User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Alleluia! See WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

Or see Ad Age

I see this as a key turning point for Wikipedia (assuming the ToU changes are also put through).

Remember when the BLP policy went thru? Everybody thought it would be difficult or impossible to enforce and would bring Wikipedia down by violating our first principles. Instead it marked a new life for us as readers and new editors started taking us seriously. I predict that's what will happen this time as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A great opportunity is upon us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was invited to the meeting at the Donovan House that ended with this agreement; sadly my grant request was turned down and I was unable to attend. That said, Ive stayed in pretty constant contact with the organizers of the event, as well as some of the participants. In my estimation, the PR people involved in this are being deadly serious in their positions. This is, I think, likely to provide us with our best chance to-date to integrate PR editors in to Wikipedia's workflow in a way that doesn't damage the integrity of the encyclopedia (and helps us cover undercovered areas better,) and at the same time discourage people and companies from using under the radar Wiki-PR style groups. I honestly believe that this has a significant chance of representing a turning point in our relationship with the PR industry. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• There have always been a number of "Good Guy" PR firms, including many of those in CREWE. They aren't the problem. They might be part of the solution, in that they will be looking to establish new editing structures to address the legitimate concerns of their clients, but this group of companies saying they are going to play by the rules (implicitly under the assumption that the rules will be fair to them) doesn't affect the broad situation in which WP content writing is a growth industry for freelancers, in which companies of smaller and smaller size are coming to see WP presence as an essential part of their marketing efforts, in which there are absolutely no fetters upon the creation of multiple accounts and paid COI editors flying under the radar. It's an opportunity for an alternative editing process to emerge, yes, but I still don't see anything from WMF but continuing efforts to ratchet up the rhetoric and the war with paid COI editors — which will continue to drive things underground, away from supervision and control. Carrite (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see that at all. Rather quite the opposite. The path forward is to reward and encourage disclosure and ethical behavior (i.e. to drive things in public, toward supervision and control). I wonder, though, rather than just being negative about other people's efforts to deal with what I think you agree is a problem, why don't you give us some detail about what you would do differently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the basic question is this: do we believe in anonymity of contributors and ease of entry as our fundamental principle, or do we believe in validity of content and transparency of contributorship as our fundamental principle? We cannot have it both ways. If we really want to ban paid COI editing, it is going to require real name registration, one user-name per account, sign in to edit, and an end to so-called "outing" prohibitions — things that can be determined by WMF as part of Terms of Service. The cost will be the loss of perhaps 25 to 50% of the editor base. If we want to maintain anonymity and ease of entry into editorship and current outing rules, we need to accept that paid COI editing is a fact of life and to split the difference with these editors: mandating disclosure but banning retribution against those who disclose. The software can be tweaked so that COI edits can be identified with a button the same way that minor edits are identified with a button. The key will be to keep an eye on paid COI edits without pursuing paid COI editors like they are outlaws and villains — giving them space to work and parameters of good behavior. Treating them like gophers to be shot on sight will just force them underground. It will be a cultural change either way. The current stalemate is sort of the worst of both worlds, easy underground shenanigans and an officially authorized "game" of liquidating those who engage in underground shenanigans. It all comes down to a fundamental decision about anonymity vs. transparency. Myself? I'm for transparency. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. These are thoughtful remarks and much better than the innuendo and snark that are too often present here. I don't have time for a full response at the moment, not to mention that a full response requires some thought, but I invite you (and others) to think about third way approaches. That is - there is value in both ease of entry and (in some cases) anonymity, and there is value in validity of content and transparency of contributorship. AND, this is key, the two are only sometimes in tension. In many or most cases, ease of entry and validity of content are perfectly aligned. As are anonymity and validity of content.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick response: there is comparatively little tension between anonymity/ease of entry with historically "encyclopedic" content. There is a great deal of tension between those things and commercial or contemporary biographical content, which involves self-interested parties on the one hand and really boring, volunteer-repelling topics on the other. Community notability rules aren't going to change, tweaking those is not a viable solution. It is a puzzle. The key thing is this: I think every single one of us agree that NPOV content is essential and that unsupervised and left to their own devices, paid COI editors will not tend to produce NPOV content. The question is how to eliminate the problem, not that there is a problem. Either we regulate paid COI editors under the current system or fight an unending and ultimately unwinnable war of annihilation; or else we accept that the days of IP editing and 40 socks per customer are relics of the past and actually do annihilate paid COI editing. I honestly can't see how one can split the difference on this matter. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised there was not more support for corporate accounts, which would make COI edits much easier to identify, whether it is on Talk or in History. Also, if companies opt-in to a corporate account, that makes it easy to create a category of accounts that can be supervised/reviewed and easier to contribute on behalf of a company without disclosing your volunteer account or personal information. Just like accounts get upgraded to auto-confirmed, I could see new corporate accounts having no article-space privileges, but after a certain point they can request permission for a Pending Changes-type situation (pending changes reviewers would have to learn to revert anything controversial and tell them to take those items to Talk). Rather than review each edit individually, volunteers can conduct quarterly reviews of all corporate accounts and blanket revert with a button-press if their edits are 75%+ bad.

However, several editors I have talked to have sarcastically asked the question as to whether WMF would develop the software for new features for PR participation, especially given that COI editing (participation?) is strongly discouraged. And I'm sure they have lots of features on the wish list for the volunteer community as it is. CorporateM (Talk) 02:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One solution which can go a long way without changing identification requirements is make special sourcing requirements for information on currently operating businesses, business leaders, and currently marketed products. Instead of applying general RS guidelines, allow only facts sourced to reputable academic sources on the one hand, and a more limited whitelist of news and business sources on the otherhand. This whitelist could list just well-established newspapers and business magazines (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Businessweek etc.) and the requirement be that only regular reportage (not advertorials or anything unusual) among those whitelisted could be used to source claims. This wouldn't solve everything, but would go a long way as much of the material that paid advocates add are sourced to lesser-quality sources and self-published sources which nonetheless still meet basic RS requirements. With a whitelist requirement like this, much could be summarily removed without much fuss. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't necessarily agree with everything that Carrite is recommending, his comments are incisive, thoughtful and worthy of consideration. I disagree that formal "corporate accounts" are a good thing, as that erodes our key value that editors are individuals rather than groups. I have a lot of concerns with this declaration by 11 PR firms. The signatories have Wikipedia accounts, most with only a handful of edits, mostly to their own user pages. If they truly want to engage with Wikipedia, the way to do so is by editing productively, in addition to issuing grand declarations. Are other people from those firms editing? If so, who are those accounts? And if 11 firms commit to following our policies and guidelines, how about the hundreds of firms that haven't? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be nearly enough to simply forbid undisclosed alternate accounts and beef up our data collection enough to do a decent job of preventing socking (which we could do virtually automatically for most editors, given software that made a robust effort at doing so). The privacy concerns are pretty negligible to my mind: there may be the occasional nuclear physicist and scat porn enthusiast that wouldn't want to use one account to edit both topics, but we can live without one or the other set of contributions.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying this for a while now that it doesn't seem like it would be hard to automatically track MAC addresses, device IDs and other anonymous, non-personal information and automatically detect socks without interrupting the user experience of non-socking users. This wouldn't even have to prevent legitimate alternate accounts if there is a way to add exceptions into the system. It would become very difficult to sock if each the user had to use a different computer for each sockpuppet account. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: This is wrong for several reasons. To begin with, supposedly the MAC address should not be accessible to a website. There's been some hinting in the leaks that the NSA uses it somehow, but I don't know where to access it in a PHP file. Same with device IDs. So I think you're talking about getting editors to install a client, which is just poison -- you would lose three quarters of them in a day, the client would be a huge security vulnerability, and someone might still find a good way to hack the system (for example, some MAC addresses can be changed^[1]). Also, the idea is defective in that lots of people have several computers - desktop, laptop, a few terminals at work if they're a little naughty, mobile/tablet/whatever. While others share the terminals at the public library, especially if they actually went there to research something. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As a representative of one of the agencies involved--Peppercomm--I created an account so that I could answer any questions people have and so that anyone on Wikipedia would have a means through which to contact me. My answer is solely for Peppercomm's situation; I can't speak about any other agency involved. I have never had another account, and I don't edit Wikipedia pages professionally (and, as Cullen328 points out, haven't done anything of substance editing on Wikipedia personally, either). Likewise, none of our employees are tasked with doing paid editing or even intervention on Wikipedia for our clients--nor do we hire freelancers to do so. In our agency's case, we counsel on what NOT to do. If they believe, however, that there is an inaccuracy or situation that requires some sort of discussion with Wikipedia editors, we have gone to an outside firm we trust who knows the Wikipedia editor community much more deeply than we do--in particular, in our case, Beutler Ink--to ensure that any requested edit our client wishes to make is done in an ethical, transparent manner that abides by all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To NOT edit pages has been Peppercomm's policy since at least 2008, when I joined the firm full-time...and, it seemed, had been the policy prior to my arrival as well. Our 11 companies issued this statement to make it clear to the Wikipedia community that many of us do have policies in place to align with Wikipedia's policies & guidelines--& Wikimedia's ToS (although our exact approaches and policies may differ). And our hope is that others will sign on or, if they don't already have these policies in place, will start to think about why they should. To be frank, intentional sockpuppetry and other forms of editing are one thing--but as substantial a problem are corporate employees or people at agencies who "don't know enough about Wikipedia to know what they don't know"...who understand this is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" part but not COI and other very important parts of what makes Wikipedia what it is...Leumas712 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Leumas712

• For those of us who (like me) haven't been following the TOU discussion recently, is this still the wording that is going to be added? Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to only allow sources like the New York Times for businesses, what do you do about businesses that cater to specialized markets? I remember Jimbo trying to make an article about a restaurant in South Africa. Good luck trying to find information in the New York Times on that. You probably wouldn't even find much about, oh, an anime producer, and even if you can find enough to create an article, all the existing articles on such companies would have to be rewritten with new sources.

I think the mistake here is trying to figure out how you can prevent COI editing and only thinking about the particular type of business likely to engage in COI editing. Having standards which limit the usable sources would help in articles about those kinds of businesses, but would completely destroy articles on others. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that South Africa does not have any well established newspapers? Or that they might not report on small restaurants from time to time, if they considered the restaurant worthy of note for some reason? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea was that articles about businesses could only be sourced to a particular set of whitelisted sources. I highly doubt that such a whitelist would initially have South African newspapers in it, or Animne News Network for anime companies, for that matter.

Of course, you could always look at the article after it's created, and only decide at that moment to add the South African newspaper to the whitelist. But that's basically what we do anyway every time we edit an article and remove material because a bad source was given. The only difference is that with the new method, after we decide the source isn't bad and that the material is okay to keep in the article, we add it to the whitelist, but it doesn't actually change how the article itself is created.

And how does that apply to the example of the anime company? You could probably find New York Times articles eventually, but saying that we can't use sources like Anime News Network is absurd. (And I doubt that anyone creating a whitelist ahead of time would put Anime News Network on it.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's true that much material would be removed. But that's true whenever notability and RS requirements are tightened. Imagine our current notability and RS standards were far lower than they actually are. We would have a lot of material which wouldn't otherwise be there. Then imagine we brought standards up to the actual current standards. A lot of material would be removed. Is that a bad thing? Of course not: It just means we are better enforcing the requirement that we make an encyclopedia, and not a indiscriminate collection of information. My suggestion is that for the particular class of articles at issue, a further tightening of these requirements would be an improvement.

Sure, it's absurd not to use the Anime News Network (at least, I believe you, I'm not sure what it is). That's why it would be added to the whitelist. Here's an example method of implementation for avoiding the problem you mention of not having the right things whitelisted: Create the putative whitelist over a long period, even years, while it is non-binding. Interested parties can discuss with adequate time as to what is appropriate and what is inappropriate for the list. This would involve looking at what sources are working well for this class of COI-prone articles and what are not working well. This could be done right now, without any wider community approval. If the community approves of it at a later time, then it can be implemented as binding then. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is rather, say, irritating that the Englisch WP community allows for the public relations and advertising industry to use the Wikipedia namespace for a press release. We should rather reflect on why we have not succeeded to exclude those people from WP altogether.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, because it is a given that reputable corporations, including PR firms, will not violate website terms of use. That is not a cause for celebration. Most reputable and indeed some not-so-reputable PR people and corporate executives already abide by the TOU amendment (assuming it is what was originally proposed; nobody has yet addressed my question above). While this has been billed as the beginning of \the end of paid editing, in practical terms it seems more like an acceptance of paid advocacy editing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. Indeed, this page should be deleted because it violates our rules for the Wikipedia namespace. It should not be tolerated that those companies misuse Wikipedia for their business communication. Wikipedia is not an outlet for press releases. It is financed by donors who give their money for an educational project.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me as a form of advertising, especially for the less well-known firms and PR people signing on. Seriously, every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants a client, such as my personal firm Coretheapple Communications LLC, can and will sign on. Seems promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Johannesburg Wiki Indaba

I am a leading contributer on the Afrikaans Wikipedia (3000+ articles and approaching 50,000 edits). Why does people like me not get a automatic entrance to the Indaba? Why must we go through a time consuming process? Surely after my 5 years of hard work my credentilas should be above board? This is a big principal matter to me. Oesjaar (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is an Indaba? Would it help if you gave a link to a page about it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FIFY. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indaba is the Zulu word for Conference. Oesjaar (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, but none of the conferences listed on that page appear to have anything to do with the WMF or Jimbo? So perhaps Jimbo does know exactly which conference Oesjaar is talking about - or perhaps he doesn't - but I certainly don't. Wikimania 2014? The recently concluded conference in New York? A WMF-related conference in South Africa or even Holland? Something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the hip name they're giving to Wikimania 2014. Merchandising possibilities abound. (That's a joke.) Carrite (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, upon further review the year doesn't match up, does it??? Should be 2015... I'm betting typo. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Try http://www.wikiindaba.net Oesjaar (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (I've made that a link for others' convenience). I agree it does seem rather haphazard. Clicking the "Attend" link takes one to a page that talks at great length about scholarships and the things you have to do or be to qualify for one, but nothing else (it does say that scholarships can cover the conference registration cost, but does not say what that cost is). Clicking the "Register" link previously took one to a page that just said "Register here", a link to a mailing list, and nothing else; that page now merely says that registrations are closed.

I think future similar events would be more widely attended if the registration process was easier to understand. User:Bobbyshabangu or User:Thuvack might have comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Standard English ?

The wording in 'see also' … … 'describes the current state of affairs on the English Wikipedia as it regards Jimmy Wales.' Seems unclear at least, possibly incorrect in UK English. Also tiny quibble, most of the content on the linked page is 'history of role/anomalies of role' … … is the italicised phrase standard US English?Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not brilliantly phrased. Make it better if you like. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure that the usage wasn't 'standard US'. I've amended the 'see also', it now reads Role of Jimmy Wales – describes the current legal status of Jimmy Wales on English Wikipedia and its administrative bodies, with some examples of how he has used his powers in the past.

Regarding the nauseating and cowardly remarks made by Wikiconference USA attendees

I hope those attendees of the recent Wikiconference USA in New York who were discussing LilaTretikov and Wllm behind their backs, suggesting that the WMF's new ED should dump her partner, or banish him from the WMF world, are proud of themselves. "Multiple influential people", says Kevin Gorman. If any of them are reading this, I'll eat my hat if they have the spine to identify themselves in public and stand behind their grotesquely inappropriate comments. — Scott • talk 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Grotesquely inappropriate is exactly right, under any circumstances. – SJ + 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I was present for the conference and heard no such remarks at all. What is the source for this gossip? Did you attend the conference, Scott? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a link in my post. Try clicking it. — Scott • talk 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting "PirritSuggester" malware ads after accessing the Wikipediocracy site? I just did a system restore going back 3 weeks, and it seemed to get rid of them, but as soon as I access Wikipediocracy, the adware starts to appear, and my privacy settings show a huge of cookies being added. I'm seeing the same thing on wllm's personal blog. adnxs.com and pirrit.com seems to be the more intrusive ones, adding links and ads in the middle of text I am trying to read. —Neotarf (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, never had anything like that from either site. 'Course, I use Firefox... 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So do I. And I have Windows Essentials enabled. This is something new. —Neotarf (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Must be somewhere else you've been. John lilburne (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'm getting it now on other sites, where I might be expected to use a credit card online. <sigh> —Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• /Sigh - sad to see this come up here. Wllm, none of my emails to you were unsolicited except the very first which you responded warmly to, and I'm disappointed that you chose to post a chunk of an email from me related to sensitive issues publicly. To those wondering, yes, I did send Wil an email where that was part of a longer chunk. I don't want to say what he posted was 100% accurate because I haven't compared them side by side, but it can probably be assumed to be. I would have responded to your post on the talk page if I had seen it, but haven't been monitoring the talk page regularly as I'm only now finally fully back to having internet access, being thoroughly in the bay, etc.

I have never tried to meddle in Wil's relationship, except to point out to him that some of his actions were actively sabotaging the impressions movement members were forming of Lila in her first few weeks on her new job, and by asking him to reconsider how hard and how fast he was diving in to certain controversial areas. Though now restored to internet access, I'm pretty much going to stay away from this thread except to say that I think Lila's performance so far shows that she holds a lot of promise as a replacement for Sue, something that took a bloody hard search to find. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And why would it be any of their business, and why would it be any of your business to play tattletale and convey idle gossip? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like we could all use a bit more clarity here, Kevin. Do you mind if I release all of the emails you sent me? Could be either on-wiki or WPO, up to you. ,Wil (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes Wil, I do object, and for a pretty simple reason: doing so is not in the interests of, bluntly, anyone. You've already picked out about the worst sounding quote you could've in terms of effecting my reputation, let those who enjoy drama bask in that while they must, instead of drawing anything else in. I do have a couple things to point out: my email to you was not unsolicited, and my response to your request to not interfere with your personal life was to clarify that that was the last thing I wanted to do, emphasize that you had brought up a *lot* of points that needed to be addressed sooner or later, invite you out to dinner to meet in person and hopefully in the process convince you that I did in fact have your best interests in mind, and start talking about how to make productive change while stressing that not everything could be addressed instantly. Do you want to watch the world burn because fire is pretty, or do you prefer construction? If you want something constructive to come out of your engagement with Wikimedia, that can only happen if you engage with Wikimedia's community in a different way than you have so far. Please note that I'm only responding to pings from Wil and a handful of others in this section, rather than monitoring it proactively. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"If you want something constructive to come out of your engagement with Wikimedia, that can only happen if you engage with Wikimedia's community in a different way than you have so far." "Morning and evening Maids heard the goblins cry: "Come buy our orchard fruits, Come buy, come buy." Imbibe, imbibe! Say the words!Dan Murphy (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't think that quote was designed particularly to affect your reputation; though the best thing to do with offensive, ridiculous gossip is to stop it at the source and not pass it on. Repeating awful things that others have said is not quite as bad as the initial insult, but still hurts. As Wil seems to have been offended, an apology would not be remiss. – SJ + 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If, as appears, tasteless remarks were made, I am not sure that one helps alleviate the tastelessness by publicizing them extensively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB, here's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree with how to handle matters like this. There is a good reason to hold people to their words and deeds. If we just sweep this stuff under the carpet, then Kevin's exactly right: the Wikimedia community tolerates this kind of behavior. I'm not interested in damaging the Wikipedia community or its reputation- just the opposite. I want this kind of stuff to stop. And it won't stop unless we admit we could have done better and learn our lessons well. So, I propose that we own our mistakes, learn from them, and better ourselves. And we should encourage others to learn from mistakes. If, for example, Kevin were to apologize to me and Lila, I would consider it a sign of strength, not weakness, and I would tell him so. ,Wil (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil: I've sincerely apologized to Lila, multiple times, over situations related to our interactions. When you expressed concern that I was trying to interfere with your personal life, I emphatically stressed that I had absolutely no desire to interfere in your personal life. (And, except for introducing myself, I have not sent you a single unsolicited email. If you took offense at me relaying how people viewed your behavior: I'm sorry, but sincerely hope you reread that whole line of emails to find and consider the point I made within them. I doubt leaking every email I've sent you would hurt my reputation to a greater degree than the initial offensive nugget you posted - but it would hurt likely hurt both your standing and Lila's, so I hope you have the sense not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. This is where we could use some practice, however. An apology that follows the pattern "If *, I'm sorry, but *" is a weak apology. I simple "I'm sorry" is much more effective. I'd very much appreciate a chance to accept a strong apology from you, because I believe that it is warranted. But I'm not about to force it out of you; if you don't truly regret what you've said, then I'd prefer you don't apologize at all. And, Kevin, sincerely, you can stop worrying about my reputation. It will build naturally as I do what I believe is right. And, if you haven't caught on to this yet, I really don't care that much what people think of me. I'm interested in their ideas. And I've found no lack of good ideas voiced by good people here. I'm making a lot of friends and enjoying myself. I'm gonna stay the course. If you have concerns about Lila's reputation, I suggest you take it up with her. ,Wil (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that's the strongest apology I'm going to get. :( ,Wil (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• This food fight is getting pretty silly. (1) Kohs shouldn't have been banned from WikiconNYC14 at all. (2) If there was a legitimate reason to ban him, it should have been stated. And it still should be, he's waiting. (3) The conference organizers owe him $5.30 and an apology, in my opinion. All the rest of this is so much noise. Carrite (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  Off-topic for this thread, but yes. People running events can set whatever guidelines they like, and can choose their attendance list to realize the type of event they have in mind; but this should be clear up front. – SJ + 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  Sj's right. It's OT, but there is a common theme here. It sounds like there were lots of learning opportunities at WikiCon USA. No biggies. This kind of stuff happens. I think if we practiced apologizing and forgiving, we would all move on and do it better the next time.

  I can guarantee one thing, however; if one chooses to hide their missteps and waste everyone's time- or, worse yet, reputations- by trying to save face, I'm not the only one who will persist in holding everyone accountable. But make no mistake, I do it so diligently because I don't want to have to do it next time. ,Wil (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd disagree, with that, Brad. If such remarks were made that Scott alleges in the original post, they should be publicised here, and if they are as offensive as has been suggested, the offenders swiftly removed from any position of authority or importance. (And, to be honest, anyone in authority who didn't do anything about it / didn't condemn it, possibly including people further up this thread). Black Kite kite (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please Rev Del this thread? It's entheta that draws attention to a potential trouble source who's under the influence of suppressive persons, and I'm sure the sole source of Wikipedia has more important things to attend to. Wikipedia is a safe space. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Didn't you mean to say "Wikipedia is a safe space opera"? ;) ,Wil (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:, I believe you're a squirrel.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"suppressive persons"? "sole source of Wikipedia"? "Wikipedia is a safe space"? Not seeing anything RevDel-able here, but then your statement doesn't really make much sense to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientology and Sarcasm. Today is brought to you by the letter S. :D ,Wil (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kohs is not convincing me with this argument. While arguing around the idea that he not be banned from a Wikimedia conference, "thekohser" posted that "... got his panties in such a twist over this "blackmail thread", he spent exactly 1 hour, 42 minutes, 29 seconds on MyWikiBiz last night, even searching the database for [his username], just to make sure I haven't said anything mean about him. I'm pleased that he spent some time on the Sophismata page, though..." Now, this idea that someone is going to make opinions known for the Wikimedia community, encourage them to come and hear his banned words of wisdom, only to invade readers' privacy and use their browsing for opposition research, is not something I approve of. I have to limit my reaction in light of my opinion that every user ban should have a fixed maximum duration, and also in consideration that this wasn't directly done on Wikipedia; nonetheless, this is an argument he was making specifically for our benefit in lieu of access to edit here, and it makes me more willing to believe that his activities using any data he might collect at the conference could be problematic. As for the comments the OP was talking about, I haven't heard them, they may be unwise, but not every silly thing said has to lead to somebody getting voted off the island. Wnt (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

He may have said that in the thread about the conference, but I thought that comment was completely unrelated to WikiConference USA itself. For what it's worth, I told them today that I didn't think such doxxing behavior was OK for cases where they aren't exposing abuse (YMMV) and some of them did not like it at all. Then I reasserted that they are being asshats when they're making snarky comments about others. And, surprisingly enough, for completely separate reasons, I've stopped posting on WO altogether. It's been a busy day. But I still think that Wikipedia conferences that are open to all members must not exclude any participants who don't pose a threat. The matter that this section was created to discuss, however, has been resolved by Kevin's apology, although (and I really hate to criticize any apology; in fact, it's my first time doing so) it's mixed with more excuses and inaccuracies. In any case, I've decided not to release the rest of Kevin's mails. I don't think he was acting in bad faith, and he certainly assumed privacy. He just wasn't acting with prudence. I think he got the message that I'd rather not hear from him privately anymore. ,Wil (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User "comments"

What do you think about user comments like this, Mr.Wales?

"Users with ridiculous grudges against Wikipedia are given endless slack - which they very often tie in a noose and hang themselves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.3.89 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting variation of the English expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself". --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's curious: I explicitly asked Mr.Wales about his opinion, yet another user thinks he either is Mr.Wales himself (loss of reality) or he thinks he has a right of overriding importance to respond before the asked person has replied...Odd manners, but we're quite used to it.--37.230.3.89 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is really interesting about this statement is that it is completely distorting the truth (cause quite a few Wikipedia officials are definitely not at all giving any kind of slack or "enough rope" but quite the opposite, they tend to kill all opposition once anyone dares to pipe up) and secondly, but more importantly, it shows the condescending and despiteous manner in which quite a few officials look down on other users (often times just because they aren't able to tolerate a different opinion).--37.230.3.89 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So how do you think users with ridiculous grudges should be treated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe we should ask AndyTheGrumpelstiltskin?--37.230.4.122 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Klout?

Has anyone ever talked to Klout about adding a network connection to Wikipedia? If we're interested in getting more editors and more/better contributions from those editors, it seems like it would provide a nice incentive. ,Wil (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Klout beyond what is stated in our article about them, so I don't know just what you mean by "adding a network connection." But I will say preemptively that it would be a mistake to have any more incentives for anyone to maximize the sheer quantity of their edits to Wikipedia, as opposed to the quality and usefulness of their contributions. So any collaboration with that site should bear this in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Have either of you read The Circle (2013 novel)? Klout reminds me of that book. Like Wil, I'm interested in considering outside the box ideas. Like Brad, I'm nervous about a metric that seems geared more toward quantity than quality. Quantity is easy to measure, quality a bit tougher, and even though I personally work in an area that needs quantity, I think Wikipedia as a whole needs to think how to pivot toward quality. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Klout measures online influence and is very popular among internet thought leaders who tow around lots of followers to whatever site they post on. I do agree about quality. But the best metrics for quality come from the feedback of other users. For example, influence on Wikipedia might be measured in how many people watch your user talk page. To incentivize quality, one might count thanks instead of contributions. And it wouldn't hurt Wikipedia to incentivize thanks, either. :) Of course, mechanisms have to be built in to handle gaming the system; in this case socks could really distort a score if sock-like behavior isn't somehow discounted in the algorithm. This is my point in asking about Klout; to do it right for Wikipedia, they would almost surely need our help defining the optimal algorithmic behavior.

@Stu: I connected my Wordpress blog to Klout. Do you have any idea how that connector happened?

@Sphilbrick: Also agree with you on the pivot to quality as we reach a sort of article saturation- on en.Wiki, anyways. Haven't read the book. Just might do soon. ,Wil (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Internet thought leaders" are often such mostly in their own minds. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, someone asked Jimbo about this a while back and he registered or looked at his klout and commented on how he thought they based his number. It was interesting enough that I was curious and registered as well. I forgot all about it until I got a notification about my "klout" number a few months ago.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeap. I usually don't go to the site unless I get a notification. I do check out the graph of my score while I'm there out of curiosity, but I personally haven't started using it to change my behavior. I might if Wikipedia were on it- probably in the form of doing higher quality edits on pages that need more help than others if the score were calculated right. In any case, clearly many people here are influential online, because of how many articles they write on WP if for no other reason. ,Wil (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Memories are short here! Jimbo "barely even understands" Klout. - 50.144.2.5 (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (one of 1 million Xfinity WiFi hotspots)

My memory seemed perfectly long enough as you just linked to where Jimbo discussed his Klout page, but I wouldn't say he barely understands it. It appears the discussion shows that Jimbo even said that after looking at his page after months it seemed much improved. You have to have some basic understanding of something to say it has improved. I think what Klout turned out to be, statistical information about a specific user's "Influence" based on the amount of traffic to their postings on the internet, is flawed because it only figures hits and Google searches from a person but cannot know if the person is really influential. People can be directed to a posting but it doesn't mean they read it or agree with it. I am just unclear how it works myself. Is this for just the user to see of themselves or can you look up the klout of others? If so, would that encourage a negative effect of people trying to market themselves on the internet...in greater numbers than already exist?--Mark Miller (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

See Klout#Critism. I'm thinking I wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, even before we get to the specific question of what "adding a network connection to Wikipedia" entails. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I ask one question of an admin, whom I have never interacted with before, and he says I'm "disrupting Wikipedia" and threaten me with ANI

Points have been made, repeatedly. Time to move on--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo Wales: We are encouraged to talk on the discussion page of an article about our disagreements. I have never, ever interacted with Dennis Brown, an admin, and he expresses his opinion on the talk page about an issue. I followed his comment with a question that I believed in good faith was an important question and the answer to which would shine some light on the topic. Instead of answering my question Dennis Brown immediately accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia" and then later he threaten to take me to ANI. We are told to talk on the talk pages over and over again and in my first encounter with this admin he basically tells me that I can't talk to him or I will get the ANI. Is this the way that you envisioned Wikipedia working? You can review his inappropriate response to my simple question here: false claim by an admin of me "disrupting" wikipedia when I was simply asking an admin for his opinion. I would like to know why admins, such as Dennis Brown, apply the rules so arbitrarily. What I did I did not even see as "disrupting Wikipedia". I saw myself asking his opinion. Trying to talk to the guy. He just showed up on the talk page and I wanted to know more about what he thought. He saw it as "disruption". Why? The other editors on the talk page were asking the same questions, but they did not get the heavy hand of an ANI threat. Do you think this is the way to encourage discussion? I don't. Please review what I'm talking about.--NK (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Having looked at the exchange, I am not sure that I would have characterized the question as "disruption", but it was a hostile question, and that may be why he characterized it as disruption. Anyway, if you expect Jimbo Wales to second-guess and reverse a respected administrator, then you are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I didn't say that I did.--NK (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) No. You are right it was not "disruption" it was a simple question. I'm not attempting to get anything overturned. If he did not want to answer the question then he should have stated as such. There was no need to attempt to scare and intimidate me into silence and he was clearly in a conflict of interest because he took a position on the other side the debate and then he attempted to make the argument that he was going to take me to ANI to get me to stop asking him a perfectly logical question.--NK (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC) That's odd. I'm having trouble finding your question. Oh, I see where Dennis Brown offered a clear, concise, and well-reasoned opinion in response to an RfC. And I see where you directly replied to Dennis Brown's comment with a bit of unhelpful, rhetorical, distracting polemic that happens to be followed by a question mark—but I don't see you asking him a good-faith question anywhere. And now you've decided to take your show on the road, demonstrating further bad judgement. Go find something productive to do. Scoot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC) You are wrong. It was a good faith question. You have jumped to a conclusion based upon very little information. Also, your response to my attempt to talk to Jimbo seems, as Robert McClenon stated above, hostile. I believe that Jimbo states that he has an open door and I believe him when he says that. I find your belittling of my attempt to take advantage of his open door an example of the hostility that McClenon referred to and similar to the hostility that admin Dennis Brown exhibited toward me when I asked him a direct question that was directly on point of the topic on the talk page. Why you feel the need to exhibit such hostility toward someone that is simply taking advantage of Jimbo's offer is not consistent with Jimbo's offer and is not consistent with the open door environment that Jimbo has stated on numerous times that he wants. No, you go find something productive to do and make sure that productivity includes not displaying the type of hostility that you and Dennis Brown believe is ok to engage in.--NK (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC) The question asked, about whether we would include quotations every time the subject makes them, is one that virtually no one would think of it as an "important question," and I note that you also seem to be jumping to some quite unwarranted conclusions about the intentions of others, perhaps also indicating that you have little if any understanding of content policies and guidelines. As an editor apparently senior enough to come to this page, I and I think virtually everyone else here may well conclude that your rather apparently over-the-top rhetorical overreaction to the situation was both unhelpful, and, honestly, more than a little irrational. Rhetorical questions pretty much by definition do not necessarily require direct answers, and, honestly, as they really can't be seen as being honestly attempts to improve the content, may arguably not belong on the talk page at all. Agree with TenOfAllTrades here, with a proviso that reviewing the relevant talk page guidelines at WP:TPG would also be more productive than further comment here. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I find nothing irrational in taking up Jimbo on his open door policy. Also, it is simply your opinion that my question was not important that is not fact it is opinion. What is irrational is for you to confuse opinion from fact. That is the definition of irrationality. I have a great understanding of content policies and guidelines. Once again, you do not know me other than the little tiny bit you have read but you have jumped that incorrect conclusion. This is an example of the type of hostility that I seen from TenOfAllTrades and Dennis Brown. I guess somehow this hostility makes you feel better but it is not consistent with the Jimbo open door policy. My question was helpful. Thank you John Carter for expressing your opinion, not fact, and for exhibiting your hostility because it mirrors the hostility that Dennis Brown sent my way simply because he did not agree with me.--NK (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC) You asked a pointless question, and were rebuffed. Somehow you think asking a rhetorical question in a RFC was very clever. When Dennis refused to fall for the bait, you badgered him on his Talk page. And now you come here to try and pretend like you are some innocent party, feigning as if your question wasn't rhetorical and demanded an answer? Very clever. Dave Dial (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Once again, another example of confusing opinion for fact. My question was not pointless. I'm not pretending to be some innocent party. Oh, I need to mention the parade of hostility continues from you that came from TenOfAllTrades, John Carter, and Dennis Brown.--NK (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC) In an RFC (request for comment) there is a polling section and a discussion section. Your question had enough battleground mentality in the way it was formed that it was clear you were trying to make a point in the polling section. Disrupting the RFC with prolonged text, in the wrong location and in the form of ad hominem argument was pretty basic disruption.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I don't really know how to respond to this one other than point out that there is more hostility toward any one that attempts to take advantage of Jimbo's open door policy and you have no understanding of the phrase ad hominem because I did not call Dennis Brown a name. I only asked him a question.--NK (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC) I can't speak for Jimbo, he does that quite well himself, but I have seen enough of his replies to feel confident that he does have some concerns about admins who may abuse their authority, but I'll be stunned if he supports your position that Dennis Brown was out of line. All editors and especially admins are expected to AGF, but adherence to AGF does not mean one has to pretend that your leading question was an honest attempt to initiate a conversation with a simple question. Frankly it is an insult to Jimbo's intelligence that you would make such an assertion. You are still relatively new. Have you been around long enough to hear about WP:boomerang?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC) It is no insult to anyone intelligence to have a conversation. That's my point exactly. The hostility exhibited here by just raising a valid question shows the problem. Dennis Brown did not want to even engage in a conversation. And most the posters here do not want my side to be even heard. The response is pompous, hostile, dismissive, arrogant, etc. It is not consistent with what Jimbo's open door policy presents itself to be. The mean-spirited attitude of TenOfAllTrades is not as hostile as Dennis Brown, who basically said if I asked the question again he would ANI me and he refused the answer and he has a clear conflict of interest, but TenOfAllTrades's comments are arrogant and dismissive and, of course, immature. For some reason none of you want to let me have a hearing. You want to silence me--just like Dennis Brown wanted. What is the big deal? Is there a spirit of open communication or isn't there? Based upon the attitude displayed in this sequence of comments the answer is no.--NK (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC) If everyone but you thinks you are being wrong or otherwise disruptive, perhaps it is time to ask yourself if, indeed, all these people could be right. You asked a silly rhetorical question, and you've been correctly put in your place. Whining here is not helping you, quite the opposite. --cyclopiaspeak! 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Why are you so hostile to me raising the question? Does this hostility add to the open communication environment that we are told we want?--NK (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Because it was clearly not an honest question, but a rhetorical device. Which can be fine, but it failed: acknowledge it and move on. There is no way that question was in good faith. And before you jump for the n-th time yelling "no no it was a good faith question", well, in Naples they have a say, ca' nisciuno è fesso, which means "nobody is a fool here". So, if you think you can fool us into thinking that you were asking a good faith question, you basically are assuming we are a bunch of idiots. When you treat people like idiots, expect hostility.--cyclopiaspeak! 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) You state, correctly, that there should be an open communication environment. You (NazariyKaminski) have been interfering with that open communication environment. Although it is permitted to delete messages from your talk page, rather than archiving them, deleting them makes communicating via the talk page difficult, by forcing other editors who wish to engage in honest communication to view the talk page history. However, you have the gall to accuse us of interfering with open communication when you are deleting communications, forcing us to view the history. I am not an admin. If I were, you would be already blocked for 36 hours for tendentious editing, not for the original hostile question, but for pursuing it at bizarre length. You were cautioned. The community thinks that the caution was appropriate. Take that as a caution, and drop the issue, or go on and get blocked. I would give you a Level 4 warning on your talk page for using Jimbo's talk page to rant, but you would delete it. Consider this your Level 4 warning. Any further comments should result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Robert McClenon: I guess your hostile and abusive response is why you aren't an admin. Also, your comments are inconsistent with a open communication.--NK (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) NK, You cry about "open communication", yet use that phrase like a passive-aggressive mallet to get others to shut up; to stiffle discussion. You underestimate the intelligence of others, then strike out and play the victim when they call you on it. You dig in, insist on having the last word, spilling more and more vitriol with each comment, yet you are completely unaffected by the fact that no one agrees with you. I wrote an essay about 6 years ago that covers some of this: WP:Don't bludgeon the process. The situation is simple, but either you lack the ability to understand the nuances of the English language, or you are blinded by your own ideals and biases. Either way, you have taken my polite, concise and well thought out comment at an RFC and attack me in every way possible because I wouldn't answer your "clever" response to it, a response that was created NOT to generate discussion, but instead to undermine my credibility and call my motives into doubt. My initial response was that your actions are a violation of WP:POINT: A willingness to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point. Everything you have done since, including your actions here, have only proven me right. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC) (e/c)NK: Have you been misunderstood? If so, it's often best to take some of the blame, even if undeserved, if what you are really interested in is open communication. On the other hand, if all you want is to cast blame elsewhere for such missed communication, than it's likely to lead to wasted time, and not communication. Forensically, it is relatively simple to see what happened in the comments under discussion. You: 'Someone else supposedly made a claim, you agree with it, don't you' Him: 'I am not going to respond to a claim/question in that form' (he even pointed you to a link he felt explained his reason for not responding to the claim/question in that form). So, either reformulate your question, or move on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC) NK - this is meant to be a "World Wide Encyclopedia", not some other type of entertainment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

is Wikipedia dying?

just few years ago I could find artciles about everything new, but now I can't:

• King's Bounty: Warrior of North is just still redirection
• Ironclad: Battle for Blood - no article yet

what happen to Wikipedia?
deleters are clailm that "wikipedia already has articles about evering and now new articles are needed", but I see IT'S A LIE! why they become so POWERLFUL? why metapedists who do nothing just delete are more equal the thouse who write articles? why noone see the AGONY of Wikipedia? why noone tryies to save it? (Idot (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Maybe priorities change? Years ago, you couldn't articles on most of the Fortune 500 companies but you could on every Pokemon out there. Does the fact that you can't find information on two video games tell you that the website is "dying"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about *almost* everything, but some video games, films, books, pop albums etc may not meet WP:GNG, which is the requirement for a standalone article. In these cases, they can be included as part of other articles. Plus there is a need for someone to take the time to write the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Down Syndrome

I have Down syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.251.45 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)