose article would never have been created, let alone pass an AfD, be allowed to stay based only on the fact that they are running for an office? And what happens if that person loses? At what point do we say that having run for a congressional district in rural Utah in 2012 is not a notable enough reason to be in Wikipedia? (the year 2020...2040... when the person dies?...)97.88.87.68 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:POLITICIAN. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Any such articles created should be redirected to the article for the district election, e.g. Kara Anastasio currently redirects to Ohio's 7th congressional district#Election results because she has done nothing to satisfy the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But let's be clear on what WP:POLITICIAN actually says on the subject: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So a candidate who has not held a significant office previously may be notable anyway, and therefore merit their own article. Some people like to go around before elections blanking and redirecting almost any "candidate" article they can find for deletion; sometimes its warranted, sometimes its not. Neutron (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but uncommon. When I have sifted through these sorts of articles on occasion, I've seen a few candidates who were notable for, say, being a noted leader in an industry, or a prominent and covered business owner. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is too uncommon, consider Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party. He is only notable for running for office. When it comes to candidates, they should be judged based on GNG. Some may be notable only for running. The important aspect is making sure the coverage isn't trivial. Many candidates will get a lot of trivial mentions, fewer will get in depth coverage. Ryan Vesey 23:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The big problem is that we get coverage of somebody running against an incumbent who is only being covered because they are a candidate; and the only coverage of them is not on their own merits as notable persons, but rather due to their status as candidates or nominees. A twenty-year-old living in an upstairs apartment does not become notable just because he filed for and received a major party nomination to take on an incumbent: the notability if any attaches to the race, not the nominee(s), if they would not otherwise meet WP:GNG - it's kinda like WP:BLP1E that way. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To summarize the situation: An incumbent has an article. The election has an article. A challenger is running, but if he hasn't held past elective office his notability is questioned. His article is deleted. FEC filings, Open Secrets, On the Issues, Project Vote Smart all provide information on federal candidates. Even if that material for the challenger is merged into the election article, let alone his background, it is deleted for Bias and Undue Weight as the incumbent has that material in his own article, not the election article. I don't know why everyone pretends this is a new problem when this game is played every single election year, even in elections which are polled as being close. A lot of voters would like to get information on politicians from Wikipedia, and are surprised by the official view (consensus of Admins) that who will represent them is too trivial to cover beyond the official campaign site. This is the incumbent advantage. Even Bill Foster, who had founded a major cimpany with his brother and won a Nobel Prize In science, was considered unnotable and had his article deleted countless times the first time he ran. Don't pretend this is unbiased. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If the person who is a candidate won a Nobel Prize, then they meet the notability requirements outside of the political sphere - if it's provable, then it should be good, IMHO dangerouspanda 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any voters coming to the Wikipedia to find information on a candidate are about as intelligent as those who once said they voted for Jimmy Carter because he had a nice smile. The "anyone can edit" model does not lend itself well to creating neutral political articles. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, but thank you for sharing. As I wrote, "FEC filings, Open Secrets, On the Issues, Project Vote Smart all provide information on federal candidates." You find those biased? Perhaps you worked on the Eric Hovde article, which ignored those sources as well? Or do Tea Party candidates get special dispensation from including facts? Or being notable? Your bullying snarkiness, particularly about Democrats, may amuse some and discourage others, but this is a discussion of notability, and the double standard being applied. Not your opinion of Jimmy Carter supporters. This is 2012. I looked at that Hovde article after he lost the primary this week. It was written two months ago, never had serious souces, and its 'facts' were fluff from his campaign website. Glittering generalities with no non-partisan information. I would like to see decent articles about every candidate for federal office who has some actual support. You would prefer to try to derail the conversation. Tell me. Does your bullying, insulting and tantrum-throwing usually have the desired effect of ending discussions? I only ask because you do it so often you must believe it works. How many editors have you driven off? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Baseless complaining aside....I find such coverage (FEC filings, etc...) to be routine and not a basis for establishing notability. A person has to have done something prior to becoming a candidate in order to justify an article. To have held another elected position, be a notable businessman or received some sort of coverage in reliable sources. There are indeed cases though where just being a candidate for office itself attracts reliable source coverage, such as Jean Carnahan. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have redirected the Hovde article to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2012. If that does not stick, it will be taken to AfD. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you pretend to miss the point. Hovde lost, so who would argue against deletion at this point? You're closing the barn door after the horse has left the building. A merge and redirect is appropriate, with its history kept as an example for what future articles should NOT be. This was a very close primary election. A good article would have helped readers. This was a bad article, despite the 'help' of various Wikipedians after it was deleted and restored two months ago. Those people were well aware of what other politician articles include, but they chose to meet the letter not the spirit of notability and references. It was, and remained, a campaign brochure. I did NOT present FEC filings etc as proof of notability. My point was that if an article exists for a candidate, certainly those should be included. If a separate article does not exist, then that information should be in the election article and not deleted as Undue Weight and Bias. Would you like me to repost my first comment with bolding? I do find notability to be inherent in a candidate running for federal office with real support. So do many other people, including many of those on the Project over the years. You do not. Fine. Make that point and stop making strawman arguments, claiming I'm saying something I'm not. I'm not doing 'baseless complaining', I am pointing out facts. You choose to whinge and make excuses and go off topic and resort to name-calling. That's not what a serious Wikipedian does. My comments deserve despect and consideration. Your attitude is a serious problem, whether or not you realize it. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you believe "notability to be inherent in a candidate running for federal office with real support", but unfortunately that runs counter to the consensus regarding politician notability at this time. Non-notable politicians should not have any info on their campaign in any Wikipedia article, either a standalone bio or at the target of the candidate name's redirect. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

...or at the target of the candidate name's redirect. It is your opinion, not the consensus, but thank you for finally providing your view. I'm sure it will come as a great surprise to many that even in a close election, no mention may be made of one of the candidates, presumably including the campaign website. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply running for office is not sufficient for an article, as per consensus on the project. Candidate listings, tiny local newspapers, blogs, and the candidate website are NOT sufficient to add additional notability. If the person does have additional notability - such as a Nobel Prize - then as long as it's provable via 3rd party reliable sources then they may have deserved an article (and still might). An absence or presence of an encyclopedia article (that is WP:NOTNEWS) would not have had an effect on an election - anyone who thinks it would does not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, or might be thinking promotion is somehow permitted dangerouspanda 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, but that is NOT the issue being addressed. Tarc did address it, and I replied. 184.78.81.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, and the above answers the question - and pretty much should have stopped it further. You're making it sound like Wikipedia is at fault for not having an article, and therefore someone lost. The policy is clear, and has been explained - there should be no further need for discussion here. If you wish to try and change the policy, that can be discussed elsewhere. dangerouspanda 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Tarc was that an election article should ignore certain candidates, even in a close election, is both risible and unencyclopedic. There are articles about every federal election in every U.S. state, as has been the custom for years, so your comment doesn't make sense. The election article is the target of the candidate name's redirect. That's what Tarc said. You've never contributed to this Project, have you? Reporting a close election as if it were uncontested would be misleading, yet both of you are claiming that's what Wikipedia should do. All right. Any more Wikipedians with thoughts on this? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing under the influence?

Howdy Jimbo,

I'm about to pop off to bed but I seem to have been in the pub in my apartment building. I was just wondering if you ever edit under the influence of drugs, legal like alcohol and tobacco or illegal like... well, all sorts of things! And furthermore, what your view on chemically aided editing is?

Ta,

Egg Centric 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When this question came up some years ago on IRC, there was wide agreement that Wikipedia servers don't count as heavy machinery in the pharmaceutical warnings sense, a clear majority of editors claim to prefer editing under the influnce of caffeinated beverages, and several editors agreed that a few alcoholic drinks make much of the drudgery associated with bringing citations up to Featured Article status more bearable. Excessive impairment is likely to manifest in grammar mistakes, and sometimes various forms of uncooperative behavior. 70.91.171.54 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting question, as I have a pet theory that much of the aggression on Wikipedia is caused by the use of legal stimulants and alcohol. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been incidents that could hardly be explained any other way, though I wouldn't be too sure about the "legal" part. Neutron (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Or there's cases where someone is simply stressed out and uses Wikipedia as a vehicle to vent. And, of course, some people just aren't very nice. AutomaticStrikeout 03:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, I'm really curious. Has anyone studied this issue or run a survey? I think the results could be extremely useful. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt any serious study, specially related to illegal substances, would be ever possible. But this entire thread left me wandering how would editing WP look while on LSD... I bet it is not a ฿₳₯ †ЯЇР. On the other side, I don´t even want to imagine what would be like having content disputes while on coke, although there are some users which usually behave that way on daily basys ("Don´t touch it! The article is mine!!!"). MDMA should work much better, it would make consensus building much easier. I supose lower dosis of opium should also work well, specially when contributing to non-controversial stuff. What would also be interesting to see are the preferences and characteristic behaviour of each group :) But, how to make any study of such kind as I don´t see any users coming and saying "Yes, editing Ming Dynasty is so cool after my morning heroin fix!" FkpCascais (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think "illegal substances" are the problem, but legal stimulants and alcohol. It's odd how when somebody says "drugs" people automatically assume "illegal". The biggest health problems are caused by legal not illegal drugs. From the blurb to Stephen Fried's 1999 book: "According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), adverse drug reactions are the fourth leading cause of death in America. Reactions to prescription and over-the-counter medications kill far more people annually than all illegal drug use combined."[1] Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Tobacco" is now considered a "legal drug"? Editing under the influence of coke, the "demon" weed, and your grandpa's cough syrup is contraindicated. If you couldn't handle it before editing WP, do not start now that you're here. It won't help your ability to edit (if you couldn't handle it in the first place). Purple monkey dishwasher. Doc talk 09:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"It is most commonly used as a drug" (from the lede of Tobacco). Its general legality is not being argued, I don't think, so I assumed it was the "drug" portion you were questionning. dangerouspanda 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've always wondered if the people who create 5000 stubs a day are on some potent pharmaceutical stimulant, but I suppose that's none of my business. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I for one have found my alcohol consumption has massively reduced since I became an active editor. Caffeine however is another story. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noted the same thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this something we could get one of those Fellowship grants to study? Windowpane vs. dancing bears say, or BC Bud vs. Kona? Regular vs. menthol? ;) Franamax (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you said methanol there. I got some of that in my eye yesterday (boring, silly story). It hurts.

As for the study, I am quite happy to do it if wikimedia wants to fun the grant. Egg Centric 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins instantly revert even minor edits such as spelling fixes

It doesn't even seem like they check what you've written, they just look for any edit and strike you down instantly. This isn't an encyclopedia where everyone can make edits, it's one where only admins really can.174.91.73.195 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to what your complaint is? It looks to me like several of your edits have not been undone. AutomaticStrikeout 00:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well my edits haven't really been struck down but I've seen it happen to my friends first-hand. Pages are instantly reverted even if it's just minor like the use of synonymous words or spelling fixes.174.91.73.195 (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? AutomaticStrikeout 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reverts of corrections usually involve other changes: The practice of reverting corrections to spellings alone seems very rare. Instead, I have seen a person correct several vandalism glitches but also add a black-listed external link, so an automated Bot program reverted the whole edit, re-adding all vandalized text while removing the invalid web-link, and no one else fixed the vandalism text for months after the Bot restored it into the article. Typically vandalism is spotted as the last edit by a user, but I guess few imagine that Bots would restore vandalized text which other people have tried to fix. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I revert quite a number of edits in which editors clearly in good faith think they are correcting spelling or grammar, but actually are making it incorrect. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think the IP is a bit confused - perhaps they believe only Admins can revert? Dougweller (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Making separate revisions for different types of changes might help in the prevention of apparently indiscriminate (undiscriminating) reversions, even if it slightly congests article page histories and editor contribution histories.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a report of recent reversions can be accessed through Recent changes.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The better advice is to give us some examples - we could guess about anything, and still be wrong. Anyone on the project can revert an edit. Part of the reality is that an anonymous editor who makes an edit without an edit summary is unfortunately more likely to get reverted - it's the sad nature of things. However, that's just conjecture as to the real problem too. dangerouspanda 19:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can say without hesitation that some time ago when I was editing as an IP on an insecure computer doing simple corrections like typos, I found myself repeatedly reverted, and was one warning away from being blocked - even though every single edit I had made was not only within policy, but improved the article. The next time I had a secure connection, I went to each of the editors who reverted me and asked for an explanation. It boiled down to "well, it looked like vandalism to me!" That was perhaps even more infuriating: that the "RC patrollers" couldn't tell the difference between a typo and vandalism. Risker (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The only times I remember simple spelling "corrections" being reverted have been when an editor has, usually in good faith, changed a British spelling to an American spelling, or possibly vice versa, and when diacritics have been removed, or added.--Boson (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See now, this is the problem. If a longtime editor and administrator can make the statement that "I was reverted for fixing typos when not logged in" and is immediately informed that she must have done something wrong, then the real issue is the out-of-hand dismissal of legitimate concerns. Believe me, I know that "teh" is not a word, but "the" is, and I was pretty darn insulted to have my correction reverted - as would any other editor, whether registered or not. Risker (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame you. It shouldn't happen. Not as bad probably is finding a vandal whose obviously vandalistic edits have been greeted with a welcome thank you. I wish editors would be more careful with warnings and welcomes. Part of the problem though is a very large amount of vandalism with not enough editors to spend enough time making sure edits are vandalism and fixing it. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. You reported your experience; I reported mine. If you read into that an accusation that you had done something wrong or that my comment was in any way an "out-of-hand dismissal of legitimate concerns", I suggest you re-read my comment and reply appropriately. --Boson (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, Boson - I did not realise you were speaking of your own experience, as you were writing in the third person. Risker (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My experiences are similar to those of Risker. When not logged in (UTRS used to link back to Wikipedia through http, and I was logged in through https), I was told that I was 'lucky' that I was just reverted and received an uw-v4im rather than having an SPI opened and 'being banned indefinately'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just admins who have a bias against IPs, it is everyone. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, most of us are more inclined to revert/warn an IP than a logged-in user. It may not be fair, but I think the perception is that more of the vandalism comes from IPs, people who see the "edit" button, and think "Why not have some fun?" A user who has an account and has been active for awhile is less likely to do this because he does not want to compromise his position(s) as a member. Of course, there are vandalism-only accounts, but I think we are more inclined to be suspicious of someone who won't take the time to create an account. Also, it seems to me that oftentimes IPs fail to leave edit summaries, leaving them even less likely to get the benefit of the doubt. Lastly, I'd like to see Martijn and Risker provide some diffs here, maybe it would be more helpful to see some real-life evidence of what has been going on. AutomaticStrikeout 21:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't be providing diffs, first because it was some time ago and I have no idea what IP I was using at the time, and secondly because revealing the IP would reveal private information about why I was in the position of doing some supposedly nice, relaxing editing using an insecure connection. Risker (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I understand. AutomaticStrikeout 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this puzzling. I have a long watchlist, and I frequently look at reverts when they pop up -- not always by any means, but pretty often. It's hard for me to think of a single case I have seen of an IP fixing an unequivocal spelling or grammar error and then being reverted. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't believe it happens very frequently. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend all admins to edit as IPs now and then — not too infrequently. It's very educational. (Have you tried it, Looie?) Bishonen | talk 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

It might also be beneficial for regular editors to have temporary trial periods (maybe of a few days or a week each) as administrators or as recent change patrollers.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad thought although can't anyone patrol recent changes? AutomaticStrikeout 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if anyone can, the trial can involve the editor trying the experience of being on patrol.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've occasionally edited as an IP, and next time I know I'm on an insecure connection I'll probably do the same. Nobody gave me any messages, or at least not whilst I was online and I'm pretty sure I wasn't reverted, at least I didn't notice those pages returning next time I looked for those same typos. But I did give clear edit summaries and I was only fixing typos. Where I do think that IPs have problems is when they add unsourced but uncontentious information, I don't know what proportion of such edits get reverted as opposed to {{fact}} tagged, but I've run across a number of editors who don't extend AGF to IPs and revert such edits as a matter of course. I think that part of the problem is that Huggle seems to have an option to revert unsourced but it abbreviates the policy in its instructions so that some people think it OK to simply revert all unsourced edits, contentious or otherwise. ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to find the right balance here. When I see an IP change a number (a birthday, a year, earnings, etc.) and I cannot confirm that change with a quick google search, I revert and politely ask for a source. I've seen too many instances where wrong numbers were put into our articles for weeks or months because an IP changed it without comment, and no one bothered to check. --Conti|✉ 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people who google and either reference or revert the unreferenced change, or who revert an unreferenced change to referenced information. My concern is that some people are reverting unreferenced uncontroversial changes without doing such a check. I've just removed a bunch of unreferenced material, but it was a series of unsourced statements about named people allegedly performing nude. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This section is moving inexorably towards farce. Time to let it go, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 13:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

7/22 Commission Report

We already have 9/11 Commission Report. We don't have the 7/22 Commission Report yet.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOU_2012:_14,_Rapport_fra_22._juli-kommisjonen.

Is it cool that [2] one user is edit warring, and thereafter trying to get me banned. Conflict of interest? --Froshirt (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Database wikis

Many editors on Wikipedia feel this burning driving need to dump databases into Wikipedia. It may be to document every player and every match played in every lacrosse game for instance or every track on every music CD or list every stop on all the train or bus timetables or every political opinion for every election - the list is endless. These tend to form articles with no real secondary source content except a one line lead and often the citations if any are iffy. I'm not sure if it is just obsessive or they really think it is important or whether they are worried about their sources disappearing and they want the stuff preserved for posterity. The big problem with it all besides just not being notable is that Wikipedia cannot act to preserve stuff as we require sources, also of course who is going to stop it being completely vandalised if the originator stops watching the stuff?

I am not asking for a crusade against such editors, in fact in many cases such a war would be lost because of the numbers of them, what I think would be better is if a way could be provided to satisfy their urge without damaging Wikipedia. In fact what I would like set up is wikis for such database facts where people could become acknowledged experts and entries could be marked as checked by such people and were protected better against random vandalism. We could then refer to entries there in the externals section as well as any secondary source and there would be much less pressure here to do anything besides put in halfway interesting stuff that had been written about in secondary sources rather than listings of team members back to 1870. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but I thought wikisource was for that kind of stuff? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Restrict minor entries to be only in lists: There was a recent BLP removal request from one of those myriad 20th century Olympic athletes, because the article gained speculation text, but the woman was not even listed in the "full" lists of greatest, highest, mostest whatever sports athletes, where those non-tabloid lists are perhaps too boring to create, rather just create athlete articles for rumors. We need a guideline policy wp:ONLYLIST, to emphasize limiting all those thousands, millions of athletes into only lists of yearly award winners, where the person's name redirects into a list, not have a stub article for everyone who ever "moved a muscle". In the case of this athlete, I wanted to know the other "greatest" athletes for each year or nation, and WP had no such article, just picked the one woman who wanted not to be discussed for rumors. So, I saw that as a major failure of WP, to not have lists of yearly leaders, or world records, in each sport. See essay "wp:How many footballers?" about the current 70,000 footballer articles, while the website Playerhistory.com has documented over 242,000 footballers, perhaps in lists. Also, some lists are copyvio problems, where the entire list is a copyrighted work, and only part of the rank can be repeated. This long-list concept goes back to those 171,000 numbered asteroids which were stored in a "database" at Harvard, stored in 37 large datafiles, but were expanded in WP as over 2,000 asteroid articles, listing only 100 asteroids per article, when 1,000 per article would have given a better data mining scan, as a sample size of 1,000 by summarizing each whole article. We could not get consensus to avoid tiny lists, so those 2,000+ articles remained. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)