User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Possible COI editing in WMF network

Jimbo, would you say that a trustee of a Wikimedia chapter would have a conflict of interest regarding direct editing of an article about the future executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation? (Example) - 2001:558:1400:10:514C:ED33:5FD5:596A (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Such edits are best avoided to avoid even a hint of impropriety. However, adding an infobox is not in any way problematic and so this particular edit is just routine and boring. Had I been asked I would have recommended against it but really this is a non issue. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So, would it be okay for paid editors to add routine and boring infoboxes to articles about their clients, so long as the infoboxes do not advocate anything? Sorry to keep asking you to clarify, but it seems like every time you lay down the law on a "Bright Line" Rule, the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections. -2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No that would not be ok and it is completely false to say "the next thing you know, the line is fuzzy and erased in some sections". You may wish that were so, but it isn't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The advice I always give to biography subjects and companies is not to edit an article where you have a COI, other than to repair obvious vandalism or correct uncontroversial errors of fact. However, a trustee of a chapter adding an uncontroversial bit of furniture to an article, is very different from an employee of a company adding promotional text to the company's article. There si a bright line rule: don't edit articles where you have a COI. This bright line rule is applied with a leavening of WP:CLUE. Think of it like a speed limit. Nobody gets prosecuted for doing 31mph in a 30 limit, most people will get away with 33mph. Drive by at 50 and you are clearly taking the piss and are likely to be stopped.

Interestingly, I have yet to encounter a biography subject or anyone else who was not on a mission, who found this remotely difficult to understand. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor who made that edit is a board member, and doesn't appear to be an employee. Either way, I agree that it's not a desirable edit. But on the scale of crumminess, with 1 being a "editing out of the goodness of one's heart" and 10 being "running an outfit that edits for pay," I put it at 3 at most. It's always interesting to see self-confessed 10s complaining about 3s. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Aw, never mind, you guys. Obviously, there is no way to circumvent the Bright Line Rule! It is all-powerful and indestructible. Like a Pirelli tire, if you will. - 2001:558:1400:10:3188:66D5:62C1:F630 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Very confused about this video, considering its contents are fake. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the other 56 videos on Pirelli Brasil's channel are also fake? — Scott • talk 02:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about the other videos or whether they actually did what they said they did. The actual Wikipedia screenshots shown in the video, however, are manipulated. Some of the mentioned articles don't exist, and the file at the end of the video (File:Lap 1, Turn 1 Canada 2008.jpg) does not match up. The Commons image at that title is different than the one in the video, was uploaded back in 2008, and shows no sign of ever being the file shown in the video. It's...interesting. I suppose it's either a hoax or they fabricated the examples to hide their actual edits? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I didn't check that file title, and looking at the various pt.wiki articles that flash up shows no sign of the claims made in the video either. In that case, it looks to me like a marketing department pitch trying to get someone to approve the idea. Why they've phrased it in the past tense though, I don't know - maybe to say "look what we could boast about to other divisions"? This probably wasn't meant to be visible to the public. — Scott • talk 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. It's the work of the São Paulo branch of Havas Worldwide, a marketing company.[1] — Scott • talk 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I suppose it's a potential project, then. It's only visible to those who have the link, so I'd imagine it was being shared internally. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess that people see a difference between adding a template to an article about someone with whom you have a tangential and non-financial relationship, and trying to build a business out of someone else's volunteer-run, charity-funded project, then trying to get it shut down out of spite when you get stopped. People can be funny that way. Guy (Help!) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing that I have learned from looking at Wikipedia behind the scenes is that trolls will always be trolling, trolling, trolling. These poor, sad people simply can't help themselves. Another thing that I have learned is that Jimbo's patience and tolerance seem almost inexhaustible. Thank you, Jimbo, for setting an excellent example for other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the troll has a point, though. If you really have a bright line rule, there's no such thing as "it's only bad at level 3 on a scale of 1 to 10"--a bright line rule inherently means no tolerance for ambiguity or circumstances. It either violates the rule or it doesn't, and if it violates the rule it has to go. Bright line rules are rather like zero tolerance policies in that way. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The video managed to change my mind slightly on companies donating media to Commons. I had thought that any donated image is ok. In the video they emphasize the branding in the images. "Pirelli" banners all over the place in them. I suppose we should still accept images and most media from these advertisers, but placing them in articles should be regulated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No matter what we do, there will be clever ways to game the system. We should not over-react with a moral panic. A gentle adjustment to the rules would probably help: Wikipedia is not to be used for product placement. If an editor is repeatedly uploading images for the purpose of promoting a brand, that editor and those images should go out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should welcome the contributed images --- being sure, of course, to recognize that the product placement is not something valuable. Getting them licensed means we can crop extraneous product placements in some cases. In others, such as Car racing, Stock car, Super Bike Series, the articles they were gloating about, there's an intrinsic problem that all the vehicles and racetracks and plastered with ads. If it's not them, it's someone else, and indeed at least in the current version I see many other companies far more prominently advertised. Our role should not be to discard contributed material, but to try to round up some non-COI editors to push out avoidable or especially visible placements and avoid domination by any one company's forces. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WMF plans for mathematics

A couple of weeks ago some comment were made here by editors concerned about the development of mathematics rendering and editing. The point was made that currently WMF allocates essentially no resources to this and it continues entirely on volunteer effort, which is made less effective by the way it is not integrated into WMF development. At that time I asked [2] what plans WMF had for developing mathematics-based text. Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else was able to answer before the question was aged off [3].

However, just recently I received an answer to my question from User:Jdforrester (WMF) who confirmed [4] in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#VisualEditor_math_formulae that the assessment of another editor [5] that WMF has 0 and no plans on Math was entirely correct.

This is very disturbing. Mathematics support is a key component of writing a serious encyclopaedia and it is quite unacceptable that WMF should devote no resources to its effective development and have no plans to do so. Please would you ask the WMF to reconsider its policy on this matter, and allocate a suitable proportion of its resources to the maintenance, sustainability and development of mathematics rendering and editing? Deltahedron (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here to support everything that was said above. Mathematics on wikipedia is already difficult enough to read and write as it is, any efforts to simplify this process should be encouraged. I understand that WMF is busy with everything on their plate, but at least have someone poke around and see what options are available to improve how math can be better communicated on wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never read the lede of a Wikipedia maths article that I could understand. À Propos of nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite. If any money is going to be spent on mathematics on Wikipedia, it should go towards hiring people who actually know how to write mathematical articles for a general audience. — Scott • talk 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

An excellent plan, and I would be happy if WMF were to spend money on that too. But support for mathematics rendering and editing would still be required. Currently it seems we have none. Deltahedron (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm an excellent mathematician (even if I say so myself) and I rarely understand a word of them too. That's the nature of the mathematical game these days I'm afraid. Still it's true that many articles, even on elementary topics, could do with some Sqrt(1 + Tan^2(x))ing up (this is an excellent mathematician BTW who believes we can get on just fine with the ten digits and twenty six letters the good lord gave us like we used to on Usenet - nevertheless support Deltahedron because we must move on with the nooths I suppose, for better or worse ). Still there are some excellent articles out there, Logarithm for example. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Grants are available to anyone who wants to do technical work, but, as I understand it, the WMF never funds content creation, no matter how sorely needed it is.

It's possible for dedicated people to form their own non-profit and seek funding for content creation, and if you're serious enough about it, then you might want to look into that. I doubt that it would work in practice, though: making some articles completely impenetrable to the lay person (and making sure that even the most trivial facts in it are all sourced to equally impenetrable sources) appears to be a goal held by some long-established editors, so efforts to write good, intelligible articles is likely to produce significant resistance. It would be unfortunate if you went to all that trouble and expense only to have some WP:OWNish editor revert it all to the impenetrable versions. On the other hand, mathematics may be the one area where this is least likely to be a problem. I've personally encountered several editors who really are trying to make these articles more accessible (with variable success).

As a mid-point between these two extremes, it might be possible for you to convince the WMF to fund a structured training program for making mathematics articles accessible, if there were enough editors interested in working on this. meta:Grants:IEG is probably the place to start that inquiry process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although perhaps I might re-iterate that my original request to Jimbo was entirely about WMF planning and resourcing technical elements for mathematics rendering and editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the math articles we have are very useful to people who actually need to know something about the topic. Some years ago Sean Carroll wrote on his blog that he was doing a computation away from his usual workplace and he needed to know the explicit form of some spherical harmonics, and he found them on Wikipedia.

The problem with math really is that the general audience is math illiterate and generally not really interested to learn about the topic. It's therefore pointless to aim too much at the general audience, as we cannot make up for a deficient educational system here. What we can do is present the material in such a way to make it as useful as possible. This means that we relax the Not Textbook rule a bit and write up articles such as Methods of contour integration or Rational reconstruction (mathematics) that are very useful to people who are already into these topics who need to learn more. Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(Notice WMF's usual non-answer answer.) I think we've been sidetracked here. The issue is squarely about the math rendering. Deltahedron has been too polite, so I will be more blunt. Basically, the math support here "sucks" in terms of performance and appearance (png is still standard), compared to other notable sites like math.stackexchange. This is more than a practical problem:

1. It gives an impression that Wikipedia is less hip (at least used to be). This decreases our ability to attract new editors.
2. It gives an impression that WMF doesn't care about the editors, especially those working on serious encyclopedic subjects like math.

(If I'm allowed to say a bad joke, unfortunately, non-math editors and admins are not smart enough to understand the problems that we math editors are having.)

-- Taku (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to give more specific details. "png is still standard" is a tantalizing clue but... what do you recommend instead? What does the dream solution look like? What is currently state of the art on the web in terms of math editing and rendering software? The last time I looked into this (admittedly quite some time ago) what most math editors wanted was LaTex support, and rendering to png was a reasonable way to render. So, that's what we have now. What would math editors prefer today? I'm happy to help but it would be delicious if I had an NPOV summary of the current state of the art, how it compares with what we support, and some basic first step explanations of what the steps are to get from where we are to where we want to be, what help we might be able to engage from the broader math community, and what engineering costs we might expect to shoulder on our end. We have a new CEO now, specifically chosen for tech/product focus, and so a lot of things will be up for discussion over the next year or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that thought-provoking challenge which I have taken the liberty of relaying to WT:WPM for discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I raised the question here a couple of weeks back User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#The problem with developing maths rendering but I think Jimbo was away at the time.

There are a number of problems with the typography of the PNG rendering. A few examples:

texvc / png	MathJax
The most obvious problem with inline formula is the baseline of the formula which is significantly lower than the surronding text. A secondary problem is the font size which is larger the text.	With MathJax the baseline is better, but still 1px too low. The font size matches correctly.
With display formula texvc performs better. There are problems with aliasing giving the brackets and all characters a jagged appearance. There is the same font size problem.	There are a few subtile differences: the superscript on the $b^{2}$ is a little higher in MathJax.
PNG display gets worse if you scale the webpage on the client side. As these are static images you get an upscaled image which looks blurred.	MathJax behaves much better at high zoom levels.

--Salix alba (talk): 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Based on that, it seems like MathJax support is a no-brainer. But are there downsides to MathJax that I should be aware of?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: This would lead one to believe that MathJax support already exists and perhaps just needs to be made the default? Or... what is the current status? Apologies that these are basic questions but I haven't looked into this in a long time, and I assume the same will be true for many readers of this page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are some problems with MathJax at the moment. It requires javascript, which not everyone has so some form of fallback is needed. It can be a bit slow to render a page Help:Formula (a page with very heavy use of mathematics) takes 20s to render because of this @Eloquence: Erik Moeller has put a WONTFIX on Template:Bug the main bug to make MathJax the default. There is a plan to do server side cacheing which should speed up the rendering with the Mathoid package and a major update to the mw:Extension:Math package @Physikerwelt and Gwicke: know more about this. The sticking point now seem to be getting this update production ready and getting it though code review. There seems to be very few developers who have the interest/expertise in mathematics rendering to move this forward.

BWT wikipedia uses the mw:Extension:Math which provides MathJax as a user selectable option and not mw:Extension:MathJax. As its only an option selectable in preferences its not available for anonymous users. --Salix alba (talk): 11:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

To answer some specific points. "It requires javascript, which not everyone has so some form of fallback is needed" - I think we can basically ignore this issue right now. The number of people without access to Javascript is extremely small, and while they do need a fallback, making things worse for 99.9% of all people in order to help the .1% is probably not the best choice. Let me know if there's something wrong with that thinking. So what you'd like is some help with resolving the issues of Template:Bug and a commitment from the Foundation (Erik, really) that if we get someone to fix that bug, they're open to implementing it.

To make my role in this process clear: I totally trust Erik's judgment on the allocation of the limited resources available to him, and it would in any case be foolhardy for me, with no real knowledge of his production timetables, to put pressure on him to elevate this issue just because I've taken an interest in it. But, two things - I can try to help you campaign to find a community developer interested in this issue. Not sure how effective that will be but I'm willing to try to shine a light on it. And as I said above, we have a new executive director now, one brought on board to ramp up investment in product/engineering capacity. It seems likely that some of the constraints that Erik and the engineering team have faced in the past will be expanded significantly in the next two years, and so now is a good time to make a reasoned case and proposals for improvements that we in the community find important. I've got a few wishlist items of my own. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's product blogging

WP:DNFTT --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo, Sue Gardner recently posted a blog about her favorite travel products. Of the Scottevest, she raved, "Scottevest travel vest with many pockets. OMG I love my Scottevest. It has 17 internal zippered pockets...". We're wondering if you believe that this editor in good standing largely agrees with Gardner's review? That's some excellent knowledge, isn't it? - 2001:558:1400:10:6C0E:AF41:1EBD:3C89 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC) New products for the WikiMedia shop? Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) This thread strikes me as being a not-so-veiled personal attack against Sue Gardner from a long-banned editor. I don't see anything about the vest being added to the WikMedia shop, so that comment seems just like a stray unfortunate comment by somebody who didn't think before he wrote. The core of the personal attack by Mr. 2001 is the implication that Sue Gardner Wrote the blog in question, and has some sort of connection with Scottvest or the linked editor, beyond just using the vest. If neither of these is true, then Mr. 2001 is just being an attack dog (as usual) and we should pay him no mind. @Sue Gardner:. If you don't think that it is best to just ignore a personal attack like this, please answer these questions: Did you write that blog, or did somebody hack your site? Did Scottevest give you the product or pay you to mention them on the blog? (If they did you should mention this in the blog according to FTC rules) Do you have any business connections with Scottevest or User:Crashingbiscuit? I can see why Sue might properly ignore these questions, but if she does answer them, I'd think this psuedo-mini-scandal should be all over. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Mr. 2001 is trolling, pure and simple. He must be running very thin on material if this is what he's spouting these days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC) It's just not kosher. Though it might be an anagram... Guy (Help!) 23:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC) As I've said here not long before\, we should not even consider efforts to criticize people's writings outside Wikipedia. I don't care if you think it's commercial, in bad taste, or just don't like it. I'm not going along even if half the people we meet are brainwashed into thinking that their governments, their employers, their bankers, and even their cable providers should have the right and probably the duty to read everything they say, wherever they say it, and take action to punish them if ever once they say something deemed to be wrong. This is Wikipedia, it's open to everyone, it's free for everyone, and the only thing that can count against Gardner or any WMF person is if they're doing things against policy here. And there's not even the remotest suspicion that this other account has anything to do with her; it looks like a purely random accusation as a smokescreen for the fact there's nothing here. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC) I actually don't see a problem with adding this item to the WikiMedia shop, the shop doesn't have a lot of useful stuff for sale. Count Iblis (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Smallbones says, "The core of the personal attack by Mr. 2001 is the implication that Sue Gardner Wrote the blog in question". If not Sue Gardner, then who do you think hacked SueGardner.org and pretended to write that blog under her byline? Talk about "running very thin"... it seems like Smallbones is breathing some very thin air and isn't thinking too clearly. I love how several Wikipedians are so quick to jump to their imagined concerns that Mr. 2001 is engaging in "personal attack" and "scandal" and "suspicion" and "accusation" and "smokescreen", when if you simply read what he wrote (a novel idea), it appears that he was just making a point that no matter where you turn on Wikipedia, it seems that some corporate shill has been trying to puff up Wikipedia with their material, when (in contrast) any decent paid editor (note, not a paid advocacy editor) would have written about a client in policy-conforming style, with appropriate citations. Y'all are so angry all the time; why don't you try relaxing for once? - 50.144.2.4 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (Aaron Levinson) I fail to see how Sue Gardner praising travel products she likes on her personal blog is a matter of concern to anyone here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Right. If actually using and liking something is a COI then we would never have any articles on any products or software at all - virtually all such articles are written by people who have used something and formed an opinion at some point. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Except that the OP never said anything about conflict of interest. You have all simply imagined it into existence. So, "not right". - 2001:558:1400:10:CD75:2F3:222B:E4BC (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC) This thread begins by making a nonsensical connection and culminates in feigned surprise that someone drew the obvious implication about what the OP meant. Such a thread should never have been entertained in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

When were admin handed a magic wand?

Brown Haired Girl just did something I do not recognize an admin having the right to do. I would like to hear about whether this can actually be done?

Impossed moratorium with no discussion? Just...I did it. Great...and I don't recognize it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy that I'm aware of that allows an admin to unilaterally impose a one year moratorium on discussion of an important issue. Such a policy would be absurd on the face of it. At the same time, it seems pretty clear that a one year break from discussing this perennial topic is not a bad idea. The right way to accomplish it is not through some fictional admin powers, but through appropriate community RfC. I think that even if the parties to the discussion can't come to an agreement about the title after repeated efforts, they may very well support imposing a moratorium on discussion for some defined period of time, as well as the implementation of a process for assessing the various alternatives and coming to some thoughtful and reasonable compromise solution that can gain consensus.

A moratorium on discussion is not a solution to the problem, without consensus on that moratorium, and without some efforts to build consensus around a process with a path to peace in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, where I noted the moratorium promptly after it was imposed. Seems to be supported so far, but it's up to other admins to decide whether or not to enforce it. When the same questoion is raised repeatedly with the same outcome, WP:TE and WP:DE start to look relevant.

I have suggested there that editors consider a more structured process for examining the question next time round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to cancel the moratorium. I think people are supporting because, in this specific case, a one year moratorium sounds relaxing and good. But just because something is good, doesn't mean that it should be imposed by fiat, particularly not by a single admin, and particularly not when it may set a particularly bad precedent for future custom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have no stake in the outcome of this. It is already being discussed at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, and so far there appears to be a consensus there to support the moratorium. That may change, or maybe not. Maybe someone will take it to move review. But I will let the moratorium stand, and be a focus for a discussion the community needs to have. This is far from the first RM moratorium, and the discussion may trigger a wider consensus on what to do with intractable disputes such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are supposed to look for thoughtful and reasonable compromise solutions. What often happens is a finding of "no consensus" which results in the article staying where it was before the discussion began. The "losing" side has no incentive to agree to a moratorium as you suggest. So what's probably going to happen is a seven day move discussion followed by a thirty day RfC with the same editors making the same arguments. A likely scenario is a finding of "no consensus" again and the re-opening of yet another move discussion. I think BrownHairedGirl presented a nice lightweight solution. An uninvolved admin uses their judgment and then presents it to the outside community for comment. Kind of like Deletion Review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A nice lightweight solution is unhelpful and predisposes to further requests. Countering this with a fiat-like moratorium runs counter to the spirit of collaborative editing. I commented on a more constructive way forward over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The time sink that some of these tendentious and repetitive move request hobbyhorses create (see also Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton) is the greater harm to the project than an admin using her common sense to encourage people to go do something else for a while. Page protection and blocks/bans are also counter to the spirit of collaborative editing, but sometimes such actions are required for the greater good of the project. That being said, things like 'move moratoriums' should probably be discussed then implemented rather than the other away around. Resolute 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is real harm in allowing anyone a special right not grnated to even Jimbo himself. We discuss these things and admin have no special rights granted by anyone anywhere at anytime to impose their own will or decisions on the community and there is a policy for that called: Wikipedia:Consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT which states clearly:

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and other volunteers, and the activities of Wikimedia Commons, are largely separate entities, as are the many non-English Wikipedias. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features, or accepting or rejecting images, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unusual problems sometimes require unusual solutions. BHG has tried to close a never-ending cycle of acrimony, and has correctly taken it to WP:AN#Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative for discussion. That is a valid place for any concerns to be raised and third-parties should support such solutions in order to protect the encyclopedia—perpetual bickering is death for an online community. John resolved another never-ending battle regarding whether a certain game should be called "football" or "soccer" using a similar technique (see here). Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. BHG has recognised the fact that the likelihood of achieving consensus for this move is slightly less than a snowball's chance in hell, so devoting more time and resources to pulling the warring parties apart is a waste of everybody's time. We could, I guess, just topic ban the ones who refuse to accept their failure to gain consensus for a move, that would work too. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You know...this really isn't about BHG, although I really don't agree with what the admin did. This is really about whether editors must follow our policies and guidelines or if they can "go rogue" (and no that is not a comparison to Sarah Palin). Are we or are we not a community of policies and guidelines and then...on the flip of that, does this constitute Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not sure anyone has brought that up yet. Is this case where ignoring the rule was needed to improve the project. I would, of course, argue no, it wasn't as a simple community discussion is all that was needed. Is it possible the admin was simply frustrated with the constant move requests, I wont even try to speak for the admin or second guess her. What is clear is, this isn't the norm nor is it a precedence that is good. I assume good faith and BHG has stated that the discussion she started was to gain a consensus. While it didn't look to me as that was the case from just the prose that was written, I am satisfied it was their intent. I am still very concerned that the way the closing was written, it clearly shows that the admin did indeed impose this on their own as they also clearly admit. But that is also because they seem to have been allowed to do this in the past Other admin have done this in the past with no one really noticing and so, I can see why they would think they could simply do it again as well. That is the real issue, my real concern is not sanctioning anyone. I am concerned that this is being supported in a casual manner for admin to do again, and I simply can't support that and feel this needs a much more detailed discussion. Perhaps at the village pump after the centralized discussion has closed at AN, we can begin discussing whether we should or should not allow this for all admin as part of their bag of tools.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussions to a special page can work well. This is what was done to the debate about "Not Truth" on the verifiability page. This made the discussions focussed and constructive. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think a more constructive result would be to say something like, "It is clear that these move discussions have worn out the community's patience. While anybody is free to start a discussion at any time, there is an increasing chance that such discussions will be speedily closed as redundant, and that editors starting them may be subject to warnings or even sanctions for disruptive editing." At some point starting the same discussion for the nth time for no good reason is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: That's a tempting option, but I fear that it is just kicking the can down the road to a heated dispute when someone does speedy close a move discussion. It seems to me to better to find some way to set a clear timeframe, so that everyone knows where they stand.
    Amongst those who objected to the moratorium, the main concern has been that it is unilateral. I understand that, but since this is a long way from being the first such moratorium, I think we need some broader discussion on how to handle these situations. There are several possibilities, of which the simplest is to ban admin-imposed moratoria, but I the WP:AN discussion doesn't seem to suggest that this would meet consensus. Another option is to treat them the way we treat many other admin actions, which is to review them if they are controversial; that's more or less what happened this time. Yet another possibility is that there is some mechanism for proposing a moratorium. At the moment, the only way would be through an RFC, which opens up a 30-day wrangle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Admins are empowered to evaluate, summarize and enforce the consensus of the community. If there is a discussion where a substantial number of editors support a one year moratorium, then an admin can implement that decision. If you think such a thing would be helpful, please propose it for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

query about whether Wikipedia is based on what the actual sources say or on what editors seem to think is "the truth"

I agree with NYB on this one, so I'm leaving his comment outside the archive. My talk page is a good place to have a thoughtful discussion of the broader philosophical points, if there are any, but this sounds like a talk page debate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Michael Grimm (politician) was just reverted by this edit [6] As a result, the BLP once again says the incumbent Congressperson was "succeeded by Charles Rangel" using a belief on Wikipedia that Congressional district numbers are what counts, even where redistricting makes such connections ludicrous and risible. I would note that zero reliable sources make such a ludicrous claim - and the NYT is clear as to "who succeeds who"in their usage ([7]} What is interesting is that my motive in making a BLP represent actual fact as claearly stated in reliable sources is under attack. [8] shows me under attack by a multi-sanctioned editor as "duplicitous", "edit waring", " he'll just yell "SOURCES SOURCES BLP BLP" more, which seems pretty much 100% irrelevant to how we deal with redistricting in infoboxes. ", "Either there's an odd ulterior motive or he's being monumentally sloppy. You pickem" and so on. I find such personal attacks on a person ho actually thinks claims must be factual and that using district numbers where there is absolutely no connectionbetween the two people is silly and inane, to be quite contrary to Wikipedia principles entirely. How say you? Collect (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) All of our congressional articles state the line of succession of a district - the representative from the 14th district of NY, for instance, was person A, then person B. Even if said district was redistricted, and person A won election somewhere else. Because Collect, a conservative political activist, doesn't like an article saying Charles Rangel succeeded someone based on redistricting in NY, he reverted an infobox in an article to be different in format than the infoboxes of every other congressperson, and then started yelling and screaming. This kind of behavior was unhelpful. If he wanted to change our infobox model to something else, there are many locations for that kind of discussion - locations he was pointed to, but still has not said a word at. Instead, he's gone complaining to the powers that be. Is that the kind of behavior we want from our conservative activists? Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC) If a "status quo" is your best argument for a "status quo" where the result is risible, then the "status quo" ("We have always done it this way, even if it is risible") is insufficient. And I would note that my position has been properly set forth on the article talk pages and the proper noticeboards, so I find your he's gone complaining to the powers that be. Is that the kind of behavior we want from our conservative activists? to be a reprehensible and personal attack here, and anywhere you make such attacks. The policy of WP:V clearly outweighs that poor argument. And I note that I am not and never have been a "conservative political activist" and the Hipocrite seems hell-bent on defaming me as often as possible, including claims that I am a liar and cheat, that I have "ulterior motives" and possibly worse. And I submit his behaviour is seriously deficient in what is supposed to be a collegial project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) "Conservative activist," is a personal attack? You need to grow a thicker skin. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) It is if you are not one. Regardless, an attack is still an attack even if done with a pin prick. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This was raised on my talkpage and I am going to read the material and respond to it. For the two of you to have basically the same conversation on multiple pages strikes me as not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration and COI editing

Jimbo, I was delighted to read a Wikimedia blog post by my personal acquaintance, Jake Orlowitz. The blog emphasizes a joint effort between Cochrane Collaboration and Wiki Project Med Foundation, to hire(?) Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) as a Wikipedian-in-Residence. To learn more about the Cochrane Collaboration, which I'd never heard of, I went to the linked Wikipedia article to educate myself. As I looked at the list of the most frequent contributors to the article, I saw that the top two editors are User:Drsoumyadeepb and User:Manum56. Is it a problem with possible conflict of interest that Soumyadeep Bhaumik's travel and accommodation during research on snake bites was "funded by the South Asian Cochrane Network & Centre"? Is it a problem with possible COI that Manu Mathew is employed as a Research Scientist with Cochrane? Additionally, User:Taelor98 and User:Joshver are the fourth- and fifth-most active editors on the Cochrane Collaboration article, and both are single-purpose accounts, editing solely about Cochrane Collaboration. Does your Bright Line Rule apply to organizations that are in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation projects, or are they exempted, especially if they are doing good deeds like the Cochrane Collaboration. Personally, I am of the opinion that the people most familiar with an organization (who are often paid by that organization) should absolutely be front-and-center in directly editing Wikipedia about the organization. But your Bright Line Rule says that they should only engage on the Talk pages, correct? - 2001:558:1400:10:7CE0:75EB:D589:DADE (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bright Line Rule specifies a best practice which applies to everyone, and I would say applies most strongly and most particularly to Wikipedians-in-Residence and any organizations which may be in some kind of partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I would have advised both Dr. Bhaumik and Dr. Mathew to avoid such edits as they easily give rise to an appearance of impropriety. One of the great benefits that should come e from organizations like this bringing in a qualified Wikipedian-in-Residence (and surely no one would dispute that Sydney Poore is qualified) is that they will receive very solid advice on how to appropriately and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

So, to answer your question concisely: yes, it seems that there was inadvisable editing in the past, and no the hiring of a Wikipedian-in-Residence does not exempt them going forward, but rather, is probably a very good step towards avoiding such issues in the future. It is worth noting that I'm 100% certain that you already knew my answers to these questions, and so I wonder if you have any questions to ask me which are genuine questions, i.e. questions for which you don't already know the answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that you can see below the net positive benefit of these matters being brought to your attention, whereby regardless of "already knowing the answer", it's important to keep dogged watch on these situations, so that improvements can be made to Wikipedia's policies and practices. Your Talk page is a useful place to keep attention, because it gets far more visibility than other pages. This is one of the burdens that the sole founder of the project should be willing to bear. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D4F:DD4B:A6F3:7A90 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, it is not having things brought to my attention that I am objecting to. It's the snide tone and the trolling. When you asked me "Does your Bright Line Rule apply to organizations that are in partnership with Wikimedia Foundation projects, or are they exempted" you knew the answer. There was absolutely no reason to be sarcastic. And "one of the burdens that the sole founder" is clearly a provocation, referring to a fake controversy that you've been instrumental in keeping alive for years. If you really sincerely are simply trying to help, then stop being a jerk, and sincerely try to help. Don't ask silly rhetorical questions that exhaust people. State your own views clearly and with logic and reason. Bring information to me that is worth me knowing about, without snarky tone. Basically, try to be a decent human being with less threatening behavior and more honesty. You'll be happier for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(To the 2001 IP) I think the best proof that both Jimbo Wales and others are taking these issues, and your input on them, seriously is that your threads on this page have been entertained and addressed on their merits by Jimmy and others, rather than simply deleted as posts by a banned user, as they could have been by Jimmy or anyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(To the Newyorkbrad) I think it's also proof that a relatively small clique of Wikipedia insiders too frequently ban productive users when the insiders would have been better off engaging them more thoughtfully from the start, since these "bans" don't really work in this prolific age of readily-available IP addresses, anyway. That you would even feel the need to bring up such an obvious observation suggests that you're perhaps stuck in the old "battleground" mindset, where you must rattle your sabre to assert your strength. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:2D99:B37E:9910:919C (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Soumyadeep B replies : Thank you for bringing into notice this issue and I will refrain from further editing the cochrane page. I did want to bring into focus on two larger issues

1. I did wonder since the WIR is also being paid by the Cochrane Collaboration how that is exempted from Wiki edit rules to incorporate Cochrane evidence into Wikipedia. Is not the whole scheme of WIR (nothing to do with qualifications of Sydney Poore)then against the grail of COI policies of Wiki - since it aims to cite a particular publishers evidence . It is to be noted that though Cochrane is a not-for-profit the cochrane library which will be cited in the wiki articles and the cochrane database of systematic reviews are both commercial entities being run by "for profit" private publisher Wiley which sells its subscription. Kindly clarify. About engaging in talk pages see end of point 2.

2. One cannot avoid conflict of interest altogether . The only people who have zero conflict of interest are people who have zero knowledge about it. The issue is transparency and that I have maintained that by mentioning COI in all pages and all articles where I have written(and that is how people have come to know about it). Maybe Wiki should also allow a section below each article , just like medical journals do to state competing interest. Otherwise in the name of COI all wiki will be doing is discourage people with high-end knowledge to edit and improve the quality of articles or make them do edits from anonymous accounts. Punishing people for transparency is not the right way of dealing with COI. Another way to go about it is that one might engage in talk page to avoid editing directly but i would still see it as per bioethical principles to be an "undue enticement" or "influence".

These broader issues on ethics and competing interests need to be discussed in details especially with regards to healthcare information and medical knowledge .

This is a very troubling statement. First, there is absolutely no exemption for Wikipedians-in-Residence. And second, it would be deeply inappropriate for someone to favor "Cochrane evidence" because they are being paid to do so. That's just deeply horribly unethical and I will speak very strongly against the practice in all cases. It matters very little whether we are talking about a "for-profit" or "non-profit" entity, although in this case it seems that for-profit publisher Wiley would be the primary beneficiary of this unethical practice.

Second, this idea that "The only people who have zero conflict of interest are people who have zero knowledge about it" is a juvenile argument and a complete and total red herring. Someone being paid to promote Wiley publications over other publications is not someone who is merely struggling with the natural human bias towards what we know. They are a paid shill undermining the integrity of the public dialogue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for raising this issue. I have already stopped working on the Cochrane Collboration's page, I think the last edit was almost 2 years back. But I hope this does not mean that I should not contribute to Wikipedia by adding evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews to other articles. Manu Mathew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but you should by no means favor Cochrane Systematic Reviews over other sources, and if you are being paid to promote Cochrane's work, then you are doing something unethical.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo! Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think I had raised more or less the same issue here on our project page and James Heilman had clarified what is to be done. I do sincerely believe in the idea of being neutral in our edits. If you are interested please, do have a look at the project page too. Thanks again, and thanks for Wikipedia! :) Manu Mathew (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Jimbo and everyone :-) Yes, I'm thrilled to say that I recently took a position with Cochrane Collaboration as a part time Wikipedian-in-Residence. My primary work will be to act as a liaison between Cochrane folks and Wikipedia(s). We want to find the best way for Cochrane and Wikimedia to work together since the missions of the organization are similar--to disseminate high quality health information. One aspect of my work will be training sessions for people who are interested in editing. We are still working out the details, but our plans will be public as they become known. As Jake mentions in the blog, Cochrane is a network of some 28,00 people from over 100 countries so it is likely that we will still occasionally see newbie mistakes from some of these folks when they began editing. In addition to following the usual processes for raising concerns about edits, please feel free to leave me a note on my user page or send me an email and I'll follow up. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I will be glad to see you there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not want people from the Cochrane collaboration writing about the collaboration itself (agree that is a COI). However if people from the Cochrane collaboration write about disease related articles and use Cochrane reviews there is not a significant problem. These are often the foremost experts in their field. We at WP:MED and much of the global medical community consider Cochrane reviews to be among the best available evidence. They produce nearly always high quality systematic reviews and meta-analysis which WP:MEDRS views as ideal sources.

So well FloNight should not edit article about the organizations, her adding Cochrane reviews giving them similar weight to other high quality systematic reviews would not be a problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales per this statement "by no means favor Cochrane Systematic Reviews over other sources, and if you are being paid to promote Cochrane's work, then you are doing something unethical"

1. We at WP:MED prefer systematic reviews over other sources so yes there are others that produce high quality systematic reviews like the United States Preventative Services Task Force and AHRQ and these should not be excluded.
2. Stating this; however, could be interpreted that those at the NIH (who run pubmed) should not used pubmed indexed journals over non pubmed indexed journals. However pubmed indexing is one of the markers of quality and we often purposely exclude non pubmed indexed article as sources as they are generally low quality. Common sense must be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As I always say we can make a distinction between paid advocacy editing (which is always inappropriate) and paid editing (which can be perfectly fine, as in the case of an expert who is paid to write about the topics that they know). Real mature editorial judgment must be used whenever there is a potential appearance of impropriety. To shift to a hypothetical context to provide a hypothetical example of common sense judgment, compare these two:

1. A Harvard theology professor who is an expert on Islamic Philosophy works to improve articles about various fairly obscure figures in that field. In doing so, she references a wide range of sources including the Journal of Islamic Philosophy which is printed by Harvard University Publication Services. In such a case there is no paid advocacy editing, and while disclosure of the affiliation is best practice, there is no need to avoid editing in article space. (Remember the "bright line rule" is for Paid Advocacy Editing.)
2. A publicist for Harvard University Publication Services goes around inserting links, some valid, some not particularly relevant, with a view towards making Harvard-published journals more popular to increase sales. In this case, not only is disclosure the best practice, refraining from direct article space editing is the best practice - bright line rule.

Common sense allows us to easily distinguish between these cases and to recognize that whenever there is a "borderline case" of some kind, defaulting to transparency and disclosure is always going to be the more ethical choice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes so our two research scientists who were previously associated with the Cochrane collaboration are content experts rather than "publicists" Thus they would be the first rather than second example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales I’m a new editor to Wikiproject Medicine (and a clinician with no association to the Cochrane groups) and I’ve already found the ability to access users who have specialty knowledge of Cochrane investigations invaluable. In one case, User:Hildabast was able to provide context about the study, its strengths and weaknesses, that we would have otherwise not known. I believe there is a difference in the ethical intent between someone who is trying to shoe-horn in references from a particular organization and one of the experts from Cochrane who happens to be a specialist with their methodology and investigations. The Cochrane reviews are relatively unique and it’s not inconceivable that someone will only be an expert the groups investigations. The studies are universally important to medical topics and I think it would be a loss if those experts stopped adding evidence from Cochrane studies for fear of being publically labelled unethical.Ian Furst (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hildabast is no longer with Cochrane in an official manner either by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Purrr, purrr, for you !

Thanks Jimbo for creating Wikipedia. I use it almost every day :). Now where the fur ball of mine is...

Dedantemon (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because you made this Amazing Website!

Theawesome67 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI with an upcoming edit-a-thon

Greetings, Jimbo! I hope you are having a good day. Mine is snark-free from here on out, so thank you very much for that excellent advice above! If you have a moment, please take a look at this upcoming edit-a-thon being hosted by DNA Digest. The invitation says the event is made possible with "the huge support of our partners". The partners (judging by the logos) apparently are: Wikipedia, Addgene, Wayra, and UnLtd. Did DNA Digest get permission to use the Wikipedia logo, and is "Wikipedia" truly a partner of this event? Let's take a look at the Wikipedia articles about the other partners:

• Over 90% of the Addgene article's content was created by a single-purpose account, User:STEMGeek. The second-most frequent editor of Addgene is IP User:38.111.37.170, which geo-locates to Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is where Addgene is headquartered.

• Wayra is a startup accelerator owned by Telefónica. Their Wikipedia article was launched and mostly written by an IP User:46.233.70.205, which is a Telefónica IP address in London, where Wayra's UK office is located.

• UnLtd's Wikipedia article was created and most-heavily contributed to by User:Nicolajones83, in 2008. That's a single-purpose account, and there's a Nicola Jones who appears now or at one time to be "the Communications Assistant at UnLtd, working to spread the UnLtd word". The second-most frequent contributor is IP User:195.137.176.7, which geo-locates to Cardiff, where UnLtd has an office. Also IP User:85.133.63.66 has edited about UnLtd from UnLtd headquarters in London.

I already know your answer that you would prefer that the potentially conflicted editors of these articles should disclose themselves and engage only on the Talk pages of the articles where a COI arises. However, I am genuinely curious to know if you (or others) understand that this particular edit-a-thon has "partnership" approval from Wikipedia (the WMF? the WMUK?), and whether you think that given the edit histories of these partners, will the edit-a-thon be carried out with the appropriate level of counsel against COI editing? - 2001:558:1400:10:89C3:7ED2:539F:1B5B (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This edit-a-thon smells strongly of rotten fish. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth looking into. Who is DNADigest? Did you ask Wikimedia UK if they are involved? Did you check with the Wikimedia Foundation to see if they are aware of it (unlikely as the WMF doesn't usually get directly involved in small local events)? Obviously I do not approve of the kind of COI editing that you reference, but we all know that it happens in no small part because until now we have not been clear enough in our overall messaging and terms of service to forbid it. (That's changing per the resolution at the last board meeting after the community consultation carried forward by the legal team.) Having said all that, as far as I can tell, the event itself seems unobjectionable in terms of being an event to educate people about how to edit Wikipedia and the resources available to them. It would be best if the event included a session on avoiding COI editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, hello everyone. I note the concerns here so let me try and clarify a few things. The organisers of this event applied for a microgrant from Wikimedia UK for £300 to support it in terms of catering and materials. The application outlined the aims of the event and what benefits it would bring to Wikipedia. You can see the application and discussion here on the Wikimedia UK wiki.

The event itself will be focusing on improving articles on genomics, open science and related topics, rather than about any person or organisation. The attendees at the event will be people with an interest in genetics and DNA-related topics with no particular organisations targeted. Anyone with an interest is welcome to attend.

In terms of conflict of interest I appreciate that some people have concerns so I'm happy to report that User:HJ Mitchell, a Wikimedia UK accredited trainer will be attending the event to give an overview of how Wikipedia works in general terms. This includes a session on conflict of interest.

On the organisations noted as “partners”, Addgene is a non-profit organisation which supported DNAdigest in their recent fundraising campaign. Wayra and UnLtd provide the space where DNAdigest and the event are based. None of the three organisations are supporting the event with a view to a more “promotional” article on Wikipedia.

The use of the Wikipedia logo as a “partner” is a result of the confusion between Wikimedia and Wikipedia. They have updated the event page to clarify this and the remaining use of the Wikipedia logo is in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's trademark policy. Sorry for any confusion caused as a result.

I hope that all of this goes some way to addressing any concerns people may have over the event. Of course, I'm happy to answer any further questions people may have. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN needs help!

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard needs move volunteers to help resolve content disputes. You don't need to have any special qualifications, and there is no election; just sign up and start helping!. You can learn more at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its best

Hi Jimbo. I would just like to comment onBrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs). Her response to my awarding her the admin barnstar blew my mind. She completly (and gracefully) :) disparaged my calling her "brave", and her response is almost the model mission statement of what it takes to be a bloody ideal admin here. See BHG's talk page for what I mean. Agree or disagree with her trajectory on myth v narrative, (and watching the arguments almost since I joined, I think in cases like this admins should have powers of moratorium. She has also advocated focus groups of opinions to be garnered for a more focused discussion at the end of a period of thought), she should be commended as a great asset to the admin corps. Her model admin demeanour, flexibilty and commonsense and consistant application of AGF shines through. Irondome (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, she's great. I still don't agree from a purely constitutional perspective with that moratorium, but that's no criticism of her.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable with some kind of limited expansion to formalise moratoria, in cases where massive energy is being spent to no purpose in frequent revivals of disputes? Some kind of mechanism where a far more definitive and authoritative discussion is commenced at the end of a period of reflection? The concept has strong potential IMO. We could work something out. Obviously this would be arrived at by community consensus. I just dont think the community is actually used to being given that option for these kinds of issues. This is retroactive, but its gathered strong consensus from a variety of viewpoints. It is a useful potential tool. I don't think its stopping free speech. Its just conserving volunteer energy. Constantly reanimating stuff like this is almost disruptive. I think thats somehow different to a hypothetical criticism of it as stopping debate. The debate of itself has become purposeless if too often reanimated. Cheers for the response Jimbo Irondome (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Irondome, for taking the time to praise a fellow editor here at Jimbo's highly visible talk page. There is so much negativity and even trolling around here, that your words are refreshing. As for your comments, Jimbo, you consistently set a good example for all of us. Thank you, too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	:) you're contributions are worth GOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLDDDDD Tuckertwo (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)