User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Hi

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please reason with @Ryulong: about this. You have clearly commented on the article many times. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge leap between commenting on an article or subject and being "involved" in an arbitration case. With such a low bar to participation, you might as well list every single editor who worked on an article as being involved in a case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

One Young World

Jimbo, don't you think the One Young World article could use some improvement? For example, it mentions the Dublin 2014 event as if it is still in the future. Also, there is not a single word of criticism about the organization. Do you think that reliable sources have never critiqued the organization or its programs? - Stylecustom (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo shouldn't be held accountable for every single article on Wikipedia. A great way to adress the issues that you're having is by taking it up on the article's talk page where editors who are interested in that article can see your concerns. It would be quite wierd if Jimbo had to go over all 5979 pages with an NPOV dispute and fix them. He is the co-founder of Wikipedia but he's not a machine or miracle maker. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback, InsaneHacker. But, the reason this article may be more germane to Jimbo than other articles is that Jimbo delivered a presentation at the 2014 One Young World conference in Dublin. I just read an article at Wikipediocracy.com that suggests that most of One Young World has been written by people closely associated with the organization. So, if we bring that up on the Talk page, what's the typical solution? Do we just gut the article and start over, or is it okay as it is? - Stylecustom (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones:, I cautiously removed the {{hat}} template seeing as I can't find anything documenting a block or ban from this page on Stylecustom (using Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Stylecustom and Special:Log.) Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you encourage Gamergaters to write their own version of the Gamergate Wikipedia article?

[1] What is your end goal with this? Integrating it into our article? KonveyorBelt 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Err yeah, gotta admit that doesn't look good. An explanation would be good. Were you being sarcastic? serious? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was being completely serious. There are a great many complaints about our article, and at least some of them are from people who are not raging lunatics. There have been some specific complaints about behavior, and again not all those complaints are wrong nor are they all from raging lunatics. The specific wiki that I pointed people to is a pro-gamergate wiki, and it's a legitimate challenge: if there is a complaint that the Wikipedia entry is in violation of Wikipedia policies it will be useful to see exactly how.

On twitter, a writer from Slate (a notable publication, obviously) is complaining as well that his views have been unfairly represented in our article. There are repeated complaints that don't strike me as completely wrong that there is a double standard for sourcing with sources which are anti-gamergate being given a pass where they would be challenged as mere blogs if they were pro-gamergate. That's obviously a point worth discussing but (a) twitter is not a very helpful medium for having a serious discussion and (b) the level of drama on the Wikipedia talk page is not going to be helped if I just tell them to bring their concerns to the talk page.

So it seems to me that the challenge is a solid way to move things forward. If they are able to produce something that independent and thoughtful Wikipedians agree is validly better than our article in some respects, that will be useful.

For me, when people say "Valid mainstream sources are being ignored or misquoted in the Wikipedia entry" I take that very seriously - but it's hard for me to fully evaluate it if the complaint goes no further than that. I'd like to be shown how those who think our article is bad would improve it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I can think up some positive reasons but the troll potential and the possible bias among editor's opinions outweighs them all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is troll potential, that'll be an issue for the admins of that wiki to deal with. I'm quite sure this is better than me inviting a mass of single purpose accounts to come to the Wikipedia talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably to see how they'd phrase some things, and the possibility to add to the article currently here if found within wiki policies/guidelines. When you've spent all the time looking at the article on Wikipedia, and not having any attempt to see what the other side would've characterized certain events as, you get a skewed perspective. I'm happy with Jimbo's decision to do such, as it has the benefit of offering the other side the way to contexualize and centralize what happened, and Jimbo a way to see if there are any legitimate things that could be added to the wiki page. Additionally, Wikipedia is fragrantly complicated and convoluted. Wikia very much isn't, especially the newly created wikias, and would probably lead to broader participation as a result. The semi protection on the GamerGate talk page also probably doesn't help. Tutelary (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that 4chan isn't going to take full advantage of this. Its a good idea yes but can have some bad results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Just strikes me as incredibly divisive and polarising. Oh well, let's see what happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is divisive and polarising at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Errr, you don't see how two articles in parallel could be polarising.... rather than, say, discussion on one article here...? Umm, yes it can and will. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add that if it adds to the controversy, Jimbo could get involved in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• shrug* If they can come up with something useful and usable, more power to them... and if not (and it will be very clear if not) then they will clearly demonstrate why the article needs great attention from experienced editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The article at Wikia couldn't be worse than the one here that's guarded by 5 guys burger and fries. --DHeyward (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is actually looking ok (aside from been written by people with no wiki experience) it doesn't make any negative claims (unless you count extreme cynicism of anti-gg's reports of harassment) but it needs A LOT of work and sourcing. I foresee sections of it being used but at the moment it is full of trolls and unsourced opinion. Retartist (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And if that's all it ever becomes then serious Wikipedians (like me) who have no personal interest in the issue can feel more comfortable that allegations of a small cabal of abusive editors (frequently mentioned in complaints are Tarc and Ryulong) are controlling the article to the detriment of Wikipedia are not very persuasive. And if they come up with an article that is well-sourced, neutral, and contains information that ours has omitted due to bias - then Wikipedia can be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

More constructive might have been suggesting they talk to journalists and give their side of the story...and if aforesaid journalists write new articles, then they are in reliable sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

...which is another approach, not necessarily "more constructive," just something of a different nature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What Cas Liber is aiming at is the fact that we have very, very few reliable sources explaining Gamergate's perspective; pointing at marked-up screenshot imgurs and random YouTube videos isn't going to give us anything new to work with there. A large percentage of the issue is that Gamergate supporters believe there is some grand media conspiracy to silence them while the mainstream perspective is that Gamergate's claims have been examined and found wanting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the two approaches (just a first thrust at this):

• Advantages (of "talk to the press" approach):
  • An eventual report in the press may be used as a WP:V type of source directly, avoiding, for instance, a second step cleanup like the one (still needed) for the Pajot source (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 55#Phasing out the forum)
• Disadvantages of "talk to the press" approach:
  • Time delay: it is incertain if and when reporters may decide to publish anything on the subject. Do we want to keep a Wikipedia article in kaboots for a day that may never come?
  • When such press publication appears it still may have WP:RS issues, compare e.g. [2] which resulted from such "faction talking to the press" approach, and did not result in an external source that was of much use for the Wikipedia article it was discussing.
  • When such external publication appears there is more risk of uncertainty that we really get to know what the insiders may see as an equilibrate article, and which third party sources they would primarily rely on.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the fourth disadvantage of the "talk to the press" approach is that, when there are claims that journalistic integrity is a significant component of the gamergate controversy, there then becomes distrust in the neutrality of articles appearing in the press on the subject.

I applaude this suggestion of Jimbo's. I feel that much work is needed on the article, to try to reconcile it with the large number of sources on the Internet which apparently contradict it, yet do not appear to be the work of raging lunatics. This could be a significant step forward in that direction. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A possible broader picture: distrust of primary sources

What may be (one of?) the underlying issues of this is Wikipedia's difficulty of dealing with WP:PRIMARY sources:

• Official policy (WP:PRIMARY) is to be extra careful when using primary sources;
• This often turns into wholesale "distrust" of primary sources: avoid them, scoop them out with a bulldozer, well, who wants to put time and effort in being "careful" when a nuclear option is so much more simple?

My take on this is that articles can't really become equilibrated, a.k.a. WP:NPOV, when primary sources are barred entirely. Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but I think Jimbo is concerned about this too.

Compare current efforts at:

• WT:NPOV#WP:BALASPS to get the WP:BALASPS section of that policy on a better track, balancing what sources have to say about themselves with what what others have to say about them.
• Template talk:Primary sources#WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB caveat, the template being currently an indiscriminate statement in favour of the "nuclear option" on primary sources, overriding policy (not only WP:PRIMARY, but also WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB). My Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2014 which (with a minimal community interest in the topic) seems to have consensus to at least make the template no longer contradict policy, is still awaiting implementation.

(My interest in this was spurred by the ACIM issues, which still seem far from being solved) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis, as it appears you're not entirely familiar with the Gamergate matter, we have to entirely reject primary sources because it involves a number of highly-sensitive claims made about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)