User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

"I actually hate it here"

"I actually hate it here." said yet another Wikipedian, administrator who started editing Wikipedia in 2007. He said: "I actually hate it here." and retired. So, Jimbo, I wonder if you're concerned at all that sooner or later toxic editing environment and bullies would take over the site you have worked so hard on?71.202.123.2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a recipient of plenty of it myself, yes, of course I do. At the same time, it is important to understand that there are huge swathes of Wikipedia editing which take place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some editing is taking place in a lovely and congenial atmosphere, but lovely and congenial atmosphere is shrinking while poisoning atmosphere is growing. Wikipedia is still loosing editors, and you could make a difference.71.202.123.2 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that there is any directional shift at all. Certainly people have been coming to this page for about a decade lamenting the loss of the good old days. A common human affliction. At the same time, it is always worth looking at specific problems and trying to draw principled general conclusions. But usually when anon ips show up to authoritatively state that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, things get pretty thin when specific examples are requested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're an admin, you've got to expect to be tossed into all of the acrimonious debates, wrestle the evil-doing bad guys to the ground with all the force of our guidelines and policies, deal with spammers and other miscreants - and all of the other political nonsense that goes along with it. If, on the other hand, you want to improve the article about Red squirrels (which is the first article I ever edited back in January 2006!) - you'll have a peaceful, fun existence and get the warm fuzzy feeling that you've improved the world by helping to create the largest repository of human knowledge known to mankind. 99% (at least) of articles here are great places to work - but (sadly) the admins are not needed in those place - so their stress levels are high and they see only the worst. We should back our admins - understand their stress - thank them when we can and sympathise when wiki-PTSD strikes and takes one down. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. in general. However if you look at the what appears to be 'the straw that broke' here it was a copy-edit, editing dispute over, get this, Ancient history. This being a wiki, one can surly get fed-up with negotiating such things -- but in the end, it's a wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help matters that we're down to only about 600-700 allegedly active admins for an increasing workload of articles, IP vandals, disputes, ANI, etc., etc., etc., more rules on admin behavior, and then the fear (as we saw with the Kafziel case) that doing the right thing will get you drawn and quartered at arbcom if you happen to cross a persistent user with a personal fiefdom out for blood when poked at. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What's remarkable, ColonelHenry, is looking at Wikipedia's history...I saw some RFAs where editors were moved on to admin status after editing for six months! And some after just three months! And some of those admins are still at work today. But 8 years ago, Wikipedia was growing and there was a press to increase the admin corps and a lot of people who were judged capable were drafted. Now, the prospect of going through an RFA is daunting, years of varied experience in all areas of editing is expected AND you can't have made any major mistakes and have baggage. It's become ultra selective and I understand why...but unless things change, the numbers will just keep decreasing as there is always attrition. Liz 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with natural attrition, but I consider it entropy...like the heat death of the universe.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Many Wikipedia hostilities reflect the real world: (edit conflict) I have come to appreciate "Jimbo's Wikipedia" as not just the "sum of all human knowledge" but also "some of the hostile ways in which knowledge is squelched" and perhaps the 2nd issue is just as important in what Jimbo has emphasized for the world. The "enemy at the gates" is not just amassing along the borders of the Ukraine. The problem is not just high-priced books and journals, but also people actively trying to suppress other information, as when told not to edit their company page, then some of them reduce the competitors' pages. Beyond the history of "book burning" or "Fahrenheit 451" I have met quite a few wp:TfDs ("Template for Da burning") as well. Someone even told me that wp:edit-conflicts which derail quick edits were a minor issue, rather than the primary reason it is difficult to get a classroom of 20 students to all expand the same new article. Wikipedia is being thwarted by invented limitations, at many levels, including the underlying MediaWiki software. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's worth considering that Wikipedia isn't in a vacuum here. See http://www.vice.com/read/how-corporate-lobbyists-use-the-internet-to-destroy-democracy (an article which specifically references Wikipedia) which alleges that Westbourne Communications ...engages in aggressive rebuttal campaigns, which involves creating a feeling among opponents that everything they say will be picked apart. This is an “exhausting but crucial” part of successful lobbying... If this is true, I don't think by any means this company is unusual among PR firms in doing so. Wikipedia rules have made it so that people are called out on the carpet for merely speculating when someone might be doing such a thing, but I suspect many of us cross paths with this sort of thing often. The article talks about it being used against activists, but what we too easily forget is that Wikipedia's goal of providing impartial knowledge to all is one of the most activist causes there is. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the bad people are certainly driving the good people away. The underlying problem is that what worked when Wikipedia new doesn't work now......what enabled building it when it was new back then now enables destructive sociopaths, mob violence, and a random and destructive system of "policing". North8000 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that Wikipedia started with a lot of people building content but not much accumulated content. Now it receives a huge amount of traffic to these cumulative resources and is in a position to control a large amount of content, and various factions are fighting over that power. The key here is to shatter that power, to make it so that a lot more people have the right to make content (including the ability to search that content) accessible in a global encyclopedic framework. Wnt (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sociopaths," "mob violence"? No, it's just anonymous people working without pay. When it stops becoming interesting it becomes drudgery and I can understand why that person lost interest. Coretheapple (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If that person would have just lost interest he would not have said "I actually hate it here". There's a huge difference between "losing interest" and "hating" the place. Besides that person's retirement is only one example of many.71.202.123.2 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He's welcome to explain what he meant. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Two related thoughts made are worth repeating. I read the opening posts the other day, and walked away thinking about them, which led me to some of the thoughts expressed by user:North8000. It is well-known in the busines community that the set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company. I wasn't here during the startup phase, but I've read enough of the hisotory to see the differences. Some long for a return to those days, but that isn't going to happen. We have to recognize that we are moving into middle age, and act accordingly. User:Wnt also makes an important point: in the early days, it was all about building content. While we are still building content, we have so much content, that we need ever increasing resources dealing with maintenance issues, which frankly, aren't as exciting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that some of the most important fundamental changes are:

• Wikipedia has become much much much more influential. So much much much more is to be gained or lost (and is at stake) by what it is an article and how it is written. So instead of the dominant kumbaya mission of "let's build an encyclopedia" dominating the psyche, POV interests and other interests have become much stronger and more prevalent.
• The vagueness, and lack of carefulness of the rules, structures, and positions which is just what we needed when we were a "commune" has now turned against us. The "system" has become weapons of warfare and of random harm to editors. And even where it is not mis-used it is not up to the task. Can you imagine a system where the same person is allowed to be the police, judge, jury and executioner, they get the job for life, and the criteria for getting it is "got in back when it was easy"?
• With (as it matures) the dominance of the "lets build something cool" slipping from 90% to 60%, much of the other 40% has been a lot of other things. For example, another place to play/participate in an on-line warfare game.

North8000 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a very sound analysis. I think that the only way one can derive any satisfaction from volunteering for Wikipedia is to find a backwater where subjects that are not a subject of editorial battling, but are important and neglected, require attention. The idea is less to "build an encyclopedia" in the abstract sense, as after all the encyclopedia belongs to a third party, and one may not like what the third party is doing. But if one feels that the article on Extinct hummingbirds is neglected, and one feels strongly about extinct hummingbirds, then one can improve such articles without feeling a sense that one's time is being wasted. But I can understand why people trying to become involved in administrative stuff become frustrated. I monitor this page because I'm interested in the scourge of paid editing, and it has been a very frustrating experience that has not increased my satisfaction or made me feel better about Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement: the more prominent the subject, the more acute the editorial fisticuffs, and the more "important" the subject, the greater the chance that one's sandcastle on the beach will be wiped out by an incoming wave. So, if somebody is bored and wants a challenge, there's a new monograph: John K. Derden, The World's Largest Prison: The Story of Camp Lawton. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012) about Camp Lawton (prisoner of war camp), a Confederate prisoner of war camp located in the defunct town of Lawtonville, Georgia. There are your red links, go to town... Carrite (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've found that subjects of importance sometimes don't have Wikipedia articles, when the sources are offline and/or when the subjects are not especially fashionable or recent, and/or when they concern members of minority groups that are not active on Wikipedia. For example, I was absolutely astonished to find that the single biggest road accident in U.S. history, an incident that helped result in abolition of a guest workers program, did not have a Wikipedia article. The reason was that the victims were Mexican migrant workers. Nobody cared then, or now. Yet there are umpteen articles on video games and minor musical artists. We reflect the prejudices and obsessions of society. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Even for recent events, there's a real cultural bias. I've got a redlink on my user page for a Mexican band called Reyna De Monterrey that had 10 members wiped out in a traffic accident in 2013. Compare and contrast to the treatment accorded The Exploding Hearts, who are appropriately covered on WP. (While I'm name-dropping red links that maybe little birds will see, here's another subject of a recent biography that needs a WP piece: Mira Lloyd Dock; per: Rimby, Mira Lloyd Dock and the Progressive Era Conservation Movement. Penn State University Press, 2012.) Carrite (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a weak spot. Take a look at Bracero program. There is an article, for sure, but it needs a lot of work. This is an area in which there isn't a lot of screaming among editors, just a great deal of content that needs work or creation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Our culture here on Wikipedia is in a very sorry state, one that developed out of years of letting the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots. As a project, I think we need to do something to signal to the community, outside observers, and potential (or former) contributors that those days are over, and we need to back it up with some serious and visible changes in how we do business. We need some brainstorming about ways to get this community out of the doldrums so it can realize its potential. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the odd thing, though, re "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". It seems that people mean entirely different things by that.

Because I see a fair amount of "Some of the admins here are horriblly cruel and arrogant, and they bully unoffending good editors terribly" and I see a fair amount "Some of the editors here are horrible and hurtful bullies, and the admins don't do anything". It's not likely that both problems are of approximately equal magnitude.

So when I see something like "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots" I literally don't know if the person is complaining about admins or editors. If we all pretty much agreed that one or the other was the real problem, we could take effective steps to fixing it.

But we don't agree. That means the problem is not obvious. If the problem is not obvious that's an indicator that it's not that real. Not proof, but an indicator.

Like this: if most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is crime" then you probably really do have a crime problem. If most everyone is in agreement that "The main proximate problem facing this community is police brutality" then you probably really do have a police problem. If it's half of each then you probably have normal life and people just engaging in free-floating complaining, which of course people do.

I've been here about ten years and haven't avoided contention, and it sure hasn't been my experience that "the biggest and meanest kids on the playground call the shots". There's politics though, for sure. Hopefully you didn't sign up expecting a politics-free zone. That'll only happen when the robots arrive (if then). Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to hate on admins or arbitrators because that is an easily defined group. It also leads to hilarious arguments such as how our "content creators" are little more than innocent flowers getting trampled by the evil admins. Problem is, some of Wikipedia's biggest assholes and bullies are also content creators, and are themselves a very large part of this apparent cultural problem. So, as you say, it becomes impossible to really argue that one group or another is the problem because the issue isn't confined to one group or another, no matter how badly certain agitators wish to claim otherwise. Resolute 16:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Everyking there have been discussions about this for a long time and I have had a number of off-wiki talks with people about some of the good points you raise here. How do you think we can improve the situation and make Wikipedia culture be civil? --Pine^✉ 06:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My main suggestion would be that we declare a general amnesty for banned and indefinitely blocked users, as well as users who have been blocked for extended periods of time (with a few exceptions for some especially notorious individuals). There must be thousands of these people who have been booted off the site over the years, often because they fell into a petty feud or simply wound up on the losing side of some dispute, and I think we could do ourselves a tremendous favor by offering them all the chance to come back. It would be a dramatic signal to everyone that we have changed our ways, that the place isn't still run by gangs of bullies, and all the returning editors could do immeasurable good in improving content. Another change I would suggest would be limiting all bans and blocks to a maximum of six months. Everyking (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hostile admins must guard vast oceans of pages with slower software: At this point, it is almost too late to consider improvements suggested years ago, and that leaves the admins to guard 10 million pages (articles & talk-pages) hacked by pranksters, vandals and corporate product adverts, encased by slower compu-encrypted https-secure software. WP could have switched to a system of trusted users, with long-term accomplishments, with trust points perhaps earned by fixing hundreds of pages as requested. Such trusted users could have been immune to wp:wikihounding at wp:ANI, but instead all users must live in fear of a gang of accusers, or quit to get-a-life that week. Meanwhile, hoards of newcomers hack and slant low-protected pages, and the frantic admins must threaten and block thousands of people, with no system to judge user-trust levels.
  Meanwhile, the MediaWiki software gets ever slower, with compu-encrypted https pages using glitzy collapse-delayed menus, as thousands more pages need rapid updates to stay current, but the WMF grand solution is wp:VisualEditor to reduce updates as cumbersome, tedious keystoke entries, where the slightest wp:edit-conflicts will lose all keystrokes, rather than auto-merge changes to adjacent lines. Meanwhile, the admins learn of the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism, in outdated pages abandoned by people caught in the cross-fire of friends, or newcomers, soured by unfair blocks with no trust granted.
  Instead, the fading hope is to run even more Bot programs to auto-cleanse pages for hidden vandalism, as numerous editors sink to merely replacing simple disambiguation links to a specific article, while the hack edits remain in the nearby text and pages age even more outdated. Many major articles have not been improved much in over 3 years.
  So we see thousands of new editors try, but quit early, leaving the power users to rapid-update thousands of pages for minor changes. And the developers give us page contents mixed in 2 fonts, as Frankenfonts to disguise the aging Frankenwiki of mangled text. The future is very bleak and relies on increased automation to assist the dwindling core of active editors. -Wikid77 07:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  I do not see how a less egalitarian system or a faster software could solve the cultural problems of general mistrust and divisiveness. Is "the growing infestation of unfixed vandalism" realy a thing? I notice a lot less vandalism while casually browsing Wikipedia than ten years ago. —Kusma (t·c) 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Allow me to chime in "In Defense of Bullies." Since Wikipedia is open for any schmoe to jump in and edit anonymously, without any registration or real life identification to make banning for COI even possible, there is always going to be conflict over content. It's a fact of life — involved, aggressive, opinionated people are going to attempt to power through their views, chasing off the meek in the process. There absolutely must be "countervailing power" on the part of WP's editorial cadres and administrative corps. It takes superior firepower to beat back the worst offenders, and that sounds, looks, and smells like "bullying" to anyone looking at things from a distance. So, yeah, I may not agree with everything that someone like Andy the Grump does or says fighting for NPOV content, for example, or I may not agree with Orange Mike's fairly extreme position on user names and obvious Paid COI content — but this hockey team needs enforcers like that so that serious people can do work. (Not to say that either of those fine gents aren't serious people, they both also do fine content work, but you get what I'm saying...) Now, if we as a community wanted to build the thing over from the ground up, with identification upon registration, sign-in-to-edit via password, and locking out users who violate content or behavior rules — hey, that's an option. It would take WMF fiat to initiate that and might entirely kill the project, but it's technically possible. But for our imperfect world, with our flawed decision to allow "anyone" to edit, we need our own set of bullies. True fact. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Some fixes in the policies, and structures for admins, admin type roles and arbcom would 70% fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, for a while I was an admin who did the really nasty work around here. I've devoted myself to two articles on Wikipedia for the last year and 3 months (nothing to do with toxicity, the content of what I'm studying is extremely gripping) and not had any problems. Producing decent content doesn't automatically entail being a fuckwit to everyone around you, and the talkpage contains some perfectly reasonable discourse; people have disagreed with a few things I've put up and vice versa, and yet there's never been a tense moment in improving either article. Looks like everything there is in reasonable order. Then again, maybe people are so sick of my perseverating that no one else wants to work with me... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help with the C Word (Crimea)

I am a WP:DRN volunteer, and occasionally get requests for advice on my talk page. Today I got a request regarding Crimea that I don't quite know what to do with, and I think it is the sort of thing that may interest Jimbo or at least one of his Loyal Minions Loyal Talk Page Watchers. The request is here and here, but a look at the pages involved (Russia and Ukraine) shows that it goes a lot deeper than that. It touches on how Wikipedia treats disputed territories in general. Any advice would be really helpful; this one is over my head. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at those, and it's well above my pay grade too. I respect Guy, and if he's asking for help, here, on this, he obviously needs it, and I hope he's getting it, somewhere. Far too often, well meaning contributors are left to act on their "best guess", then crucified for not "getting it right". Pleas for help with consensus like this should be acted upon swiftly, and I'm sorry if all I can do here is bump this for attention. If I knew more, I'd do more. Begoon ^talk 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The dilemma we have now is to deal with something "unprecedented": A country lost control of a seceded area which has already received high media coverage (i.e. no shortage in reliable source) but there is not yet any non-governmental cartographic agency published any updated map to depict the updated status of the area. Should we change the infobox map in the country's article lede to reflect the disputed status of that area? One side believes reports on the disputed area is sufficient to justify the new map. The opposite believes any country map must have real counterpart from any credible cartographic agency. I have no doubt the latter will settle all the editorial disputes. However, I don't think the former breaks any pillar of Wikipedia either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Sameboat - 同舟, I have noted on the Ukraine talk page that it is not merely a matter of the maps, but the fact that, in accepting the maps, it has automatically been accepted that statistics in the infoboxes (population, area of country, number of regions, etc.) are to be split as plus and minus Crimea. That is where WP:OR is really coming into play as there are no reliable secondary sources to justify such changes.

In the second instance, both articles are being treated as current affairs articles and are suffering from WP:UNDUE information bloat. There are articles covering the current affairs developments, which is why I have added hatnotes to the top of the Ukraine article directing readers who are trying to find information on the subject to the correct articles. The Russia article, however, is sporting a current affairs tag. I'm not even going to try to change that as I know, from experience, that such an edit will trigger an edit war. Sadly, both articles are prone to POV hit and run edits already. The high media profile since last year has culminated in unprecedented traffic on both articles (which is spilling over into other Ukraine/Russia articles) with the advent of the Crimean situation.

My understanding of articles dealing explicitly with any given country/nation-state is that are not venues for WP:RECENTISM. They cover more generalised areas of history, culture (and sugar 'n spice things like flora and fauna), sports (snips 'n snails), et al. The articles in question have been turned into a free-for-all for those who haven't managed to get a look in on the current affairs articles. Instead of being informative, they are being turned into complete gobbledygook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I take it, then, that 'due to lack of administrative interest' (AKA passing the buck), all matters regarding original research in splitting figures with and without Crimea, with and without the territory, number of regions, primary ethnicities and languages are fine by Wikipedia? I can live with contributors being carte blanche to do as they choose in all matters Eastern European (even the fact that basic principles such as civility, properly assessed consensus, personal attacks and harassment are going to be ignored and that bullies are going to be allowed to run the school because they have the numbers to do so) on the proviso that there is no neutral administrators be allowed input on any level.

When edit warring, ANI and other disputes are brought to the attention of administrators and editors, I think it best that no one touch the cases on grounds of hypocrisy. If the buck stops with local consensus, then it stops with local consensus. The administration has forfeited its right to penalise any contributors on all Eastern European articles simply because you will end up penalising more scapegoats than offenders.

Thank you for all the higher level assistance rendered in this section. I'll let you all get back to the pertinent issues of 'how much I hate it here' and 'remember the good old days when'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, The Washington Post reported five days ago how National Geographic will be treating it in its maps here. Am I missing the point completely to think that is a WP:RS that answers the question? (Genuine question, not sarcastic, btw) DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That would only be useful for a "cartographic dispute" section in the Crimean crisis article (if someone doesn't mind the recentism), but the report hardly justifies the new map in Ukraine's infobox. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you summarised the problem as "A country lost control of a seceded area which has already received high media coverage (i.e. no shortage in reliable source) but there is not yet any non-governmental cartographic agency published any updated map to depict the updated status of the area." National Geographic's statement seemed to me to respond directly to that. But obviously not. DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Russia's annexation of Crimea won't affect maps, cartographers say." [1] USchick (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you can all see now why I don't want to touch this with a ten meter pole. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Impossible.com application held by government

Jimmy, given that you've thrown much public support to Lily Cole's Impossible.com, and your wife's Freud Communications added PR muscle behind it, I'm publicly notifying you here that the UK Nesta office refuses to share Impossible.com's application papers that resulted in the project receiving a £200,000 grant. Since you are a champion of open government, perhaps you could orchestrate an end-around the secretive government and personally convince Ms. Cole to release the application documents to The Register and/or post them on Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons? Would you do that, please? - 50.146.162.25 (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not relevant to Wikipedia. I recommend you take it elsewhere. The article in The Register is typical of them - lots of sneering innuendo that doesn't really stand up to a moment's scrutiny. I've reminded Lily that Andrew Orlowski once trumpted a claim that Wikipedia was "Khmer Rouge in diapers". This is not a serious debate. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the question, as framed, isn't appropriate to wikipedia. But, hey, it's your personal talkpage, so asking your opinion in this open-house format might be ok, no? Do you think it's ok for documents relating to a large government grant like this to be hard to access, if they are? That's not something I'd imagine you'd approve of, given what I know of your passion for openness. If the question seems personal to you, that's not necessarily the fault of the questioner. Begoon ^talk 18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking me my philosophical position on the transparency of government grants, then I will say yes, there should be significant transparency. It's important to note, though, that the reason the FOIA request failed is that the grant came from Nesta, which is not the government but rather a charity. It has a big endowment which did not come from the government but from the lottery, which is operated by the Camelot Group and licensed and regulated by the government, including a requirement that 28% of revenue go to good causes. What level of transparency should there be around that? Again, a very interesting philosophical question and were I to have anything at all to do with any of these organizations I would recommend that they pursue very transparent policies.

But as you can see now that we're into the details, none of this is what the original poster was really after.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Jimmy. That does make some things clearer. Sorry about the diversion below. I didn't intend that. Recognising a genuine question when tempers are running high can be difficult. I'm glad you were able to do so. Some folks can't, and I hold no hard feelings for that. Begoon ^talk 18:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind Begoon's questions, as they seem to be moving in the direction of discussing philosophical matters rather than misstating facts to try to make me look like a hypocrite (the original poster is the one who did that). I still think this page is not the right place for this discussion, as it has virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not a chatroom. You can email Jimmy if you want to, and he will answer if he wants to. Otherwise, please extend to him the same courtesy as any other user and do not start discussion topics that are unrelated to the encyclopedia and potentially unwelcome. Jehochman Talk 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Ok. It says it's open house. Maybe you wrote that. Or maybe you're sticking your beak in unwarrantedly. Hard to say, really. I doubt it's your call, though. Begoon talk 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC) It not hard at all to understand what's going on here. You need to treat other people on Wikipedia as human beings, rather than avatars in a shoot-em-up game. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC) If you interfered with a third party conversation on my talkpage like this, I'd have you banned. I hope Jimmy will be more lenient. Begoon talk 19:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) 1) Talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced, 2) Jimmy's page is often answered by third party 'helpers', and 3) Based on Jimmy's response above, I believe that you'd face the greater chance of a talk page ban if Jimmy were to ever give one.--v/r - TP 19:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) You're lovely. Wikilawyering is beautiful. The world will appreciate it one day. I'm done here now. Enjoy. Begoon talk 19:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Wikilawyering? Is that your go-to retort when someone points out the obvious to you?--v/r - TP 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) No. But I really am done here now. Have a nice day, Begoon talk 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Re: "Talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced", go ahead and keep posting to a user's talk page after they have told you not to, and you will have a nice peaceful 24-hour block to contemplate the question of whether talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Show me the policy. I can show you pages of ANI threads specifically about talk page bans. Unless there is a formal interaction ban by the community, administrators will not block because someone said "U banzed from muh page yo." Users don't own their talk pages. It is considered polite to respect a talk page ban but not required. And there are quite a few accepted exemptions including warnings and ANI notices. An administrator who blocked an editor for violating a talk page 'ban' by the talk page owner would certainly be questioned about their suitability in the role. Administrator's enforce community decisions. There is no community involvement in a talk page ban and so tool use is wholly inappropriate. WP:User pages: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." Do you read an explicit rule there? I read an implicit request.--v/r - TP 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC) They may not block for violation of a talk page ban, but they will for disruption and hounding, which stalking a talk page may certainly include. KonveyorBelt 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Then it wouldn't be a block for a talk page ban violation, now would it? It'd be a harassment block which has it's own set of standards of which ignoring a 'talk page ban' isn't one of them.--v/r - TP 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Which really distracts from which central point which is: Jehochman has sided with Jimmy whereas Begoon has sided with the OP. Who do you think Jimmy would 'talk page ban' if he were to do so?--v/r - TP 20:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Still, the actions in which a user takes in ignoring a talk page block, like hounding the user and personally attacking him could fall under certain standards for "harassment". KonveyorBelt 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Like I said, go ahead and keep posting to a user's talk page after they have told you not to, and you will have a nice peaceful 24-hour block to contemplate the question of whether talk page bans are informal requests that cannot be enforced. If and when that happens, feel free to consider it a harassment block instead of a block for a talk page ban violation, and the rest of us will feel free to mock you for silly wikilawyering. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC) If you say it enough times, it'll come true? Have you ever blocked someone for a talk page ban? No? Have you see it? No? Got policy to support your claim? No? You've got nothing but insistence that it is so. You're being silly. The issues that you say will get someone blocked are issues in themselves that would earn much more than a talk page ban. Someone involved in the harassment, hounding, and personal attacks which would earn a 'talk page ban' would actually have earned much more before such a talk page ban was even enacted. So what's left to talk page ban? I'll tell you, it's users who don't get along but are not violating policy. We don't block users for not getting along. And so we don't block for talk page 'ban' violations. If someone was doing all the things you said they are doing to get a talk page violation, they would've been given an interaction ban and so a talk page ban wouldn't be necessary from the start. And if all of those things are happening after the talk page ban to earn the block, than what was the original reason for a talk page ban? I don't need to Wikilawyer, logic simply doesn't support you. You're in a causality loop.--v/r - TP 20:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, I am surprised you supported the site, and here's why: According to you "She had a deep understanding of what in fact makes up a huge part of human life: doing nice things for each other with no expectation of any particular return". So looks like you do support "doing nice things for each other with no expectation of any particular return", but when around three months ago I asked you here, at this very page to do something nice for me you refused. I did not ask for anything impossible. What I asked for was within each and every Wikipedia policy. What I asked you for was within your power, and it was not only a nice thing to do, but the right thing to do too, and you refused. So I don't understand how one could support something, which he himself isn't following.98.234.242.89 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the least idea what you are talking about. But the idea that it's a great thing to do nice things for others with no expectation of any particular return does not imply that one must do every random thing that anyone asks. I'm sorry if I disappointed you in some way and if you can be more specific, I can either do the thing you are talking about, or try to explain to you why I won't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reminded of an incident regarding TV chef Ina Garten, a BLP I have on my watch list. The woman receives far more requests to assist charities than she can possibly agree to. A sick child asked for something through Make-A-Wish which she couldn't fit into her schedule. So she got pilloried online for weeks for something she didn't do, and for about two years, SPA editors tried to add that tempest-in-a-teapot to her biography over and over again. Well, not on my watch, but how about the BLPs that aren't watched? So, it seems that you, Jimbo, have something in common with Ina Garten. Trolling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a very common modern problem for anyone the least bit in the public eye - and many who are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So, "the discussion is not relevant to Wikipedia", according to Wales. I wonder, then, if someone were to come along to this Talk page and say...

When I searched for Lily Cole, who doesn't much use twitter or facebook, klout told me that she's influential on several topics including, much to my surprise "World of Warcraft". This turns out to be because there was some kind of commercial for the Body Shop called "WOW! project" and her line of makeup is featured.

...we would rightly say that that sort of out-of-left-field discussion of Lily Cole's Klout score is not relevant to Wikipedia, and therefore shouldn't have been placed on this Talk page. Is that correct, Mr. Wales? - 50.146.203.48 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kind of the other way round. Someone else asked Jimbo for his opinion of this Klout thing, and he listed some concerns, drawbacks and problems with it, in quite some detail; also including its relevance (or not) to Wikipedia. One of the examples used seems to be someone he knows. So...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

LinkedIn group - again

Hi Jimbo, - may I ask again that I be made an additional admin for the LinkedIn group? There is a lot of spam and there's no way to remove it, because it appears you're the only administrator of the group. There are definitely interested/potential Wikipedians on the group, so having spam (and the people who harvest addresses) is a detriment to Wikipedia. (My name on LinkedIn is: Bob Kosovsky). Thanks for anything you can do. -- kosboot (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not seeing you as a member of the group. Are we talking about the same group? This one?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's this one: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=39542&trk=anet_ug_hm -- kosboot (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While you're there, I would not mind being an admin ('manager') as well (I am at LinkedIn under my name, Brian E. Logan). Bearian (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made you both managers. I'm still owner but I'll transfer that to someone at WMF when I get the chance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

How to request mass message sending

Hello, This situation has me totally baffled. The situation is that Wikipedia, on April fools day, is vandalized excessively. I want to request that a mass message be sent to let Wikipedians know that they should be ready for the giant attack of the vandals. But I do not know how to take the action necessarily or if it is even allowed. Hoping to get this settled with only 5 days left, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sending such a message is not necessary. There are lots of experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with the different sorts of things that occur here every April 1. And although this would not be the attention, sometimes posting too prominent a warning of incoming vandalism has the paradoxical effect of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with Brad about all of that, I'd say that there are some good places to notify active editors without unduly alerting people who may simply take the warning as an invitation to cause trouble. Village Pump is a good place. But there are also places like the sitenotice for logged in users only, or the watchlist, which might be used to good effect. Note well that there have been controversies about these things in the past, so not everyone would agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have addressed appropriate April Fools' Day demeanor here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Epic. All must read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome in 2008, Brad, and it remains so today. Ironic detachment is a good April 1 attitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:BEANS. Those with experience already know what to do. KonveyorBelt 22:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony!

At AFC I have just reviewed and declined a submission about a company that advocates abusing Wikipedia for "reputation repair" - WT:Articles for creation/Recover Reputation. The draft does not pass WP:CORP. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It gets even more ironic. See How NOT to Fix Your Online Reputation: 5 Tips, Steven W. Giovinco, with the 1st tip being "Don't write your own reviews". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't see much of an irony here. His video opposes doing things that usually break the rules. But Wikipedia, being run in a particularly callow, self-destructive and moronic manner, actually allows COI editors to create articles through the Articles for Creation process. This one didn't go through, but because it was not notable. If it met our weak notability guidelines there would be no reason to deny the AfC under the cockamamie rules practiced here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Though this is by no means the worst case, I still wish people would learn better than to cyberbully contributors here. Like it or not, the AfC process is being presented as the legitimate way for a company to propose an article on itself. Picking them out to humiliate them because of their particular trade is kind of like picking through the contributions for editors with advanced degrees in mathematics and naming and shaming them whenever their table columns don't add up to 100%. It does do a positive good to enlist people associated with companies to propose useful content about themselves, when (as in this case) we have safeguards to ensure that the ensuring article meets encyclopedic standards. This company may be able to put up a better presentation in the future that has sufficient independent secondary sources, especially if they have enough PR pull to be able to arrange articles to be published in "neutral" media like so many big companies seem to. It might well be that our policy is too lenient, but if so change it, instead of harassing contributors, even commercial contributors, who have followed the rules. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint taken - I have removed my review comment. I'm not so sure that being welcoming to intentional bright-line violators is a "Good Idea^TM" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not. It is, in fact, an open sore. However, it is permitted by policy, and some people derive an income from writing articles for companies, for payment, for submission to the AfC process. Dealing with such persons and their selfish agendas has been a significant administrative burden for Wikipedia, and a major time and energy suck (re "change the policy if you don't like it"). Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for this. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See here -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short, I guess. But thanks for the link—as always, I was dying to know what Wnt had to say on the subject. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)