User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Seriously?

Discussion winding down.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rick_santorum_caricature_satire_made_with_frothy_santorum_pic_1.jpg really what we want on this project? IsThisReallyWhatWeWant? (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Attack pages on Commons are already subject to speedy deletion, under Commons:COM:CSD G3, but I have created Commons essay page "Commons:COM:Attack page" (there as COM:ATTACK) as similar to the enwiki policy WP:ATTACK. I guess Commons tends to have fewer policy pages than enwiki, but COM:ATTACK is an issue that needs to be emphasized to remind people of the speedy deletions which can be done there. -Wikid77 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC) What about File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif by "User:Flyingfeck"? My wife somehow discovered this one through a comment about Wikipedia on dlisted, where someone expressed his sentiments as follows: "The wiki on "donkey punch" even has a helpful animated gif demonstrating exactly how a man can hurt a woman even more than raping her up the ass already does. Way to inspire criminals, Wikipedia. I hope your ass gets sued. Women: men hate you." It should be noted that this sorry animation of a man punching a woman in the neck during anal intercourse was viewed 381,250 times during the last 30 days. Is this what this project is about? Jimbo, do you not sometimes feel that the inmates have taken over the asylum? Because I sure do. What real-world reliable source would feature an image or animation like that? --JN466 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC) There was a deletion discussion about the donkey punch image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TTSGA.gif and it was kept due to it being in use on the Spanish Wikipedia and how it is not censored. However, it is that users only upload on the Commons and I am not sure if others have been deleted before due to copyright issues or anything else. I am keeping an eye on the Santorum images but speaking as a Commonist, Commons:COM:Attack page generally has been what we considered at en.wp (we never wrote down the policy since anything that looks or smells like an article is deleted on sight) and vandalism images generally are reverted/deleted under that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I remain baffled that Commons allows brand new users to upload pornographic images without any issues at all. It is blatantly obvious that a majority of these images are copyright violations. --Conti|✉ 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC) There is another deletion discussion now, initiated by John Vandenberg: [1]. I hope Jimbo will forgive me if I display this image, thought to be educational by some editors in Commons, and not educational by others, here on his talk page; having more eyes on it may help to establish a more solid consensus. --JN466 00:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC) There is now also edit-warring about the image in the article: "restore image - it makes sense to have it here" by User:Mattbuck, "Wikipedia is not censoroed" [sic] by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Again, I apologise for bringing this up on your talk page, Jimbo, but this has recently been one of Wikipedia's most-viewed articles, with nearly 400,000 views this past month. --JN466 00:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Oh please, I re-added an image which I felt had useful value and you declare it's an edit war. The cycle is meant to be "bold, revert, discuss" - you were bold, I reverted, you should discuss instead of just removing it again. As for the issue of "a man can hurt a woman even more than raping her up the ass already does" - first off, that's an assumption that it's rape, some people find anal sex to be pleasurable and so do it willingly; second, yes, it's an animation of an act of violence - read the WP:DISCLAIMER. In short, it says "we have stuff which may offend you, deal with it". As long as there is educational value in its presence it should be there. I am sick and tired of the fact that sexual stuff is held to a much higher standard than anything else here - "oh no, this image can't be educational, it's got a penis!" or "no need to show this, it's in the text". If we went on that basis, we first off would need to remove all maps (why do we need a map when we have coordinates?), then probably all buildings (it's a 100 storey building with a spike on the top, the text says that so we don't need an image), certainly all images of South Park characters (looks like made of paper, coloured bits, hairstyle, that's all in text so no need for an illustration). We illustrate articles because it helps with understanding - it doesn't matter what article, all articles are improved with illustration. People just get the idea better when there are pictures. As for you Conti, if you see an image which you think is a copyvio, flag it for deletion. But we will not say "you can't upload nudity or sexuality images until you've been on Commons X months". Why should we? As long as it's educational and freely licensed, it's fine. Maybe someone's first upload is of a sexual act, so what? Mine was probably a photo of a train. We all have different interests, and those drive what we upload. If someone told me "no, you can't upload any trains until you've been on Commons for 6 months" I just wouldn't have bothered and would just have given up. Stop trying to drag totally unrelated issues in here to muddy the waters. Copyvios are bad, but a copyvio of nudity is no worse than a copyvio of a celebrity or of a train. If you want to help, tag them for deletion instead of complaining. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC) People just get the idea better when there are pictures: In this case, they get entirely the wrong idea from the picture, as the cited sources (Dan Savage, no less, responding, you guessed it, to a question from Wikipedia editors ... haha [2]) describe this supposed sexual act as an urban legend dating back to 2004 or thereabouts, roughly the time when this article first appeared in Wikipedia, and existing merely in the imagination of sexually clueless adolescents[3], rather than as a genuine part of human sexual behaviour. I am sick and tired too, of having sexual stuff held to a lower standard than anything else here by the likes of you, with a rationale that to me always sounds a bit like it's really saying: "Ooh, this image has sexual content, which means it's educational to me because I know fuck all about sex, having mostly just read about it and watched porn! Never mind that it contradicts the text, looks like it's been drawn by a 16-year-old, misleads the reader, makes Wikipedia look like it's written by a bunch of puerile and profoundly pathetic wankers rather than anyone with a shred of real-world educational expertise, is unprecedented in reliable published sources, pushes a POV, and carries a small but greater than zero chance that the "education" millions (literally!) of readers get here leads to someone ending up paralysed for no good reason whatsoever – lul". As long as we can show off that Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, eh? So, what educational idea exactly is it that's being "gotten" by looking at this image? What one would have to do to break a woman's neck while having sex? Could you point me to any reputable work on educational psychology that recommends the inclusion of sexually violent cartoons in contexts like the present one? --JN466 15:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I think you pretty much scuppered any claim to a valid argument there, sadly :S I've never been a fan of the abuse of "not censored", but in this case it seems fine. The concern that "someone might copy this and break another individuals neck" is exactly the situation it was written for :) Ok so it's a fictional sexual act, but I struggle to see how that precludes having an image depicting the fictional thing. I mean, you know, Middle Earth is fictional, but we have a map of it. --Errant (chat!) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC) We have a map of Middle Earth because reputable secondary sources feature maps of it. We are following the model of sources. However, when it comes to sexual matters, everyone pretends to be some kind of expert, and makes things up as they go along. The result is that our sex education doesn't much look like any published sex education I have seen in encyclopedias or other educational sources. If reputable secondary sources don't show violent sexual cartoons of this type, please explain to me on what grounds should we? (Btw, I would bet that the number of people who have seen and remember the animation outstrips the number of people who have read and remember the text by some considerable margin, just as more people will remember the image from having seen it here on this talk page than will read or remember this post. While the article's text is – now – suitably cautionary in the way you describe, the image is clearly not.) --JN466 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC) The OR argument is not unreasonable; although in this case the act is so simple in description that I don't see it as an issue. As to your latter argument; I have a passing interest in books on old houses. Quite often they are described in detail, but no floor plans are drawn. On Wikipedia, however, you will very often find a carefully drawn floor plan. As far as I can read you, and most of the other, objections to this image centre around the violence, or some non-specific potential for harm. This is what our Not Censored policy is written to address. You may find the topic peurile, but that is irrelevant. You call this article "sex education", I don't think it falls in that category at all - if anything it is pop culture or something along those lines. And to answer your question; because we can. that's not to say the image is of good quality, it isn't --Errant (chat!) 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Your newly added comment that I edit conflicted with is confusing me because, if we take it as true, that is an excellent argument in support of the illustration of the topic. As to "cautionary", be very careful. We are not supposed to sit here and pass out disclaimers :) Reliable sources highlight the dangers, so should we with due weight. Your concern boils down to "someone might copy the image". Well, if they do they are clearly an idiot and I seriously doubt that the existence, or not, of an illustration is going to change that. This being the crux of "not censored". --Errant (chat!) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC) JN, please try and avoid the personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Please try and avoid gratuitous depictions of violence against women in Wikipedia. --JN466 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, and so here we have the true reason. If that is so much of an issue lets just get it re-done with a guy on the receiving end. Our article on Rape has a violent lead image, BDSM has a number of images of women in restraints - I don't see anyone clamouring about those... it's this inconsistency, in the faux-crusade we see here on Wikipedia. I don't know what role you see yourself in here; perhaps some white knight standing up for the rights of women and helping to crush the depiction of violence against them. If that's the case then there are significantly more worthwhile things you could be doing - that have an actual effect - rather than trying to make a tenuous argument that this image is morally wrong because of its depiction (or whatever). --Errant (chat!) 08:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC) You may or may not be surprised to find that I have clamoured about the gender imbalance of bondage and other illustrations in Wikipedia, and have done my bit to reduce it. I have also, quite specifically, clamoured about people telling me that we should include a video of rape in the article on rape – if we can get one that was appropriately licensed – because "Wikipedia is not censored". That is just so wrong on so many levels that I can't even begin. (The two illustrations that we do have in rape are a painting by Titian, and another by Ángel Della Valle. If we had an embedded rape video, you'd hear me clamouring.) What I am against is Wikipedia illustrations at the level of Tumblr or 4chan, as someone put it on the Gendergap list yesterday. And I believe our articles on sexual slang and pornography terms are in dire need of attention from established editors, because they are often left to drive-by IPs and editors from the fundamentalist NOTCENSORED fringe camping on them. A few months back the MILF ("mother-I'd-like-to-fuck") article was illustrated with a picture of Pamela Anderson, for example, and it named Sarah Palin as another example. (Usually, stuff like this only gets fixed when someone ridicules it on Wikipedia Review.) Articles in this topic area can get very high monthly viewing figures, in the quarter to half a million range, and seem to have a lower quality/popularity ratio than most other topic areas. That is unfortunate, because these articles are of particular interest to youngsters; and like any much-viewed article, they are calling cards and recruitment posters. By the way, on the two days the donkey punch article got a quarter of a million views, it told readers that "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the penetrating partner (see orgasm control).[3]", cited to "Patrice Oneal Explains Donkey-Punching On Fox News". Gawker. Retrieved 2008-12-08.. It has told readers that since 8 December 2008. The source is a Fox talk show where they are discussing jokes. I can't believe there are many articles with similar viewing figures where content with that kind of sourcing would survive for more than three years. --JN466 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Errant, floor plans are floor plans. It is quite well established for secondary sources on houses to have floor plans. It is not common for reputable secondary sources on sex to feature cartoons of sexual violence, and this animation, unlike the inclusion of floor plans, thus pushes a POV that is not representative of secondary sources. To give another example, we have articles on beheadings in Iraq. Do you think an animation in the style of the one above, but showing someone with a turban cutting someone's head off, would be an appropriate illustration for one of these articles? And if not, why is it okay here, where it is a matter of depicting equally lethal sexual violence against a woman? Is violence against women somehow funny, and a matter of amusement? --JN466 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I don't know what secondary sources you read, but manuals and sexual positions consistently have images. --Errant (chat!) 08:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Did you miss the part about it being made-up nonsense? The image does not depict a sexual position—it depicts some fantasy which is the opposite of what should be in an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Well, yes, obviously it's fictional. Doesn't make a huge difference IMO in terms of whether to illustrate it; we cover lots of fictional things (for example fictional buildings, to tie back into the architecture example) and we often illustrate them. Whether or not the article is deserving of inclusion is not the subject of this conversation, right? If it is, well, I think there are better ways for us to cover it than currently. --Errant (chat!) 09:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Of course not. We should have the real videos - I'm pretty sure they're PD-press release, and those from Afghanistan aren't even subject to copyright. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Apparently we don't have anything on MUNG either, and need pictures and videos. John lilburne (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) You raise a good point. Our entry mung (computer term) and wikt:mung are both far off base - as explained by Random House in a commentary regarding the entry in their slang dictionary, mung in fact dates back to the 1940s, and by the 1960s "mung up" meaning to destroy was not just a computer specific usage.[4] When we are willing to add rather than delete, research freely rather than alter for appearances, there is no limit to what we can do working together. As for making a drawing, I'm unclear on some details e.g. whether it's a pregnant human or gorilla, mouth or vagina, manner of beating, etc. Also whether this particular sub-definition is relatively common or not. Or whether there are films that have depicted it visually to use as a guide. It might be a difficult assignment. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done if it can be done. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Under pretexts of not censorship, wikipedia admits articles on practices of violence made for the women. The freedom of Free expression has to too include sexual customs make for the women? Wikipedia is t it neutral? Not surprising that wikipedia has less and less women for contributors, Sous des prétextes de non censure, wikipédia admet des articles sur des pratiques de violence faites aux femmes. La liberté d'expression doit t elle aussi inclure des mœurs sexuelles faites aux femmes ? wikipedia est t il neutre ? Pas surprenant que wikipédia a de moins en moins de femmes comme contributeurs, מתחת לתירוצים של צנזורה, וויקיפאדיזאד מתוודה שמאמרים על תרגולים של אלימות עשתה לנשים. החופש D, ביטוי גם צריך לכלול קירות ; ארסאסאקסאאלס פאיטאספאמאס? ויקיפדיה T זה ניטרלית? לא מפתיע זה וויקיפWיקיף? ד.י.ה. איטוד פחות פחות דאסאס כ/כפי שתורמים, je persiste --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The main page and good taste

Within the past few months, both The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and Cartman Gets an Anal Probe (today's featured article) have appeared on the main page. In my view, these sorts of choices make Wikipedia look like it is run by a bunch of obnoxious teenage boys. I think the Main Page should be curated to put our best foot forward to readers of all backgrounds, and that not everything that becomes a featured article is necessarily a good choice for the Main Page. (And to the extent that evolution/Islam/whatever could also be controversial, I say give me a break/use common sense/educational value trumps controversy.) Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and rather than focussing on these examples, I'm more interested to know what is wrong with the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Main Page should match readership: I wish the process were more responsive to our readers, such as instead of promoting "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" why not balance (and protect) an article of Captain "Francesco Schettino" (of similar pageviews) with whatever WP:RS sources can be found to state he had been captain of the Costa Concordia since the maiden voyage in 2006, and could he face "2,500 years" in prison or can we get a better legal source? However, why not promote articles about novel The Hunger Games, which readers have viewed 40,000 times per day in January, as 151x times more than the Cartman episode. Even the film article "The Hunger Games (film)" had 14,100 daily pageviews, before the upcoming March release. I am not saying the Main Page should be all news, but just match the recent readership trends even more. -Wikid77 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

While some caution about an "anal probe" cartoon on the main page is sensible, the previous section (#Seriously?) is far more concerning, although I could understand a reluctance to engage the Commons crowd. The main page featured article is fine, and including it on the main page is a reasonable acknowledgment of the broad range of material on Wikipedia, and the broad range of interests among readers. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not the most pressing concern. However, it is a result of the drop in regular editors? If the only articles being worked on to a great degree are films, cartoons and the like, we're going to have more of this, not less. We need to get more editors back on a regular basis working on more suitable topics. doktorb _words^deeds 10:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED - end of discussion. GiantSnowman 12:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the worst argument I've seen on my talk page in the past few months.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Lets face the facts here. Virtually nobody complaining about this article have actually read it. They simply got offended by the words "anal probe" and flipped out. This is a classic case of "don't highlight words/speech I don't like". Resolute 14:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description. You know what? I fucking love motherfucking South Park. I think that episode in particular is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I'm not even remotely offended by it. And I think it's a really really lame thing to put on the front page of Wikipedia. From the very beginning, people who are objecting to this have said that they aren't talking about censorship. When people parrot "WP:NOTCENSORED" as if it means something in every possible context, they prevent themselves from hearing what is really being said.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time a South Park episode as run as TFA, so it is not the show itself that is the problem. When I read the TFA blurb today, I don't see anything that would particularly upset anyone, save the words "anal probe". Change it to "Cartman gets a kitten", and I doubt you see even a single complaint. Putting that aside, however, what is it about this selection that makes it "lame"? Resolute 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's "lame" about it? That's it's low culture? That's nothing but snobbery. We need to reflect as much knowledge as possible - and yes, that will include TV shows and naughty things and even, shock horror, a combination of the two as we have here. GiantSnowman 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Jimbo, judging by many of the opposing comments at the Talk:Main Page it is a censorship issue. People are saying it shouldn't be there because it's potentially offensive and that kids might read it. What are those if not pro-censorship arguments? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are arguments about editorial judgment, not censorship. Confusing the two is seldom a good idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"kids might read it" is an editorial judgement? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point ASCIIn2Bme, I'd also like to point out that anticipating the potential that this could be offensive doesn't take a rocket scientist either. Simply refer to the lead of the article itself where it states in clear FA prose: "South Park is deliberately offensive." The point is, it's poor editorial judgement to be deliberately offensive. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"This is a failed proposal." That's from POLA. Citing it as a policy won't help the argument. It is an issue of censorship, some things are shocking to some people, and those people shouldn't use Internet, must less go on any wiki where people are told to be bold about additions and development of the project. MW projects have already bent over backwards enough to accommodate every possible state organisation which doesn't like something, if we will start caving in to "somebody think of the children" crowd we might as well close the project. VolodyA! V Anarhist User:Beta_M (converse) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not the kind we want"

Jimbo, am I nuts here or is this argument ridiculous? I know your role here is not that of an admin but your opinion is important. Would you mind weighing in? If this is canvassing or severely in the wrong here I'll accept the block, I think this is an emergency. N^oformation ^Talk 12:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me find where the original discussion of this article going on the main page was held?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See Today's featured article. "The articles appearing on the main page are scheduled by Raul654, who was ratified in 2004 as featured article director, or his delegate Dabomb87". This article was listed inclusion for all to see on 26 January. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: doktorb's concern: isn't a demonstration that Wikipedia (where appropriate) can educate and inform about popular culture in fact likely to attract new editors? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it will attract new editors. Not the kind we want, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

When you say "not the kind [of editors] we want", do you refer to vandals or people interested (in good faith) in creating articles relating to "low culture" (as some might see the South Park article)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) When you say "not the kind we want", do you mean those who may be interested in reading or writing high quality, balanced, professional-standard articles about pop culture for this encyclopedia, or do you mean some other category of editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So much for "the encyclopedia anybody can edit. Sounds like the tagline should become "the encyclopedia only the editors who are welcome can edit". Perhaps it's about time inroads into getting experts here instead of making them unwelcome by Randy from Boise. It's no wonder prospective editors are confused as to whether or not they should be editing. If Wikipedia were silver it would be so very, very tarnished. :The Hedonist (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For Jimbo, re "not the kind we want". It seems to me that your statement is in direct contrast to student recruiting efforts made by the WMF, via the WP:USEP, particularly in light of User:Wadewitz's statement about this article that she wrote and her university students. If you're not aware, Wadewitz was formerly Awadewit, she's a professor and English PhD, and if you attend Wikimania events, you may know her personally. Perhaps you can explain to her, in light of her comment, why we don't want her students, at the same time you can help me understand why WMF wants to recruit students to butcher medical articles? If we don't want Awadewit's literature students and the topics that interest them, why is it that we want psych students making poor edits and spreading inaccurate medical information (a problem that is huge on Wikipedia now because of WMF initiatives like USEP)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that the WMF has been sending out mixed signals for quite a while now. They would like to have a free labor force that produces the encyclopedia they (the WMF) think would attract most donations by appealing to the largest audience including avoiding as much as possible anything remotely controversial. Alas, many editors who are willing to volunteer their time do so because they care deeply about some topic area, and might also be EFF fans rather WSJ-types who expect monetary compensation for their 100% mainstream, customer-driven, businesslike endeavors. Quick test: how many of the FAs on Business and Economics topics would be core topics at a university? I see mostly oddities there: [5]. TANSTAAFL. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

it's an emergency? Ok, my first response when I saw the article was, "Wow, I wasn't expecting to see anal proble on the main page." My second response was, "Ok, it's not what I expected to see, but there are other issues that others do not expect to see." I mean seriously, it's gonna be there for a day... less than that now. Next week we might have an article on a serial killer, the week after that a controversial author, the week after that a saint. Are some offended? Yeah, but guess what we can't stop somebody from being offended. If we limited it to only articles that were devoid of being able to offend, then we'd be in serious trouble.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Jimbo, now the dust has settled, could you respond the queries please, in particular with reference to your "not the kind we want" statement? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Both cited works are essentially forms of trolling. They might be entertaining to some people, but probably they are not really good choices for the main page. We should feature topics of broad interest. A topic that 50% of people like, and 50% of people find offensive is probably not a good candidate for the home page. There is also a question of giving undue weight to pop culture in general and troll memes in specific. Probably there should be a discussion around main page content policy and setting some targets for how often (if ever) we want to feature troll memes, and how often we want to feature pop culture. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

These are good points, and it's good to see sensible comments regarding this issue. Nevertheless, how many articles like the cartoon appear on the main page in a year? Wikipedia is a sitting duck for puerility, but a small amount of dubious material is surely not a problem? A case could be made that the anal probe cartoon provides a service to society by mocking the "I was abducted by aliens" crowd, although some find the treatment puerile and offensive. However, Southpark is seen in many countries of the world, so a brief exposure on the main page seems due. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't really answer the question (perhaps neither of you read the text?), and I wanted to hear from Jimbo directly. We have a top-notch featured article which is very well written about a niche subject and Jimbo says it will attract editors of the "not the kind we want" type. I want to understand what type of editors Jimbo does want here – ones that just write the traditional paper encyclopaedia articles or ones that embrace all manner of genres? Perhaps I've missed the point of this encyclopaedia? ... Still waiting for a response to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would still appreciate an explanation to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Puerility

Puerility is a substantial problem on Wikipedia. And this is yet more evidence thereof. Collect (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia has broad coverage, including popular culture. South Park is a significant cultural influence. Of course, we should not only have articles on such topics, but looking at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2012, I see three historical biographies, one geography article, one astronomy article, one sports article, one historical article, and two that are popular culture (Cartman and a computer game article) . Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2012 seems to have an even more "traditional" mix. If we have a bias, it's towards dead white males, not towards "puerile" pop-culture articles. "A few months" gives us room for ~100-200 featured articles, and any reasonably diverse mix will have a few article someone finds objectionable. WP:NOTCENSORED is indeed a concern here. If it has to have any value, it has to mean that we do not only tolerate a wide variety of topics, but we give it adequate prominence, too. "No, gays are not banned from the pub. They can go and into the small dark room in the basement to drink their beer." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the article, as a whole, is notable as the pilot to the entire series (award-winning, watched by kids [hopefully in its censored version] and adults alone), and is well-descriptive of the subject. The show is a mockery of so many things in "human life", that it actually has "lessons" applicable to kids, adults, etc - if you choose to hear them. Yes, South Park has occasionally run afoul of the censors ... and to be honest, I would rather see Janet Jackson's boob on TV than Cartman. However, Janet's boob was an international TV incident; South Park is just TV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Janet was two incidents - one in the US, where the prudes slow-motioned every square millimeter of breast forwards and back to extract the maximum amount of righteous titillationindignation, and a separate one in the rest of the world, commenting on the weirdness of the US reaction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, Stefan I respect your intelligence, but not, I beg you, another Americans are all prudes statement. I'm from LA, California (home of the rich, flashy movie star) and if you happened to encounter me when I'm in a good humour my vocabulary would likely shock you as it typically does all the sophisticated Europeans who are lucky enough to receive an earful. When I'm in a foul mood....ah, better not get into that. I will say, however, that in many countries where a tiresome procession of bare titties, pubic hair, and floppy cocks regularly appear on television screens, you will often find that women and gays experience a higher rate of repression and physical violence than in puritan USA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that Americans are all prudes, only that the Superbowl incident was lovingly expatiated by (some) American prudes. No comment on the second half of your statement - I've not looked at any such studies, and I suspect there are more complex connections than a simple correlation of bare skin on TV and bigoted behavior on the street. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the Superbowl and the curious things people overreact to, this image is oddly appropriate right now. (Parental advisory: Image is M.I.A. related) Resolute 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Was the statement that "South Park is a significant cultural influence" meant to disprove Collect's statement that "Puerility is a substantial problem on Wikipedia"? --JN466 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be the people's encyclopedia, accurately reflecting all of society - the puerile, the erudite, the noble and the reprehensible, each neatly filed away with enough explanation to provide a useful guide to the researchers of present and future generations. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, the Weekly World News. I do not think that is something to emulate. Collect (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But I'm glad we have an article about it. And I'm proud we have an article Bat Boy (character) -yes, it is sourced to the Weekly World News! Anthropology is too important to leave to the anthropologists; everything can be a source when it is used for the right purpose. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not censored

I am going to stay out of debating whether it was sensible to mainpage this particular article, but I will point out that treating "WP:NOTCENSORED" as the be-all and end-all of a discussion on the issue, as a couple of commenters in this thread have done, is very poor reasoning. As I observed in a recent arbitration decision:

"The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content.... A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe y'all who dislike Cartman and his anal probe could work on a more serious and academic topic, such as anal cancer, and get that featured on the main page. The featured article coordinator needs material to work with: every featured article gets it's day in the sunshine. Generate other types of featured articles if you don't like South Park. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's anal, eh? --JN466 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians are famously anal retentive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

... and I have reviewed enough unblock requests that forcefully suggest that Admins are "assholes", so, meh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

TFAR is that-a-way

• Focusing on the Main Page selection process: Should the process be changed to link more articles which better reflect the pageviews of the readership, rather than whatever article has been made ready at the time? As I note above, interest in "The Hunger Games" has been very high. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, as always on Wikipedia, talk is cheap, and facts are in short supply. WP:TFA/R is where mainpage TFA requests are made. Raul set it up and turned it over to the community, and has given increasingly greater control to the community in choosing TFAs. What has the community done with that increasing responsibility? Ignored it, misused it, not updated it, not cared, not submitted requests, not looked at the page, not followed instructions, you name it. Oh yes, complaining on the mainpage is more fun that actually going over there and lodging a request, or helping keep the page updated. What do you mean, Wikid, "should the process be changed"? How about, "should those editors lodging complaints start actually using the process"? If no request is made, Raul chooses. Most dates are never requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the last controversial mainpage FA (Human Caterpillar) was closed with a comment that future potentially offensive choices should/would be called to the attention of the broader community besides TFA/R before appearing (don't remember what the link is, but it's resurfaced somewhere in the south park-related discussions - can someone find it?). Clearly this was not done. I'm not sure where the process failure was. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no process failure. There is an entire community that doesn't avail itself of the page where TFA requests are made, and then whines after doing nothing to help in the choices. And you assume that The Human Centipede equates to SouthPark? Those are individual standards. It's also astounding that one of Wikipedia's finest literature editors is the person with the most edits to that article, and she is being so disrespected in these discussions. Anyone aware of how much Wadewitz (talk · contribs) has done on the Wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Most editors do not have time to watch every process page in the entire encyclopedia. How is it so outrageous to request that potentially problematic choices be more widely publicized? I even had watchlisted TFA/R, but I ended up unwatching it as it was generally quiet and I believed--given the outcome of the Human Centipede discussion--that I would come across any other potentially problematic articles in another forum. I also did not say this article and Human Centipede were equivalent. I think that Human Centipede was a worse choice, but it's pretty common-sense that anything involving an "ass probe" might cause trouble. (And I have said absolutely nothing with regard to the quality of the article itself, so I don't know how I could have maligned its principal editor. I'm just saying that not all articles are necessarily appropriate choices for the main page--wholly apart from their intrinsic quality in terms of the featured article criteria. The editor is totally irrelevant to this discussion.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently your "common sense" is at odds with A Wadewitz's PhD in literature, and her contributions to the Project, not limited to mulitple literature FAs. Go figure! Some "pop culture" debacle, huh? Awadewit has written more than 30 FAs, but because some editors can't be bothered to avail themselves of the page where TFAs are chosen, we're not supposed to highlight her work because some parents who don't supervise the time their children spend on the internet might be offended, when this Project hosts massive amounts of porn that is offensive to even adults? Please, perspective. Any parent whose child is on Wikipedia needs a talking-to by an adult. Cartman is not offensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia nobody wants to disrespect Wadewitz or you or any of the other editors who do all this fine work. All we're asking is that if there's an article that's portentially problematical or controversial could we please have a well-advertised RfC on it before it appears on the main page?

I understand that you are feeling defensive right now and that's understandable, but I'd like to get clear answer to this is question: in future, before a potentially problematical article is made the main page featured article, will we first have a well-advertised RfC, or not?. A simple Yes or No will clarify. Which is it, Yes or No? Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Defensive? Please explain; what connection have I to TFA? (Hint: none.) "Potentially problematical article" defined by whom? You? I never would have known that Cartman might offend, so who is going to call for that RFC? My example of what I consider the most disgusting article we ever put on the mainpage was when we ran a missing/dead girl's article on her birthday, containing unnecessary offensive remarks about her mother (the main author said he would change the date away from her birthday, I backed down, then he didn't change the date-- in my version, TFA was tricked-- the author disagrees, but I digress). IMO, it was tasteless to do that to the girl's mother on her missing/dead daughter's 21st birthday. Far more tasteless than anything related to SouthPark. Sure, you want an RFC on something that every editor is offended by, good luck defining that, since everyone's level of offense is different, and that dead girl's article would have been included according to my judgment, and many other editors I know. Who draws the line? Who makes the call? Who asks for the RFC? Who knows what will offend you, me, or the next guy? Particularly when the community has a forum for choosing TFAs (WP:TFAR) which it ignores in droves.

Furthermore, Cartman was scheduled on Jan 26-- folks had almost a full two weeks to speak up if they had an issue! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Editor says "potentially problematical article" - - - > it clearly translates as "I think this article is offensive to someone" - - - > editor is pointed to WP:NOTCENSORED. If people want wikipedia to censor offensive content, they have to start by changing basic policy.

Also, what Newyorkbrad and Jehochman say in the previous section. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating good taste with censorship. It is poor taste, I think, speaking as someone who's only read the lede, to put The Human Centipede (First Sequence) on the front page. Avoiding that sort of thing is not censorship. It is good taste. WP:NOTCENSORED does not compel us to abandon good taste.

There is nothing wrong with Cartman Gets an Anal Probe appearing on the main page. It is an excellent account of an important cultural event, and I congratulate those responsible. As for the suggestion that controversial articles should go through RfC before appearing on the main page, no. I see no evidence of a systemic problem; and without such evidence this would be an insult to the hard-working editors at WP:TFA/R. If you think your view isn't being represented in the choices made there, put it on your watchlist. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to note, just for the discussion about process, that this was never listed at TFA/R. (It was simply scheduled.) The only way anyone interested would have seen this would be to monitor every upcoming FA blurb. In my view, it would be a big improvement if this were more transparent and centralized (if there is a page that just lists all the schedulings/proposals in one place as they occur, please let me know and I will watchlist it). And I don't think that a full-blown RFC for every single thing like this is necessarily called for, but it would be nice for there to be the possibility of discussion before it's already TFA and a foregone conclusion because it's not bad enough to pull. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be a page where all scheduled TFAs are listed. The obvious place seems to be Wikipedia:Today's featured article where tomorrow's FA is detailed. The schedule is listed on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2012 but that will fall off watchlists on March 1. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have opined elsewhere: I support having these articles on the main page. Regardless of the vulgarity of the topics, they are there because they're examples of our finest work. The very concept of a "featured" article which can never actually be featured would undercut the incentives that support the improvement of these articles. Moreover, I believe popular culture topics like these are just as important and relevant to society as more traditional academic topics, often having a remarkably widespread influence on politics and the arts; Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, for example, launched a series that redefined adult animated programming and has been in the news dozens of times. Dcoetzee 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

While the "vote" is currently running about 10 to 1 against a shake-up of the current Today's Featured Article selection process, today we've had two FAs on the Main Page, the first one partly plagiarized and the second one with dead links. This after Tuesday's "anal probe" article was selected without any prior input from the community re its suitability for the Main Page. Why so many are interested in preserving the selection prerogatives of someone who within the past week accused Wiki bureaucrat Matthew Bisanz of being a party to some sort of ArbCom conspiracy is unclear to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And the person believed responsible for that plagiarism is part of that "1". Just sayin'. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I second SandyGeorgia here. I was going to propose something like TFAR in that vote ... until I found out it exists! Maybe what you need to publicize isn't "controversial" articles, but TFAR? What that last comment demonstrates is that there are worse things we can have on Wikipedia than the (horrors!) titles of cable TV shows. It is true that NOTCENSORED doesn't apply when editors freely make decisions of taste among worthy candidates to showcase on the Main Page; people have the right to prefer whatever article they want for TFA according to their own aesthetic choices and values. (Much as racial and religious civil rights don't protect Presidential candidates) But I truly hope that the overall balance of editors will favor a Wikipedia that is not ashamed of the common man and his entertainments. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the entertainments of the "common man" of wikipedia doesn't match those of the common (hu)man of the rest of the world. Consider that perhaps the percentage of the worlds population that finds Cartman's anal probes to be entertaining may no be as great as that topics representation on wikipedia suggests. The frontpage is for the world - not just for wikipedia editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas we have no way of knowing what "the world" thinks of this TFA choice unless the WMF conducts a proper readership survey. What we do know is that some editors think the BSA standards should apply to Wikipedia. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids you'll find at the supermarket checkout are the least "ashamed of the of the common man and his entertainments" but why should Wikipedia cater to this market in particular?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to have an article about tabloids based on academic sources. That's not the same as Wikipedia being a tabloid. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you know, look. If there's an question about material, whether it's promoting an article to the main page or adding a source or external link or other material to an article, or whatever, there's a couple attitudes one can take:

• I don't think that this material is a problem for me.
• I don't think that this material is a problem for anyone. I an not capable of understanding why a sane person could have a problem with this material.

If it's the latter, all I can say is, you had better be right, because the Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. But if a bunch of people contest the material, then that's probably a pretty good sign that you're not right. So this is useful information, and a good opportunity to refine your understanding of what sane people do and do not find troublesome. This is a useful skill that can carry over into your future editing and into real life as well. But if this makes no impression on you, and you're not able to learn any criteria beyond "it's OK with me" then this is not a good sign. And that's all I'm saying. I asked that the posting of potentially problematical articles on the main page be opened to wider discussion. The reply from several editors was basically "No". Whether this is just wilfulness or indicates a lack the ability to understand what other people might find potentially problematical I'm not sure, but in either case it's troubling, and if it represents the stance of the people actually responsible for what goes on the main page, that's not good. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I said "no" because your proposal seemed to be missing a step. At the moment there is, to my limited understanding, no page that we can put on out watchlists to keep an eye on what's scheduled for the front page. The schedule is listed on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2012 but that will fall off watchlists on March 1st. If Raul or someone could arrange for scheduled TFAs to be listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article as they're scheduled, interested editors could put that on their watchlist and the current schedule would then stay on their watchlists. Perhaps there could be a "discuss?" link from that list to WP:TFA/R.

Any issues with scheduled articles that are not resolved by discussion at WP:TFA/R could of course be put to an RfC. But the first thing would be to have more eyes on what's coming up, and that involves having one permanent page listing upcoming TFAs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe Desantis

Not sure whether this crosses the line, but Joe Desantis has been lobbying other editors to do his work for him outside of article talk pages. See where he posts on user talk pages [6]. And there are signs of meat puppetry at his behest [7] Mattnad (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joedesantis's talk page comments are simply suggestions. He isn't applying pressure, making threats, or offering money. I don't believe that Kenatipo should be characterized as a "meatpuppet". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't either. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

perhaps, but he has made repeated requests on user pages. and user Kenatipo seems to be leading in his follow through and cites the wishes of mr. Desantis as a justification. Mattnad (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mattnad, in light of your fascination with Joe DeSantis, and due to my remorse at deleting the paragraph about Joe D that you inserted in the Callista Gingrich article (I'm an inclusionist), I've started an article titled "Joe DeSantis (communications director)" where I've put your content that I deleted. With your permission, I'll copy the stub to your talk page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

FORUMSHOPPING? This has been iterated on this user talk page, on article talk pages, noticeboards etc. With the exact same result every time - JDeSantis has operated within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and trying to toss mud at him does not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikistalk much?Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WTH? I think you likely need to read up on what "stalking" is - and you should note that I have written on this page at least twice before over the years <g> and have it on my watchlist of way over two thousand pages. Cheers - and try not to make such absurd attacks on others. Collect (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While I think it is good to keep a close eye on Joe DeSantis - the media will be watching his every edit, I am sure - at least to date I have not heard anything particularly alarming. He did make direct article edits in the distant past, until he was cautioned against it. Lately he's been following what I consider to be best practice (and what I think should be firmer in policy): he's openly identified his affiliation and he's interacting with the community directly and respectfully, but he's completely avoiding article space edits.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, although I wholly appreciate the way he's editing (talkpages only, gaining consensus, etc), and that he has declared his WP:COI, I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that someone actually recommended that he promote his candidate in his signature on all of those talkpage comments! There has to be a better way than leaving campaign signs everywhere he goes ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "Communications Director, Gingrich 2012" allow users to know who he is? Doesn't it allow for greater transparency? It doesn't say "Vote for Gingrich." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Suarez! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, quite clearly. However, I disagree that it's the best method for transparency because it does, indeed, advertise the candidate. Don't get me wrong - I'm Canadian and have no dog in the fight. Can an editor spam the name of their company across Wikipedia using their signature for the sake of "transparency"? Hell no! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was the people complaining about DeSantis that wanted him to declare his affiliation in his signature, so that it would be automatically disclosed with every Talk page comment he made. "Vote for Gingrich" would be advertising but his signature does not say anything like that.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Joe isn't spamming the Gingrich name across Wikipedia; he's only editing on Gingrich-related talk pages. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, although Joe's signature may appear promotional, it is not being used in a promotional ("spamming") way, but only to increase transparency and avoid COI. And, even if it is a technical violation, Joe should be given an exemption in light of his editing practices (as commended by Jimbo). --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@BWilkins: I recommend going to User_talk:Joedesantis and posting your concerns there. Complaining here isn't going to change Joedesantis' signature. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus of top editors from Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo, I think the number of high-quality editors who are leaving the project is alarming to say the least and the problem should be addressed ASAP. I am talking about content-contributors, those who create interesting, informative articles on a variety of subjects, expand the stubs and starts, and promote pages to GA and FAC class - these are the people who are getting fed up and throwing in the towel. When the engine starts to smoke is the time to look under the bonnet/hood, not when the car breaks down. Something needs to be done.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't repeat that which everyone knows I'm still gunning for, but I'll say for starters that shunting IEP editors off to other wikis, where they could be much more useful, would go a long way; many of us are still feeling the aftershock of it, and it certainly helped demoralize many of our best editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "IEP"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IEP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also relevant reading is Wikipedia:India Education Program/Analysis/Independent Report from Tory Read and the associated talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As yes, of course, WP:IEP. Can you tell me how that debacle (which of course it was!) was 'demoralizing' to "many" of our best editors? Who in particular feels demoralized by it? It was a well-meaning pilot project that clearly didn't work out, so that's not good. But I would imagine that our best editors would welcome such projects and be excited about the opportunity to try (and fail, sometimes) to bring in new editors. That the Foundation acknowledges, quite plainly, that it didn't work, strikes me as the opposite of demoralizing. I'm asking my questions in a serious quest for more information, by the way, as opposed to doubting your claims and wanting proof!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you've ever interacted with Kudpung, but I've been talking with him a lot off-wiki, and he's extremely frustrated at how this has all worked out. He's dramatically scaled back his participation largely because of it. There are also a lot of comments a WT:IEP that would indicate a dramatically rising level of discontent as it gets closer to the present. Andy Dingley and Danger are two names you'll see a lot there besides Kudpung and I. And though I'm only one person, I'll speak for myself in saying that it's caused me to move into different places and almost stop NPP altogether; that's more or less what happened I the wider community. During it, we got the backlog of pages down to 10 days because we had to try to keep the copyvios out; now that it's over, people don't want to do it anymore, so the backlog is around 30 days. Those are demonstrative, though not exhaustive; do e-mail Kudpung, who's far more knowledgeable than I, and he can confirm what I'm saying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask Kudpung to join us here. Can you tell me more about the impact on NPP (I assume that means New Pages Patrol, I apologize but there are too many acronyms around here!) of the India Education Project? Was it really significant in numeric terms?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I know little about the NPP backlog, but while I was tackling copyright issues, I began looking through various users taking part in said program, and found a number of copyright issues far higher than should be on the site, let alone coming out of a program to bring in editors. It took me some time to return to tackling copyright violations, and it made me wonder if there is in fact a cost to bringing in new editors. If bringing them in is scaring away top-notch editors that are difficult to replace (I've seen multiple leave just in the past few days), then that's a major problem. Content editors are actually fairly stable; it's the people handling the behind-the-scenes tasks that are not being replaced at a proper rate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also remember that at the time, CorenSearchBot was down, which made our job that much more difficult to handle over 1000 students posting copyvios. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation is closely monitoring editor counts and so forth. I have to tell you, people throughout the history of the project have come to my talk page in alarm over precisely this issue - going back for so many years I can't remember. Usually it's because one or two people they actually know are drifting away, while other contributors are coming on board. People come and go, that isn't a problem.

The best analysis we have to date suggests the following 3 main facts:

1. The number of people as a percentage of readership clicking edit for the first time is stable. We also know that we can increase this number at any time, basically by metaphorically or literally "making the edit button bigger". We could run a banner campaign to get more contributors, and it would bring in a huge influx of newbie editors.

2. The attrition rate of highly experienced editors is stable. It's natural that some people will be committed Wikipedians for life, but that others will have it as a hobby for a few years and then move on to other things. Or to come and go throughout life as personal circumstances dictate.

3. The rate of people who make it from their 2nd edit to their 99th edit is lower than it was in the past. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Now, what you are suggesting is more precise than any of these things. You are suggesting that within (2), the editors who do more admin tasks may be sticking around, but the editors who get pages to GA/FAC standing are leaving. That's of great interest, but I know of no actual statistics showing that it is true. Can you help me think of a way how we might measure that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way would be to compare the number of articles that are both nominated and passed at each process over time. I'm sure there are such reports out there already, just not sure where, atm. Resolute 17:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, here we go: Wikipedia:Good article statistics. Note that the large bump in GA promotions in January and April 2011 were the result of backlog elimination drives. Overall, the growth rate of GAs is stable, but FAs has dropped slightly. I can think of any number of reasons for that. Resolute 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We desperately need a reliable way to profile editors: sort the vandal-fighters from the page formatters from the dablink fixers from the FA builders from the POV-pushing wackjobs. Until we can identify our users, we can't truly understand our problems, let alone fix them. Since we have all editing history - including deleted edits, very important - a reasonable profiling program can be written, but it would be a huge task. Still, if you want to do something about Wikipedia's future beyond incessant hand-wringing, the first step is to know thyself. --JaGa^talk 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Jimmy is talking about "experienced editors" (based on number of edits) and others are talking about "top editors" and "high-quality editors". Most of us can spot the flaw in the inference that they're the same. There are none so blind as those who will not see. 75.59.206.144 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I specifically acknowledged and discussed the difference between the two, so please take your insults elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not. Neither did I insult you. Why do you always try to pick a fight whenever any Wikipedian points out a serious concern? 75.59.206.144 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A general reminder of the distinction is helpful nonetheless.

Concerning Resolute's comment, I would draw attention to the graphs at WP:GAS, in particular the averaged monthly growth rates. Contrary to the notion of a decline or static growth, growth at GA has generally been increasing. (The graph is slightly difficult to interpret because of GA Sweeps, which accounts for the distortion from c. 2008 to mid 2010.)

On a third note, I believe a contributing factor to issue 3 is the maturing of the encyclopedia: first, there is not so much in the way of easy editing to be done; secondly, wider readership means more first time edits and more small corrections by those who don't intend to make a substantial contribution. Geometry guy 20:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Wikipedia already has articles on the vast majority of topics that the vast majority of people care about. Often those articles are pretty good. So what's left is the dusting and polishing, maybe filling in the odd empty space here and there. Those sorts of things can be done by any passerby who feels the urge. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you (as you agree with me), but I would not say our articles on topics that people care about are "often pretty good": rather, they are tolerable, and improving them from tolerable to pretty good is no easy task. Some are pretty good, and a few are excellent, but broadly speaking, content has been improved to the extent that has been relatively easy to achieve, no more, no less. That means that further substantial improvement (beyond minor fixes to poor articles, or polishing good ones) requires much more commitment. Geometry guy 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, often dusting and polishing requires a doubling of article size and reffing around 3/4s of an article. I do see this as a focus though. I tend to see large/broad articles staying pretty static unless the subject of a GA/FA focus/improvement. I'm happy about GA's pace, but have become a little concerned in the past few weeks about a certain quietness and drop-offs in areas I'd not seen before - FA reviews, TFA requests, DYK reviews and loading, voting in arb elections, RfAs etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• What we need is a drama-reduction device.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• It is misleading to just look at the raw count of editors who don't make it from their first edit to the 99th. You need to filter out vandals and spammers both of whom have become more common over the years. We are very effective at dealing with both, especially the vandals before they achieve 99 edits. I suspect that the proportion of goodfaith editors who survive 99 edits is lower than it once was, but am not sure how much decline is because those readers who will fix a typo or revert vandalism when they spot it are just not finding as many problems, or whether it is our increasing standards driving away those who can't or won't cite their sources. As for whether our heavy content contributors are more likely to leave than admins, I think it would be worth looking at. I've looked at retention in two other groups of editors: We rarely lose our very high edit count editors. Looking at Wikipedia:EDITS, of the 200 highest edit counts, 20 are currently inactive - plus some but by no means all of the ten who have opted out of those stats. 170 at least are still active. By contrast I did some calculations on admin retention just over a year ago:

User:WereSpielChequers/WikiGenerations

Admins by wikigeneration

Aug 2010/Jan 2011 study	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	Totals
Year admins created their accounts or started editing	32	109	223	404	481	326	115	43	13	0	0			1746
Year active admins started editing	9	30	60	145	221	183	69	35	12	0	0			764
Admins still active (Aug 2010/Jan 2011) %	28.1%	27.5%	26.9%	35.9%	46%	55.1%	60%	81.4%	92.3%					43.8%

  2001/2 (7%)

  2003 (9%)

  2004 (19%)

  2005 (26%)

  2006 (24%)

  2007 (9%)

  2008 (4%)

  2009 (2%)

  2010/11 (1%)

Admins are much less likely to stick around than prolific editors, but as a group they are still fairly stable by Internet standards - most of the admins who started editing in 2006 were still active at the start of 2011. I may update those figures, we've had another 54 new admins since then. But that won't change the broad message; Admins generally stick around for several years. A large majority of our current admins made their first edit more than five years ago. It would be interesting to do something similar for FA/GA writers. Whether the problems at RFA are contributing to our overall editor retention problem is also an area worth looking at, certainly there have been some editors leave when they realise they can't become admins. ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Can you help me think of a way how we might measure that?" - If one wants to track content creators, one needs to start tracking content creators. Instead of measuring a raw edit count, which counts gnome copyediting and writing equally, start tabulating number of characters added to mainspace by editor. Every single edit generates a delta number for the change in article size already, we can see this on recent changes or in the history. And we know that mainspace edits can be extracted from the whole via the pie graphs of "edit count." The sum of characters added in mainspace edits will identify the content creators. (A person writing a full 10,000 character piece and pasting it into mainspace in one chunk would thus score the same as someone using 50 small edits to get to 10,000 characters — some writers prefer to work one way and some the other). Carrite (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further: I speculate the demographics of content writers are significantly different than those working in quality control functions or in copy editing... I'm betting they are few in number, significantly older than the average age, and have a stable attrition rate. Carrite (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Characters added is also misleading, some of the templates added by Twinkle are pretty large, and as for vandalfighters who rollback editors who replace whole articles with a 4 letter word..... Better in my view to measure the proportion of FA and GA writers who are still around. Should be fairly easy to do as well if anyone has a spare day. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, analysis of success navigating the GA/FA bureaucracy doesn't measure content writing, it measure participation in the GA/FA bureaucracy. Vandal fighters are not content creators and content creators do not generally roll back vandals. As for large Twinkle templates, that has nothing to do with content creation either. Perhaps there is a mechanism to toss those — although I doubt very much that those are placed in mainspace, rather than in User-Talk, etc. Again: if you really care about analysing the dynamics of the content creator population, start tracking them — and the metric is characters added to mainspace. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I see on the rolling back vandals thing. Yes, undoing page blanking would mess up the metric. Hmmm. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo you might want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#An_overall_concern_about_AN_and_ANI if someone hasn't forwarded that on to you already, Newyorkbrad really has a point there

One of your most long-serving administrators has also been having some good discussions too — As I said the problem of abusive administrators seems to be evening out as more people get recruited it acts a balance against any one group being able to take control like they used to be able to, these days the problem seems to be less the old problem of administrators acting on whims - who have mostly passed a kind of maturity check - since there are now more that decisions are more likely to have to be made as a group, but the overall culture reflects human nature/internet culture as a whole (also [8][9] but I am sure you are probably familiar with that idea already) rather than what you want it to be, there is a general feeling that people can get away with being nasty to people as long as it's not made directly but in snipes and repeated insults small enough to get away with but enough to try push people and make them scared of not fightng back, WP:BATTLEGROUND is policy but as many people have said recently the problem is it is not enforced and for many people it has become a hypercompetitive macho environment of who can put down competitors and get away with it, a WP:GAME

There has been a big discussion started on the talk page of WP:AN: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#AN.2FANI_reform:_Alternate_proposal_.232 I think this could be a major step towards making the culture less hypercompetitive and hostile if WP:CIVILITY was enforced, hostility breeds hostility and it's an endless circle, I remember when I was new I got into arguments and the continual one-upping because that is what the culture is like, as people commented on Newyorkbrad's post there is no one person to blame, but something needs to be done - especially if you want to start getting serious about changing the gender divide About 9 people in the entire of last year joined WikiProject Gender studies[10], now compare that to... this :/

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The exodus of good editors is also connected with the other threads on this page about content. People often join Wikipedia and create good content. Then they discover that WP:NOTCENSORED is used to defend the seediness, that a trustee of one of its charitable arms uploaded bondage pictures of himself, complains about being victimised when they are pointed out but doesn't give a fuck about the privacy concerns of women sex workers. Jimbo, you have to decide whether you want to keep those who defend the seediness or those who are driven away by it.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that editors leave because they object to a few articles illustrating bondage techniques. I think they leave because they repeatedly find out that somebody reverted everything they wrote based on a bogus interpretation of policy.

Note that the "privacy concerns of women sex workers" you're talking about is simply someone taking a photo of a public street to illustrate the article. I remember back in the 1980s when people made fun of the Soviet Union because they tried to keep tourists from taking photos of areas of their cities that they found embarrassing. Of course, nowadays, it seems like most countries believe the Soviet Union was right about just about everything, apart from the economic equality stuff. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Domain change?

I think you should read this: No, Wikipedia has not forgiven GoDaddy for backing SOPA

The Reddit comment does seem to be rather striking and a good point, "I gave them $20 so they can move. I'll be asking a refund I guess."

A lot of people on the net at large did donate to Wikipedia because of the statement that we would be moving away from GoDaddy. Is this still happening? Is there some sort of time frame, or at least a guess, for when it will be completed? I can fully understand that it's something that would take some time. Silverseren^C 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's still happening. These things take time. A lot of the people complaining haven't really thought through the complexities of the whole thing. I am told that a final resolution of this is not far off. Just as an FYI, I don't really appreciate such speculation as "the Wikimedia Foundation essentially lied to a lot of people" - that's totally uncalled for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That was only if it wasn't happening. If it's still on, then everything's fine. You might want to put out a tentative schedule though so people aren't left to assumption. Silverseren^C 04:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is that even raising such a hypothetical was a failure to assume good faith. It's the kind of negativity I expect from random people on twitter, but from people who know our track record, it's disappointing to even raise as a hypothetical. Think how demoralizing it must be for people at the Foundation to read things like that. I don't have a schedule, I'm not directly involved with it. Nor do I think it wise to always ask people at the Foundation to spend time coming up with a precise schedule for work like this - the value is very low, other than appeasing people who, "left to assumption" prefer to assume the worst.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of fact, dependent on what was going on. If the move wasn't happening, then the statement that it would is false. That seems petty straightforward to me. But, since the move is still happening, then the prior statement by the Foundation is true and we can move on.

Also, I said a tentative schedule, not a "precise" one. Like, perhaps, a guess on how many months it will be? I'm sure there's someone you can ask about it. Silverseren^C 05:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe there will be a blog post soon. I'm really sorry you aren't hearing what I am saying about speculating about dishonesty. It's a disappointment that you can't simply apologize for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I wasn't speculating anything, I was asking you a question. And, thanks, just wanted to know about it. Silverseren^C 06:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm really sorry you aren't hearing what I'm saying. Here is what asking a question looks like: "Hey, you said your wife would be at church this morning, but she isn't here yet. Is everything ok?" And here's obnoxious speculation: "Hey, you said your wife would be at church this morning, if she doesn't show up, you essentially lied." Given that there is no reason at all for you or anyone else to think that the Foundation lied about this, it was frankly absurd and obnoxious for you to even bring it up in this totally out of context way. I hope this is helpful to you in understanding what I am objecting to.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That did, actually. I've removed that part. Sorry for wording it that way. Silverseren^C 16:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you know what? I really appreciate that. I really do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was making negative speculation, I thought I was just doing an if-and scenario, but I fully understand how it could and was taken negatively. Sorry again. And i'm glad that plans are still going forward for the GoDaddy move. Hopefully some of the people from Reddit see this conversation and tone down their impatience a bit. Silverseren^C 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please help decide what to do

If you go right now to the Albany Times Union website, you see that they plan to run yet another exposé on NXIVM and Keith Raniere tomorrow, Sunday, 12 Feb 1212. It is one of many that they have run, not to mention those in many other publications including Forbes, Vanity Fair, the Village Voice and many, many more. When it comes out, will you please read it and decide whether we should leave that article's information out of our articles? As you may remember, you recomended that I not edit the article because I have had a subscription to the local paper and have been reading articles about him and it there for decades, leaving me with the emotions any person with such a background would have, including great concern or alarm. As I've said before, all we want is for someone to transfer the important information from the WP:RSes to the articles so that people will know what the sorces say instead of cherry picking a few facts here and there that and letting the fans spin the articles as they wish. Everything we need is just sitting there on the talk page, ready to go or get ready quickly. Others think this is a bad idea in this case, seemingly you. When the new information comes out, what should we do with it? They basically own both articles now and have been "getting away with murder" so to speak if you know the common English expression, since I stopped editing it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I never said that you should not edit the article because you "have had a subscription to the local paper" etc. That's a total misrepresentation. Who are the "they" whom you think "own both articles"? Can you name specific editors who have exhibited problematic anti-NPOV editing tendencies?

What I want here is the only thing that I ever want: a good, solid, well-sourced NPOV article. I haven't reviewed these articles in some time, but I will try to do so in a few days. Please post a link here to the news story when it comes out, I'll gladly read it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are right, you never said I shouldn't edit it simply because I read the paper. That'd've been absurd. You said I probably shouldn't because I have such negative feelings about him and it. But those are the feelings that come with reading the local paper, not to mention all the other WP:RSes on the talk page of his article. They cause negative impressions, and I have no other sources of information. So I feel the way I do, and you've said people with such feelings rarely write good articles. I think that's a direct quote, I can check. If you familiarize yourself with the WP:RS sources, you will have a similar impression unless you have some other sourse of information.

What you want and what I want is the same thing: good, solid, well-sourced NPOV articles about him and it. I want out of it, and you wouldn't mind that so much I think, if someone else would get involved. What we have are articles largely controlled by a series of increasingly sophisticated similar editors who are clearly getting their information and impressions from something other thant the WP:RS collection on the talk page of his article, not to metion the sources used to cite the article as it stands. I named several of these users here User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Oct#Checkuser_request_for_all_Keith_Raniere_and_NXIVM_editors and the latest and most elaborate is named "Questionable Pulse". You'll notice that when "GoCubs" disappeared QP appeared, just as scholar88 and U21980 before her or him.

I will do as you asked when the article comes out on Sunday. Thank you very much for you kind attention to this matter, I would love to leave this in capable hands. Chrisrus (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will also do as I asked and stop editing these two articles. Someone who has self-identified as a "hater" and made it very clear on multiple occasions that he has passionately negative feelings about the guy really should steer clear. Your editing history sadly reflects that you really should not be editing in this area. Now that you've posted here on my talk page about it, I am sure many good editors will take a look at it. Once you give me the link to the article when it comes out tomorrow, I'll also post on WP:BLPN where there are many good people who work a lot with difficult biographies. I haven't studied the accounts you are talking about yet, but presumably they should be banned if they are sockpuppets, or just as warned as you are if they are single purpose accounts or obvious POV pushers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[Addendum] - after poking around a bit, I found enough reason to at least run a checkuser. I'm not the most proficient user of the tool, but I found enough additional evidence that at least puzzles me such that I am going to pass this along to the checkuser mailing list for someone more experienced to look at.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[Second addendum] - It is also strange and wrong that the Keith Raniere article at the present time contains absolutely no material about criticisms or controversies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood and agreed, but I strongly deny that my "editing history sadly reflects that (I) really should not be editing in this area". I have done nothing in this area that wasn't fair and good, and my editing has been exemplary and within all rules and guidelines. Nevertheless, as I have said, I understand and agree not to edit anything in the NXIVM complex of articles, although I reserve the right to continue work on the WP:RS collections, on his talk page and to point out on talk pages when the articles don't match the sources if it seems necessary. Also, if very egregious things like the current implied threat on NXIVM to bankrupt "apostates" are allowed to stand so long that it becomes clear to me that if I don't act, nothing will be done, I may have to very carefully act if I can't get you all to do so. First of all, Beca Friedman (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Ex-NXIVM-student-I-think-it-s-a-cult-645823.php#media-4173) is not the only "apostate" that does not seem to have been financially or emotionally destroyed for leaving the group but is very happily back with her family; and even if Barbara Bouchey (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Nine-years-with-NXIVM-1636484.php#media-5738) and others have been emotionally and financially destroyed, "Other former members have similarly faced bankruptcy due to litigation after apostasy" seems to me to be a case of them using us to threaten their memebers into not leaving, which is just wrong I am sure you will agree and something will be done about it by others soon enough so there's no need for me to worry that it will be allowed to stand, so thanks again for your kind attention to this matter. I trust you and the others to do the right thing. Over and out. Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As per your request:

This turns out to be a series, the rest of which will come out next weekend. See here: http://blog.timesunion.com/readandreact/1565/secrets-of-nxivm-the-untold-story-of-keith-raniere/.

1. Sunday, Feb. 12: An overview of Raniere and his unusual life.
2. Thursday, Feb. 16: Relentless litigation wrought against NXIVM defectors.
3. Friday, Feb. 17: Raniere’s multilevel-marketing mind.
4. Sunday, Feb. 19: A history of Raniere’s sexual conquests.

Here is today's article: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Secrets-of-NXIVM-2880885.php

Here is a timeline that goes with it: http://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/item/Keith-Raniere-Timeline-8062.php

These are collected here with some other articles that have been last updated today: http://www.timesunion.com/nxivm/ Chrisrus (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

GoDaddy update

I saw an article saying Wikipedia is still with GoDaddy. Could you give us an update? --JaGa^talk 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. — Edokter (talk) — 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks. --JaGa^talk 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos to you...if only some of our administrators would be willing to acknowledge they may have erred or acted too harshly as you did at Silver seren's page, the website would be a far better place...thank you for this example for others to follow!--MONGO 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that when you read it again you'll find there is no such acknowledgment. He acknowledges only a "disagreement" and that they had been "talking past each other". "You took the time to understand in the end what I was saying" places sole blame for the "disagreement" on Silver seren. Writegeist (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, I don't think there is an "blame" to be had for anyone. This is an important cultural point embodied in the principle of "Assume Good Faith" - we will sometimes have disagreements that aren't anyone's fault, particularly when they result from failures to mutually achieve a mental connection. The constant seeking for blame and winners and losers in debate is a poison.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad you have seen fit to clarify that you were not in fact ascribing blame to Silver seren, which was the clear (and apparently unintended) inference I took from the very specific wording of your comments. Writegeist (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And you for yours. Writegeist (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The constant seeking for blame and winners and losers in debate is a poison.

Jimbo Wales, 22:16, 11 February 2012

I completely agree with Jimbo on this matter. Editors are frequently prone to regard an argument as a competition, in which winning the argument is the goal, rather than improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 01:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I saved it too. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I think I may have hit on something interesting and explanatory!

If a group of researchers had been tasked to create a working / hobby environment specifically designed to attract high-functioning autistics, it's hard to see how they could have come up with anything better than Wikipedia! If anyone's curiosity is piqued by this idea, do this test! "normal" people score generally under 20, people with high-level math functions often score in the 20-30 range ... and remember, the autism spectrum isn't a threshold, it's a continuum. As with many things, high-functioning autism isn't a "disorder", it's a difference in thought-methods.

I am personally Wiki-acquainted with at least three people (including myself) who definitely come into this category of thought-processing, and I strongly suspect that a fair few others that I "know" here are in with us. (What one has, one tends to recognise in others.) This, alone, could very well explain some of the dysfunctionality that Wikipedia encounters in the areas of inter-personal, social and communication interactions. I think this is worth considering, and if an anonymous survey could be done on active editors, and it turned out that we do, indeed, have way more than the global-population-normal percentage of high-functioning autistics, that could be mentioned on a page or three for people to bear in mind while they're in here. HFA's can no more help being HFA than tone-deafers or colour-blinders can help it, or change it, but it might be possible to educate the entire community in ways of working around it, to be more tolerant of some kinds of conflict. Kinda "Remember the person you're talking to could quite possibly be an autism-spectrum genius, and therefore a bit different from most people you'd meet at school or the pub. Try hard not to discriminate against them for something they maybe can't do much about." Pesky (talk…stalk!) 10:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and more generally is it trite (or perhaps pompously convoluted) to suggest remembering that other users are indeed human beings, and as such may have a wide variety of personality traits, including autistic features? My 2 thenth, MistyMorn (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a very sensible comment; we're all human, with all our human fallibilities and strengths and weaknesses, and feelings, too. Sometimes we expect people to be consistently better-than-human, instead of just "species-normal". Pesky (talk…stalk!) 13:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pesky may well have something here. My concern is that, if there is a high preponderance of autistic editors, we may have created a social environment that excludes, or under-values the needs of, neurotypical editors, and may be shaping the content in ways that neurotypical readers find disaffecting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that is absolutely a valid line of thought. Pesky, when you say "it might be possible to educate the entire community in ways of working around it" I think that's valid, but it's also worth keeping in mind that "to be tolerant of some kinds of conflict" might not be the right or only way to "work around it".

Because this is a spectrum issue, rather than an either/or issue, it's also important for us to recognize that we, the "entire community", tend on average to be the kind of people who have difficulty recognizing social cues. That is to say, it isn't necessarily just that neuro-typicals just need to get more comfortable working with HFA colleagues. It's that we need to design our processes and procedures with a recognition that our current distribution of users is atypical, and editor diversity may mean a need to change some of the features of the work environment.

It's a complicated matter! But as I say, this is absolutely a valid line of thought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Having worked professionally with autism spectrum disorders in the past I must say that the same thought has crossed my mind as well (there is a reason the Hurricane project produces more FA's than any other range of topics).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My sister has also worked professionally with autism-spectrum disorders. I'm sure Jimbo is right here, in that we need to take into account that we have an atypical sample of the global population. In the past, when I've put together teams to work on something, I've actually found that having autism-spectrum people onboard makes for a heck of an effective team, provided that other team members can take into account that HFA's do think differently. But if we have a team that can make best use of the high-level skills and talents available here (as well as the kind of obsession and tight focus that can make us HFA's happy to spend hours on end, unpaid, patrolling new pages by the hundreds .... lol!) then we really do have something. To use one of those awful think-positive phrases, but to try and use it realistically, although it may appear to be a challenge, let's not lose sight of the opportunities here. If newbies (and some oldies) just need to know that "The room you've just walked into contains some people who may be a bit weird, but their value outweighs their oddities" in order to be able to work reasonably comfortably alongside us, then we'll have cracked it. 'Nother thing to bear in mind, speaking as an HFA myself, is that we tend to read and hear things in huge details and very literally; sometimes the huge details bogs us down, and sometimes the literalness means we understand things in other ways. Worth while bearing this one in mind when writing policy pages; they have to be written in a way which is piece-of-cake easy for all our editors. Pesky (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Count me also as someone on the spectrum (though I don't even fit in among autistics; I'm PDD-NOS), and it's incredibly obvious that there are a high concentration of us here. I'm not cursed with the literal thinking issues most others on the spectrum are, but I definitely fall into the less socially skilled category. Many of us pursue knowledge for its own sake, so here is a great place to unburden our intellect. Here, people welcome it instead of telling us to fuck off and giving us weird looks on the way out (though most other ASD people wouldn't notice those anyways) when we want to read and write about (to use me as an example) Ainu and Burmese history. Of course, autism also produced this little creep, so it's important to remember it's called a spectrum for a reason; I tried to mentor one aspie a while ago, and she ended up rightly blocked per WP:CIR. So if we want to try getting more ASD types here, it could do a lot of good, but it comes with its fair share of headaches. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking that perhaps one thing that could be done as well could be a page where for ASD identified persons could receive social advice, or get policies explained in ways that take their difficulties into account. Sort of like an FAQ on how to succeed as an aspie on wikipedia using input from other ASD identified editors. Then we could also make an effort to educate neurotypicals on how to handle interpersonal communication with ASD people. I am a linguistic anthropologist by profession now and as I mentioned have some professional experience with both ends of the spectrum - I'd be happy to help in any way I can.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Likewise; I facilitate a support group for people on the spectrum, so I'm all in. Advice from all sides would be a great idea. I'm sure plenty of people would eagerly help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be all in on that one, too; I've been (among other things) a professional instructor in my time, and on the whole I find I get on OK with most people online now (doesn't apply in Real Life, where I'm either detach-isolated and looking snobbishly aloof, or over-compensating and being very intense and not noticing when the other person doesn't happen to have an overwhelming interest in some obscure subject that's temporarily taken over my wiring, lol!) A page where any ASD editor, HFA's, the whole lot, could both help others (specially ASD newbies), and pick up help, and where neurotypicals could learn how best to deal with us, too – that would be cool. Ohhh, and don;t knock the literal-thinking stuff – there's endless humour to be found in it! Consider, for example labelling cheese as "suitable for vegetarians packaged in a protective atmosphere" (no punctuation); a draught-excluder that says it "stops rattles and seals" (spot the marauding seals), or the billboard which says "part-time people wanted" (HFA interpretations is "hehehe! Werewolves, eh?") Ach, yes, and visual things ... neurotypicals often miss out on such a lot, poor things! Here's one which is absolutely guaranteed to make HFAs roll on the floor laughing themselves to death ;P Pesky (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, I think you're raising a worthwhile issue, but I agree with Jimbo that "being tolerant of some kinds of conflict" is not necessarily a good response to the (IMO) very obvious fact that we have many editors with ASD. To the contrary, I think that the things that benefit people with HF ASD are often the same things that benefit everyone. WP would be a better place for all of us if editors showed each other greater civility and charity, but I think editors with ASD are likely to be more disadvantaged by an environment where those things are absent.

I think the idea of providing a support area with WP could be a good one. Maybe (Jimbo) an autism charity or similar could be recruited to help with that. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deborah Tannen on interpersonal communication

Deborah Tannen has authored several books on interpersonal communication. (This is related to the topic of the previous section, but I decided that it deserved its own section.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

and Elinor Ochs has written a lot about interpersonal communication particularly as it pertains to autism spectrum disorders.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of peoria have written plenty of things, but try getting it straight from the horse's mouth. Sometimes primary sources do some good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Elinor Ochs is really good - and certainly not in the "peoria" department - her work is solid ethnograhy based on years of data. More than any anthropologist she has worked to make neurotypicals more understanding of ASD. (note I didn't know of Grandin's work - but it looks great, I'll definitely read that)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Grandin is amazing. Pesky (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not the kind we want" to attract

Rambling Man asked me up above, in a thread that will likely be archived soon, what I meant by a comment I made about the use of the featured article to attract new readerseditors. I wanted to answer the question here, in a separate thread, because it is an issue of more general issue than the topic under discussion there.

If one believes, as Rambling Man and others seem to agree, that at least one criterion we might usefully use to judge whether or not a particular article should be included as a featured article on the home page is the potential impact on helping to attract good editors, then we might ask ourselves: "what kinds of editors do we most need to attract?" I should hasten to add that I am among those who think that we should be doing lots of things to attract new editors, and that it is one (but not the only) factor that should inform our decisions about the editorial content of the home page.

(And, to pre-answer one potential objection, NPOV does not require that we select home page articles randomly. We can and should use editorial judgment based on a number of factors. NPOV can inform that process, but does not drive forward any simplistic rules about it.)

We know that our community is not well-balanced in some interesting ways. We are predominantly male. We are predominantly tech-geeky. We know, too, that this drives some unevenness in content. Topics popular with tech-geek males (like, for example, South Park, a topic about which we have, I believe, over 200 pages) are very well covered.

Having these articles is not a cause for shame or distaste. It's a good thing.

But at the same time, we know that it is not where we should be focusing our new-editor and editor-retention efforts.

The day that Cartman Gets an Anal Probe appeared on the front page of the site, it also happened to be the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens. If I've done my counting correctly, then in Category:Charles_Dickens_characters we have 49 characters from 6 works of Dickens. There exist hundreds, many of them not likely worthy of an entry, but many of them must be regarded as holes in our efforts to date.

My point is that if we wish to use the home page as, in part, and as we should I think, a tool of editor recruitment and retention, then we should focus our efforts not on where we are already incredibly strong (i.e. pop culture, technology, history of war, etc.) but on areas where we are weak.

Some who were asking me this question seemed to be girding themselves for a battle on the "worthiness" of South Park as a topic. I'll decline to have that argument. It isn't about worthiness as a topic, it's about what we should be focussed on when focussing on recruitment.

If you are a baseball team with the 3 best pitchers in the history of the game, but no one who can hit the ball, you don't recruit more pitchers. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You do if you're the Seattle Mariners. Albacore (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a point of information. You said above "I'm sure it will attract new editors. Not the kind we want, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)", yet you start this thread with "the use of the featured article to attract new readers". It's subtle but it's really important that you actually make this distinction clear and I would hate for people to think you'd misled them with your current response which seems to be a response to a different question, one which wasn't discussed or asked.

(Inline correction from Jimbo: Fixed - my apologies for that and thanks for bringing it to my attention!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, Jimbo, I appreciate you answering my request for you to comment. While I don't agree with what you say necessarily, your comments lend some weight to the ongoing discussion over the role of the FA director. You now know the the article was listed to be included on the main page for about two weeks. No-one complained. Yes, Dickens would have been ideal, but Dickens and his sub-articles aren't featured articles (unlike Cartman) so lack the quality to be included on the main page. Yes, Dickens etc should be featured, but they're not, and as such, right now we have WP:FA as a list of articles which can be included on main page. We are not incredibly strong on featuring pop culture on the main page, the stats reflect that. We actually seem to bias in favour of non-pop-culture articles on our main page. You seem intent on insulting and denigrating the work done by editors on more niche, less traditional articles, which actually will serve to just drive them away with your throw-away comments. Once in a while it's a good thing to show the eclecticism of this encyclopaedia. Yes "anal probe" is upsetting to some group of people who have never undergone or understand basic medical procedures or who do not use correct medical terms for things that go up your bum, but is it really a moment in time to suggest that it will encourage editors of "not the kind we want to attract"? Don't we want to attract "all kinds" of editors? Those who can write about Tourettes, or Black Swans, or Lunar eclipses, or Top Cat, or 19 inch rack mounting? If we're a baseball team, right now we don't have any pitchers, so attracting one would be good. One who could pitch well would be advantageous. Turning pitchers away because they chew gum but throw well is plain stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not sure I'd agree that the front page is a good place to recruit. Would putting a Dickens article on the front page recruit more editors with an interest in Victorian writers? I think it would be interesting to research how effective the page is at bringing in new editors; my suspicion is that it is more of a consumer/reader portal. Which is fine, our primary goal is to disseminate information. I think there are more effective avenues of recruitment. (One that springs to mind is to utilise the classification system we already have so that when you are on a page of, say, B Class or below an invitation to edit is displayed - "This article needs some work, can you help?"). Maybe we could do a better job of curating the front page, but I don't think there is much utility in trying to gain new editors that way (unless we pick topics we are weak in and chuck a "Can you help" notice up there somewhere). (FWIW I think we do quite well with the broadness of the featured content on the main page; that some of it is controversial is a good thing, those holding up as standard fare, though, I think are incorrect) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the idea you are promoting, Jimbo, I think you need to be more aware of insulting the editors you do have. You have just told those who do work on pop culture topics that you don't want them around. Ask yourself how that improves Wikipedia. Beyond that, I have two points: First, looking at an article in isolation as a means of "attracting readers" (or editors) is pointless. South Park is probably no more more less likely to attract a reader or editor than Charles Dickens is. But, over the course of time, the variety of topics we bring to the main page is what can draw in both. I would suggest looking over the last few months archives of TFAs. You might be surprised. Second, editors who start on "trivial" topics can move onto others. Most of my wikicareer has been spent on hockey articles. Trivial to most, no doubt. But over time I've been moving onto Canadian history topics, perhaps more significant. Now, who is to say the editor inspired to begin editing because of a South Park article might not become the one who writes that Dickens article? The truth is, we want editors of all kinds, just just specific types. Resolute 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, I'll thank you for not misrepresenting me. I did not say, nor did anything I said imply or hint at that I have "just told those who do work on pop culture topics that I don't want them around". I did precisely the opposite. Indeed, I compared our pop culture author's contribution to the Wikipedia "baseball team" to "having the three best pitchers in the history of the game". I said, unambiguously, that having such great coverage of pop culture topics is "a good thing". And it is. I even went on to say that some people seem to be girding themselves for a battle about the worthiness of such topics - and that I decline to have that fight. My point is that to argue about that is wrong, because it totally misunderstands and misrepresents my position, and additionally obscures what I think is the much more interesting point that I am making.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For kicks, the primary author of "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" is female, (I am also female. Many of the participants at FA are female and I do not believe women are underrepresented there.) and usually concentrates on 17th and 18th century women's and children's literature in the majority of her FA topics.

I wrote the articles for To Kill a Mockingbird and Harvey Milk, among others (including FAs related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is a topic worthy of the dozens of books written about it). None of my articles got as many hits as Museum of Bad Art on April Fool's Day 2009. It's difficult to fault Wikipedians or FA writers for providing gimmicks when that's exactly what people respond to. Barnum noted that somewhere, more laconically I bet. I recall I stated that opinion in one format when Gropecunt Lane was on the main page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)