User talk:Jimbo Wales

Purpose of the 'Founder' group?

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:User access levels#Founder, a user group I wasn't aware of before now which has exactly one member.

It makes sense to me that the founder would have access to basically whatever the founder wants access to. But looking at the rights that the group grants, I wonder why you're not a (local) steward instead. Or alternatively: why the local "stewards" group exists, considering it has 0 members. Founder grants userrights and oathauth-enable, steward grants userrights and noratelimit. oathauth-enable and noratelimit are also included in the administrator group, so founder/steward only adds userrights. Am I missing something? - Alexis Jazz 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: He was a steward until 2009 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ask at WP:VPT if you're really interested. I think it's got something to do with the worst-case scenario whereby someone might block everyone possibly using a software vulnerability, and then there would be no fast recovery mechanism. I think founder has some advantage in that situation but if you want more than guesses I would try VPT. At any rate, the technical merits aside, it's now a social question and there simply is no reason to change long-standing procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm not saying it should be changed, though perhaps the local "stewards" group could be retired as it has no members anyway and Jimbo has his own group. I don't know about hearing more guesses at VPT. The 'Founder' group has 1 member, who better to ask? Your theory is interesting, but from a technical point of view it seems to make limited sense. If someone were to block everyone, would there really be much of a difference between waiting for Jimbo or waiting for someone with direct database access? (or more likely, a global steward if only enwiki is affected) Besides.. Jimbo probably couldn't do much. The attacker would have either somehow changed the rights each group holds (really hard) which absolutely nobody on-wiki could do anything about or the attacker is blocking accounts at a rate of thousands per second - no offense, but even Jimbo won't be able to unblock that fast. On m:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/founder I see only one right that might help in such an event: siteadmin. (lock and unlock the database) But Founder doesn't have that. According to m:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions, no global group does. I'm not sure anyone does. - Alexis Jazz 06:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a traditional and largely honorary thing. The flag gives me the ability to look at anything such as oversighted revisions, deleted revisions, and so on, across the entire project (all languages), which has in the past sometimes been useful as I seek to advise people in various languages. It was created by Tim Starling (if I remember correctly) and not something that I asked for. It has been a long time since I reviewed the details of what rights it grants, but the intention is that it largely is about seeing, not about doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're actually confusing the global 'founder' group and the local 'founder' group. The global group gives you the ability to look at oversighted revisions and the like. The local group gives you the abilities of a steward, but where stewards on Wikimedia are global, the local 'founder' group on English Wikipedia makes you, for all intents and purposes, a local steward. - Alexis Jazz 18:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Neat, thanks. Anyway, as I say, traditional and largely honorary. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense. :) I've asked the alternative question from my initial message on VPT: Unused local "stewards" group. - Alexis Jazz 19:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I kind of feel like the local flag should also be given to Denny and Magnus at Wikidata and Mediawiki, respectively, though probably without the extra rights attached. There's value in marking that kind of thing, sometimes. --Yair rand (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: enwiki is the only wiki with a local "Founder" group. (I checked) - Alexis Jazz 08:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Important: Paywalls have multiplied at an accelerated rate

Jimmy - I brought this up on your UTP in 2017: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 222#Increasing trend of paywalls and again in 2018: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 226#Paywall creep. The NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, and a growing number of other RS are now behind paywalls. They are also learning how to combat incognito browsers. The costs to subscribe to these sources is unaffordable for the average editor here. It creates a major problem in our most controversial topic areas, such as AP, CC, medicine, etc. If the goal is to force editors to abide by WP:RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and NEWSORG then do nothing because few will be able to access RS. Surely there is something the WMF can do to help. I visited WP:TWL and added WSJ to the long list of requests which also includes NYTimes and WaPo. If editors cannot access quality news sources, how will that affect our future? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: On the other hand, someone has to pay the journalists. Ideally they wouldn't serve search engine spiders anything different than what they serve normal visitors. That would be in the interest of the search engines, because whenever a search engine returns a paywalled result you're probably unhappy. Perhaps news sites could serve the first few lines of the article (as they usually do) plus a list of the main raw facts from the article and make the visitor pay for the properly written out version. But as long as search engines allow websites to serve something completely different to regular visitors and search engine spiders, there is no incentive. - Alexis Jazz 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Alexis. I understand overhead, but I also understand clickbait and how advertising works without forcing WP volunteers to pay when we are over here trying to build an encyclopedia for free. Our efforts in citing them is a positive not a negative for their bottom line; therefore, they should be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of our volunteers who may be tasked with having to subscribe to 10 or more RS. At $40 to $150/year, that equates into a lot of money for even 5 paid subscriptions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've wondered about that too. In particular because there is a Dutch newspaper I used to cite often for Wiktionary. I don't understand what clickbait has to do with this. Anyway, if you really wanted to, I bet you could get several newspapers for next to nothing. On paper, a few days old. People typically throw that away. Difficult to search though, and where do you put all of it.. - Alexis Jazz 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with it - the more traffic they get to their site, the more revenue they can make - ads pay by the click - it's a numbers game. Regardless, TWL offers some free access but it's really time for the WMF to step up to the plate before we see a sharp decline in article creation and editing in the areas that drive most of the traffic to WP. When RS become scarce, things are going to get pretty western. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Are you suggesting WMF try to negotiate an institutional subscription for its editors, as say a major University might for its students? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll bet that the people that make these decisions aren't working here for free like I am. I am retired and I need to watch my budget carefully to make ends meet and yet I need to buy subscriptions to do my work here. It's really not fair and I feel that it shows a lack of respect and appreciation for the hard-working editors here. Gandydancer (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Since both private mode and the New York Times and the Washington Post and The Wall Street journal were mentioned and all of these have free articles and none of these actually have enforced paywalls, I'm unconvinced there is a big issue. Rather than wasting time fooling around with private mode, just install "Bypass Paywalls" or some similar plugin and be done with it. Okay these occasionally break and you still sometimes have to close some please subscribe popups, but that's surely a minor issue. I guess for those who absolutely refuse to use a different browser and are currently using Chrome, you get the "developer mode" issue due to their refusal to allow it in the store, but ultimately I'm unconvinced this is a big deal for those who were willing to use private mode in the first place. Note I make no comment on the morality of using the plugin other than that I personally do not see see any good argument that using it to bypass free article limits vs using private mode with the explicit same intention, is sufficiently different to make one okay but the other not okay. (Using the plugin for other purposes e.g. paywalls without a free article limit like NZ Herald, I can see valid arguments. Although again, this assumes you aren't bypassing it via other means. If you are using "reader" mode and similar tricks to bypass such limited paywalls and think it's okay to do so, than the same issue comes into play i.e. using plugin to do so is morally similar enough that we should accept both as similarly morally right/wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not that easy, Nil. Mozilla has blocked the plugin, and the paywalls are already wise to incognito. NYTimes is the only one that allows 1x free access, but the steps we have to take to keep it free are annoying. I don't agree that editors should resort to unethical means of bypassing paywalls for the privilege of volunteering here, much less pay for a subscription to access sources while also contributing money to WMF and making other valuable contributions. Surely the WMF has the money to invest in its own future - or better yet, utilize a bit of salesmanship to convince the bean-counters at the respective sources that when WP cites them in an article, it drives potential new subscribers to their site. CaptainEek, my suggestion is more along the line of how WP:TWL operates now via its Library Card. I'm pinging Ocaasi and Samwalton9 for input. Good salesmanship when approaching mainstream sources to cooperate may be all we need to acquire xxx number of cards for free access, or better yet, get those sources to pay WMF a percentage for every new subscriber originating from WP. If none of the aforementioned works, WMF could offer each of the major mainstream sources a token annual access fee to allow free access to card-carrying WP editors, which actually provides those sources access to more subscribers they can utilize for polling and the like. Jimbo Wales, aren't some of the major news sources already contributors to WMF? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I feel like Wikipedia's primary goal is not to bring the latest news. (Wikinews on the other hand..) Wikipedia primarily aims to create a reference work. Perhaps some news outlets would be more willing to consider giving some Wikipedians access to all articles that are at least x days old. Such access wouldn't quite compete with their regular offering. It might make it easier to convince them. - Alexis Jazz 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree with Atsme, I think having more access to reliable sources would be excellent. Now, I admittedly already pay for subscriptions to several sources solely because I use them on Wikipedia, but I know that most folks don't have that kind of money. And money should not be a barrier to entry for the editing the free encyclopedia. Especially for sources like the NYTimes and WSJ, which are gold standards here on Wiki, and are often used to determine notability. I think the foundation spending money on these kinds of sources, even for a limited number of subscriptions or whatever deals could be worked out would be a very, very good use of funds. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and JzG: Can you and others who have subscriptions set up a pool so other editors can ask you to look up or verify stuff? I thought such a thing already existed, but I can't remember where. - Alexis Jazz 09:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, no, that is illegal.

True fact: if you Google the title of a paywalled article, you can often access the full text via the Google cache dropdown. Guy (help!) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I can't imagine that being illegal. If I know you have a subscription to a print newspaper, and I call you to ask you if the newspaper reported on xyz or what the outcome of some local election is according to the newspaper, and you tell me.. why would that be illegal? Obviously you're not allowed to send me copies of the articles, but you can relay the facts. You might violate some ToS from the newspaper if you have a subscription (though that would be severely silly), but you're not going to jail. As for Google cache, I thought some sites disabled that through robots.txt? So don't count on that loophole working forever. - Alexis Jazz 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, sorry, I misread your comment as asking about pooling WaPo accounts. Guy (help!) 16:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it doesn't solve the problem, but can I just recommend The Guardian, which is free in its entirety for everybody. They do ask for contributions, but why shouldn't they. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, Indeed. And I subscribe to the Washington Post and New York Times, primarily to facilitate fact-checking here. Also some publications like the Financial Times make some important stories free. In the end, someone has to pay the journalists, or you end up with somethihng like the Mail Online, where much of the content is supplied pre-written by PR firms. Guy (help!) 15:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even if one does not use WashPo and NYT for edits one still needs them for fact checking. And I do a lot of that. Re The Guardian, I do send them small amounts from time to time because I am so grateful that they have not gone the "pay to read" route. Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact the Guardian manages very well without paywalls proves, imo, that the paywall crowd are not necessary nor even the better sources. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I don't think anybody is arguing that any specific model is inherently superior. Different outlets will decide what to do based on their own individual circumstances. Ironically, fundamentalist libertarians have enormous amounts of money from think tanks funded through dark money, so they publish mountains of content with no paywall at all - this is a major outlet for far right economic theories and climate change denial, for example. Guy (help!) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, so they use the lack of paywalls as a lure? Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, you'd have to ask them why they do it. But yes. Guy (help!) 09:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And then there is the issue that not all information is yet online: one must consult printed books to get one's facts correct from time to time. While public libraries do help meet this need, I for one find that I need to consult some specialized monographs that are either out of print (& thus expensive), or were expensive to begin with. (Why does Brill consistently price their titles at least twice or three times what I would be willing to pay for them? Last time I considered buying one of their books new, it retailed at $160.--, when US$1 was roughly equal to 1 Euro.) It would be helpful if the Foundation either had a grant program for buying books -- or even a purchase program with Amazon where qualified Wikipedians could buy books at a discount -- but when it comes to obtaining access for information, the Foundation seems to have entirely missed the message. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Llywrch, FUTON bias is definitely a thing. Guy (help!) 13:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm seeking help for Wikipedians to fight it. Extortionate prices on print sources only make the problem worse. -- llywrch (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I suggested this the last time Atsme brought this up, but since WMF has some money, they could start a pilot-project on giving editors who apply and fulfill some criteria one-year subscriptions to WaPo, NYT, Haaretz, The Times and/or whatever. If they tell WaPo "Hey, we'd like 10 000 subscriptions!" they may be able to negotiate a discount. Current asking price is $29 for the first year. One can of course always ask at WP:WRE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, and in the 2017 discussion JW stated "First, I think it's a really interesting idea to think about how the WMF might negotiate for bulk discounts for access for individual Wikipedians to the archives of newspapers (to be paid for by the WMF)" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, there are mechanisms already in place for access to paywalled content - I have JSTOR, for example, through WMF. Guy (help!) 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

JSTOR I knew about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, why are you against this proposal? It's a net positive, and will be a vast improvement toward encouraging the use of quality sources, not to mention a vast improvement on our time here. It will save you money in subscription fees that you could donate to WMF instead. All these suggested workarounds are a pita, and can be extremely time-consuming for those of us working NPP/AfC or reviewing FACs or verifying that material in controversial articles align with the sources, etc. I try not to stick tags on articles - I go hunt down the RS and fix the issues. WMF can afford to do this, and it should be done because the paywalls are only going to get worse which will have a negative effect on the pedia. WP editors aren't the only ones trying to cheat the paywalls so you can expect them to tighten up. Why wait until the fit hits the shan? Jimbo, what more can I do to help further this proposal? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, proposal? I don't see a proposal in there. Or at least not one that has any hope of success. TWL hands out subscriptions that are given to us by the publishers. If NYT, WaPo and WSJ choose not to offer, then there's not a whole lot we can do. Guy (help!) 09:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy...I provided links when I first posted but since this is a worthy endeavor, I'll add a few more links and cut to the chase by providing Jimbo's responses here and here at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 226#Paywall creep. I hold in high regard much of the information he provides, and there are times when that information may not seem like a lot, at least not until his words are fully digested, but along that same line, there are times when digesting his words have the same effect as eating a spicy burrito.

Jimbo said: If this is a good idea (and I generally think it is, although I can think of some reservations) then I can imagine a really neat technical solution. Much like 'Facebook connect', a 'Wikipedia connect' could allow anyone with a Wikipedia account to login to any resource that allows it. Just as "Facebook connect" is very easy for websites to implement, so could be "Wikipedia connect". In order for this to not simply become a popular way for people to evade paywalls (which would obviously make it highly undesirable for the publishers), the api could also hand back an edit count, so that publishers could use the mechanism to say "If you are a legitimate Wikipedian with 250 or more edits, then you can have free access". I made the number 250 up out of thin air as being a number that seems high enough to prevent annoying people from bothering to pop by to make a handful of relatively useless edits, but low enough that all serious Wikipedians would get it.

Reservations that come to mind: there is an argument that as a service to our readers, we should prefer sources, other things being equal, that are freely licensed, and if not freely licensed, at least free to read. A free pass for Wikipedians makes it easier for us to link to closed sources. There is a counter-argument that such an approach feeds right into a lot of the advertising-only business model problems of encouraging clickbait business models rather than reader-supported business models. I'm not taking a stand on that, but rather noting that our impact on the ecosystem of the web is substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 6:32 am, 25 January 2018, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−4) (reply)

And his final response: I agree with this, for the most part, but I also think that offering payment is probably unnecessary. The mere argument "if you do this, you will get more links from Wikipedia" is probably incentive enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 6:33 am, 25 January 2018, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC−4)

As you can see after reviewing prior discussions and Jimbo's response, proposals have already been put forward, and now they just need to be acted upon. The paywalls are increasing, and the areas suffering most from paywall syndrome are WP:NPP, WP:AFC and WP:AFD, all of which are crucial to maintaining the growth and quality of the encyclopedia. Volunteers need tools to work with, and if Jimbo wants to hire me to help get the job done, I'm available. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The premise that quality news sources have paywalls which information/knowledge seekers or compilers need to deal with is not a premise I accept. Quality information/knowledge is free and always has been. Over rated and trite (non-quality) information/knowledge has to be sold in order to create a perceived value where there is none. It's similar to the love of money being the root of evil whereas money itself is not. It's also similar to paying for sex instead of having sex without payment. The most valuable thing about the internet is its free access to information/knowledge, although, just as with sex, there will always be pimps and other marketing types who trick people into monetizing something that should be free as a bird. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with loving money, it's when you commit crimes and hurt others to acquire it that makes it bad - and that typically happens because of greed, not money. To say otherwise is like telling someone to go to hell and then blaming your keyboard for being rude. And please, your sex analogy is not a good one. Let's keep things on topic - editors should not have to pay $1/day +/- per publication to subscribe to quality sources in order to improve or verify information in our articles. There are RS available to us now....at least until they figure out subscriptions not only help pay the bills, they provide assurances to advertisers, but I'm not here to teach marketing. There are some quality sources that are still free to us now but for how much longer? If WMF doesn't want to get behind this, then be prepared for unexpected consequences, and next year we'll see how it pans out. BTW - there is no such thing as a free lunch. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"For the love of money is the root of all of evil." Well, money's just a tool, I suppose. Loving a shovel could easily result in some evil, digging up a garden in the Spring OTOH, shouldn't cause any problems. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:, I have an issue with calling any publication that promoted the "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" bullshit "quality"; those 2 things are mutually exclusive, imo.

Re: loving money, even disregarding any spiritual aspect, i.e. aspects relating to human spirits/souls, ironically loving money is kinda like loving the shovel Smallbones references, which would be odd to say the least. It's probably just semantics, I'm using "love" in an emotional sense and perhaps there are other ways, like I "love" vanilla ice cream.....but still, I doubt money is of any more, likely less, non-trade use than a shovel or a wheel. It's like an IOU on a piece of paper. Useful but not, in a natural way, loveable, imo.

In essence I'm saying that, sure, the "love of money" is a real thing, but only because of brainwashing, i.e. marketing, i.e. value created out of thin air. Cabbage patch dolls, cigarettes spring to mind. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all - I'm the Product Manager for The Wikipedia Library at the WMF and I just wanted to share some thoughts on this as it relates to our program. We have partnerships with more than 60 organisations, who now provide the community with free access to their resources without us having to pay them anything (please sign up!).

The library doesn't contain everything, and there are a number of sources listed above that we haven't been able to get access to yet. While we've been focusing on some technical improvements over the past couple of years we haven't spent as much energy on new partner outreach. That's something we're going to scale back up in the coming fiscal year with more support from the WMF Partnerships team.

In terms of the financials, the library's holdings would cost many millions of dollars per year to maintain if we were subscribing directly. Publisher subscription fees are becoming prohibitive even for well-funded libraries and universities, and the library would quickly become one of the most expensive programs at the WMF if we instead paid directly for everything. Not to mention that we'd have all the same staffing costs anyway!

In short, I don't see a need for the WMF to subscribe to these sources because our arguments for entering a free-access arrangement seem to be working well - we just need to continue scaling up that effort so that we can fill in our gaps, both in terms of missing the big publishers and newspapers, but also in terms of diversifying our content to include more global sources. As always, if you have requests for new partnerships please leave them here or at the requests page. These directly inform our prioritisation. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Outstanding! Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): word of warning: if you go to that page to request new partnerships, make sure you are logged in first or your input will be lost. Also, realize that that page is not a wiki. I just added a suggestion for NRC Handelsblad, but I can't edit it anymore it seems. I avoid NRC nowadays so I don't waste the few free articles one can read, even though it's a great source. (the free article counter resets every month or so I think) Because I avoid them to avoid tripping the free article limit, I can't verify this is still the limit today. I added a note about that, but that seems out of place in hindsight. But I can't edit it. - Alexis Jazz 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I seem to recall that form previously saved your data when logging in. I've filed T251991. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Samwalton9 (WMF), so do I understand you correctly, you have looked into helping Wikipedia editors to assess certain news sites such as NYT and WashPo but have decided it would be too expensive? Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: That's mostly true, yes. We've decided that continuing to work on encouraging them to provide access for free is the better bet. While it may take longer to get there, the costs would quickly add up if we started subscribing to these publications. We've shown that these organisations can be convinced to enter a partnership with us, we just have to find the right people to speak to and make the right arguments. Oh and by the way, we're making ProQuest available soon, which will contain historical NYT articles (up to, I think, 2015). Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith but it is difficult. It seems to me that you said you were working on it when Atsme brought this up quite some time ago. If you have been waiting all this time to find the right people to speak to and also have not yet been able to come up with the right arguments I have to wonder how competent you are. It is not my intention to speak harshly, but I do have to wonder. Have you tried to work with the NYT and WashPo on a sort of deal wherein you would pay a reduced group price that would be offered to only trusted editors that have made a specified number of edits and have been WP members for a specified amount of time? If not this, have you made any other suggestions to these two top news outlets? Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

" Do. Or do not. There is no try." Assuming good faith and trying to assume good faith is classic Doublethink.

Samwalton9 (WMF), it's wonderful that you joined this discussion and brought such usefull and welcome information. Your reasoning is both practical and profound and I believe most of our donors support your approach to how their dollars are being spent. I agree that any media worth being considered a RS will agree to provide access for free to the library. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow when you say that Wikipedia's "reasoning is both practical and profound" and you agree with them when they say "any media worth being considered a RS will agree to provide access for free to the library" I think that it's fair for me to question your logic and your position while I don't for a moment question that you are speaking in good faith. But I do think it's fair for me to question both the logic and the sincerity of those statements when they are made by a Wikipedia paid employee. When months and years go by and the staff rep says they are still waiting for the "right argument" and the "right people", how can I believe they are even working on the problem? I think that it would have been fair to have this discussion with the foundation rep but I see they they are no longer responding to me, I suppose because I questioned their comments. Staff should always stay open to criticism, and though now retired, at least that's the way it was in my long working career. Nocturnalnow, please look for example at the Bernie Sanders article where we list 439 references. At least 60 of them use pay-walled sources. I am a major editor of that and several similar articles. As you know, we are especially concerned that we get our facts right when it comes to BLPs. How can I fact check them without paying what would, for me, amount to a substantial amount of money? How can we continue to call Wikipedia open to anyone to edit when seasoned, trusted, and productive editors like me need to be able to "afford" to edit here? Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I was recently working on creating some new articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and found one just-barely-notable person was the subject of a significant articles in the LA Times. Paywalled, and I ended up paying for a subscription, but I live on the east coast, and have no particular interest in reading the LA Times on a regular basis, except that it may occasionally be a good source for an article. I suggest I am a good example of someone who ought to have a discounted subscription, not for free, but for some modest amount.

I am strongly supportive of an initiative to get WMF muscle behind a discount model for a large list of paywalled sources.

The benefits to the sources are enormous. Yes, they want eyeballs, or at least the ability to demonstrate to their advertisers that they have paid subscribers, but editors provide so much more. We are including links in one of the most trafficked sites on the interest, far more trafficked than any of the individual sources, so our very actions are going to encourage more people to want to subscribe. My guess is that this is very crudely the argument that @Samwalton9 (WMF): would use to push for free access, but unless that initiative is close to fruition, I’m unclear why the sources would be more apt to do a free subscription than one in which they get some revenue. I think (but am not sure) that when they report subscribers to advertisers, paid are worth more than free.

I’m thinking though a mechanism where the WMF kicks in some money, and editors get to sign up for access to all these sources for a modest amount, which scales down to zero depending on how many edits or references created in one year. Prolific editors could get access for free, more modest users of such sources (myself) would pay some modest amount, and others who create almost no content would also be able to sign up, but for a higher amount. The devil is in the details, but I think a plan could be created that generates thousands of subscriptions for these sites, and revenue that is meaningful to the sources.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the top four: LA Times, NYT, WashPo, and The Wall Street Journal - all pay-walls. Why does the Foundation just brush this off and say Oh, we're working on it (but don't hold your breath)? Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, because it's not the Foundation's problem. It's a problem for us, as Wikipedians, but it's no more their problem than the fact that most books and scientific papers are not freely downloadable. Guy (help!) 09:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Apologies for not getting back to you sooner - there's a lot going on right now so it's not always possible for me to respond quickly. To reiterate my comment above, we deprioritised pursuing new partnerships over the past year or two while we focused on making technical improvements to our access workflows. We're a small team (now growing, I'm happy to say), and it just wasn't feasible for us to do both at full capacity. That said, we are soon launching access to Springer Nature, ProQuest, and 4 other publishers that we've been able to obtain partnerships with recently. Also as above, we're renewing our efforts this year to get access to these high demand resources, so hopefully you'll be seeing progress before long. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

When you say you are working "to get access to these high demand resources" do you mean the top four news outlets that I mentioned? If that is correct, is there any reason that you could not regularly share your progress with the editors? In my experience it improves morale when management shares that sort of information with those who are out in the field doing the work. Especially in this case where the workers are not getting the proper tools they need to put out the best product possible. Remember that editors take pride in helping to put together and keep up this project. Note that a while back Atsme asked "What more can I do to help?". That really touched me and I hope that it had the same effect on you and others in management. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea and I'll have a think about how we might make that process more open so folks can follow our progress. Perhaps a Phabricator board could work? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme and Gandydancer: Just a quick update that this morning I pulled together the start of a partnerships Phabricator board for the project, which you can now find at The-Wikipedia-Library-Partnerships. I haven't got to importing everything yet, but I think I've covered most of the high priority or actively under discussion publishers. Also of interest, while I was pulling this together, is that I discovered our impending ProQuest partnership contains the US Newsstream collection via ProQuest Central, in which it looks like you'll be able to find The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and more current newspapers! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Samwalton9 (WMF) - it's good to know they are on the list. I cannot imagine why any of those news sources would reject an opportunity to be cited in Wikipedia. Just curious...is there a way we can utilize link tracking for the links we include in our citations and possibly use those numbers to help convince the respective sources to grant us access? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Yes! We have a tool that can do this link tracking for us. It has some issues we need to work on over the coming year, before we can roll it out to publishers in a meaningful way. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully we have been successful in letting management understand how difficult it is to do factual, up-to-date edits be they about the environment, politics, or everything in between without access to high quality up-to-date information. Jimbo dreamed the impossible dream and everyday people have helped him to make it come true. The world is not the same as it was when Jimbo first started our online encyclopedia and it's important that we adjust to changing times. Hopefully now management will work on making the needed changes that will insure a continuance of the high quality information that we all hope to provide. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF), I expressed support for free or reduced price access for certain editors who add a lot of links to paywalled sources upthread, but I’ll add another category, which are not likely to get tracked by a link tracking tool. I do a lot of copyvio work, and that often includes removal of material plagiarized from paywalled sources. I trust the sources will agree that this is a valuable service to them, and isn’t going to result in a new link to their site, it may even result in the removal of a link. However, I can’t verify the problem without reviewing the source, and sometimes I have to skip over one, leaving for overworked other volunteers, because I cannot view it. I presently have a paid subscription to LA Times, but I obtained it to work on a basketball article, and can’t justify paying for a subscription for a once in a year positive edit to an article, and an occasional copyvio check.

Presumably it would not be hard to scrape the CopyPatrol archives to find links to paywalled sources, and thereby demonstrate the value that CopyPatrol editor add by removing copyright violations. I would suggest that active contributors to CopyPatrol should have free access to paywalled sources to continue this work. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: If access to the sources is useful for you on Wikipedia, regardless of what activities they're useful for, then you're more than welcome to get access! Link additions via that tool are just one way we can evaluate the program, so don't worry about using the library for other activities, including but not limited to copyright patrolling :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

now I'D pay for this

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/may/06/trump-live-and-let-die-video

Talk about guerilla marketing; somebody deserves one of those advertising prizes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Google News is also facilitating this. They have changed their old policy of not listing news stories behind a paywall.I guess the fake news problem has prompted Google to make this change. Count Iblis (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

notice

It's happening to me now.

I am a longterm highly productive editor, being wiped out. The quick read of what's going on at wp:ANI won't make it clear, but in bigger context, I am being humiliated and destroyed, in terms of my ever getting out of the hole I am in.

It's all about bullying, that's my interpretation now and always.

• I should have run for, gotten admin bit back in 2008 or so, which might have protected me. A lot that followed was enabled by others being admins and me not having that.
• Fellow editor in conflict with me got it instead, and pursued harrassing.
• I was here at User talk:Jimbo Wales once back in 2011 or 2012 or so, when beleaguered; I appreciated response here, but that harrassment continued.
• I was served poorly in 2012 arbitration case against me.
• I never explained to anyone what that permanently ruined, the types of contributions I would have been able to make, with others in and out of Wikipedia. I didn't want to give satisfaction to others for that.
• I got back up eventually.
• I hoped to go to RFA sometime, but got dragged down, blocked in conflict with a difficult (not just my opinion) editor.
• Got into contention later with another difficult editor, got blocked.
• Been dragged to ANI a few times.
• Recently, I found my way to developing out a topic area that superficially seems problematic, but is solid.
• Just now, basically, another difficult editor (this time User:Fram) confronted me, and in my experience has been cold and deeply incivil, and they opened ANI, and I am going down.

It seems crazy to me how Wikipedia eco-system works. Including giving over tremendous power to tremendously destructive actors, bending backwards to hold to other ideals (e.g. that anyone should be able to open ANIs, to pursue harrassment campaigns just below radar, that no one should be above being dragged down). Including ideals that i really like, but there have to be limits. Crazy to crush high number of incoming parties, by dropping default acceptance of high school articles. Amazingly crazy that historic places topic area, which should be free from controversy, and is very natural intro point for many, potentially, has in fact been horrible. There is no general understanding, say, of paradox of tolerance. I was encouraged briefly by WMF seeming to take action on Fram case. But very little is different in 2020 vs. 2012.

I have been thinking, trying, for long time to see how, and to do some part in addressing bullying. I found my way to deciding that writing an essay or two might be helpful, not too confrontational. Writing wp:TNTTNT, and associated discussion, has seemed to help in decreasing bullying going on in AFD arena. I found out recently that a separate action, taking out a difficult editor in that area, at about the same time, was likely of equivalent importance. I have been building a theory of how Wikipedia community could proceed, through systematic naming and then reducing of bullying-type stuff that goes on in each of many arenas for bullying (AFD, CFD, ANI, 3RR, and especially new editor entry points: new page patrol, two-item dabs, high school articles). And in complementary fashion, defining what constitutes bullying-harrassment. With essays towards emerging guidelines. With very gradual ratcheting up of definitions of unacceptable behavior. Broad and gradual enough to subsume simpler one-factor-at-a-time programs that would not work.

For me, I would prefer to do content, but see that being a good citizen requires more. I have long enjoyed being able to create content, as an escape partly. I haven't minded being drawn away to deal with emergencies sometimes. I have long enjoyed reaching out to new editors, or editors new to my areas, and supporting them. I have enjoyed many big collaborative projects. If I am humiliated as seems to be happening now, and blocked from proceeding with content unreasonably, as seems to be happening now, then I predict for myself that I cannot much enjoy just participating in non-content, and I will fade away or quit completely.

This is depressing, crushing, awful for me. I think it is a loss for Wikipedia, actually what I think I can contribute in anti-bullying, as well as in productive collaboration in content being stopped.

Here, I am not asking for intervention by Jimbo Wales. I don't see how any intervention now is possible by anyone. I just recall this was one safe haven, where once previously I could express what was going on, and not be jeered and dismissed. And as I thought about options last night, like if there was any way i could seek a coalition of help, or I didn't see any. --Doncram (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram: summaries are not your strong suit, are they? (hint, hint) And now I wonder if there is some connection between this and WP:FRAMBAN. I didn't keep up with that soap. I think in the last episode they invoked StatusQuoIsGod. But in general, without siding with or against you, I feel you. Sometimes it can feel as if the world is against you. Maybe you're just imagining it, or maybe it really is. But it sucks either way. - Alexis Jazz 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The implication given here that Doncram's current problems stem in some way from "bullying" is totally absurd, a complete red herring. The problem is his editing behavior, his failure to believe that basic policies apply to him, and his unwillingness to admit mistakes and fix them when they are pointed out to him. The complaint against him is perfectly reasonable, as the evidence in the AN/I report shows, and the sanctions proposed are justified - at least in the view of the majority of editors responding. Instead of shouldering the burden of fixing the problem he created, he's dug his feet into the ground and cried "bully!"

Doncram's current behavior is almost precisely the same as that which provoked [an arbitration case] which resulted in Doncram being prevented from creating new articles for 3 years and 8 months, so he can hardly claim ignorance of what he did wrong in the past as an excuse for what he's doing wrong now. He seems to feel that if he throws walls of text at the problem, it will go away, but that seems unlikely. He should engage with his critics and pledge to fix the problems they've reported, not attempt another end-run around the problem with his "bullying" complaint. (His first end-run was an attempt to quash the AN/I report with a post on AN that asked for "summary judgment" and sanctions against Fram for filing the AN/I report.

Doncram has had several opportunities to head off sanctions with positive responses, but has refused to do so. The comment he posted here is simply another attempt to deflect the criticism of his behavior without ever dealing with it. In my view, many other editors would already have been indef blocked if they behaved as he has, it's only Doncram's long service time and the volume of articles he's created (many of them sub-stubs) that has kept him from that fate, but eventually, if he doesn't change his ways, I think it will catch up with him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, you created a whole bunch of articles based on a trade directory and companies' own websites. Amazingly, you got pushback, just like you did when it happened before. Rather than simply banning you, we're looking at a minimal restriction that curbs your obvious enthusiasm without creating huge numbers of directory entries. Are you planning on learning from this at some point? Guy (help!) 09:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Doncram, I can totally relate to where you are coming from. I was recently caught up in a bit of a contentious dispute. however, I reached out to two of the main initiators, and two of them ended up being highly helpful, supportive, and became my go-to guys when I wanted to implement some ideas for posting information on new editing events and activities here. and let me also add, when another editor recently raised some issues, I was able to reach out to them, and reach a new positive accord. it did require some highly stressful and intense communications, before I could get to that point. but fortunately, in the end, the community helped me, was cooperative, and I was able to move on, and get back to editing the areas that most drew my interest.

with that said, I totally hear you and get where you're coming from, when it comes to the emotional stress and strain. guys, we all need to hear Doncram when they speak about this. it is vitally important to hear someone out, whenever someone approaches us sincerely like this, with genuine emotional stress. especially here, at Jimbo's page. clearly, they genuinely would like some real help and input.

Doncram, I can offer the following suggestions, if this helps.

1) arrange to get yourself a mentor. I have one now, and they have been extremely helpful. If they are available, you are welcome to contact my own current mentor, and see whether they are available or not. I would suggest you review the list off available adopters beforehand, in case another adopter might perhaps be more suitable. however, again, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page, if you wish to find out who is my current mentor. I don't know if they are fully available now or not, though.

2) contact the editors who initiated whatever proceeding you are now part of. inform them how you are willing to change or amend your behavior for the future, going forward. also, let them know that you can take a hiatus of some duration, from whatever area was causing the problems. that would most likely allow everyone to take a step back and to get some valuable breathing space.

3) most importantly, just take on a different activity for the next few weeks. it doesn't have to be anything especially important. some people will tell you to "just get back to content editing." that is fine, if that is indeed what you want to do. however, if you do not, there are plenty of other activities here that you can choose to focus upon. if you want, you can do somethjing as simple as welcoming new editors. or answer questions at any forum that you might choose. but regardless of what you choose, I highly HIGHLY recommend that you choose a new area of activity. taking a break from Wikipedia completely is almost never a worthwhile option; the better route is to to pick of different activities, regardless of their level of importance, and take that on as a new pursuit.

Well, I hope my ideas above are of some help. I am going to continue to watch this discussion, so I will see any further replies that are posted here. Also, you are welcome to send any messages to my talk page. I look forward to seeing this discussion develop towards some positive resolution. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've mentioned a decade ago that Wikipedia should reform the Administrative sector. Personal behavioral issues often escalate in these processes when the goal should be to move away from such issues. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: I agree with you on that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikis with shared namespaces

When wikis with shared namespaces were created (currently Wikidata and Commons), the advantages were obvious. But what about the downsides? The risk of those projects influencing other projects, the risk of policy or administrator actions local to Wikidata and Commons having an influence on other projects? Have there been considerations on how to mitigate that risk? And have efforts been made to improve collaboration both ways? Consider the infobox on es:Jimmy Wales and Jimmy Wales. The former has only 4 parameters and gets the rest from Wikidata, the latter has 19 parameters. Afaik this is because enwiki doesn't trust Wikidata to keep vandalism under control. On another project, an influential administrator prefers not to trust Commons with things that influence many pages. Frankly I can't blame them. Coming up with solutions is easy, but it's not my place. - Alexis Jazz 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think cross-wiki decision making will always be disjointed and hard, particularly around editorial judgments. Smaller wikis (I wouldn't count Spanish in that group, I hasten to add) may make the choice to lean heavily on wikidata in all cases, because they don't have a big enough community to do all that for themselves. Larger communities may make different choices. And they may make different choices due to locally important factors - maybe minor soap stars are a target of vandalism in one country but not another, etc. I couldn't even begin to think through all the specific factors that might lead to different decisions in different places.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt

I have no idea whether this is the appropriate place to put this, so I apologize if it isn't. Every year the University of Chicago holds an campus-wide scavenger hunt; this is a major event in the academic calendar and is significant enough to have its own page on this wiki (University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt). This year, the most valuable item on the entire list is "87. "A Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team (on its talk page).... User:Jimbo Wales posting his support for your team. (50 points)" Mr. Wales, I am here on behalf of the IHouse Scav team to request your support. Will you please help us by replying to this? Thanks, IHouse Scav 2020 - IHouseScav2020 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@IHouseScav2020: Can we get a link to the list? From reading the article, there seems to be a certain "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" aspect to this. What kind of scratch are we talking about? We wouldn't want any paid editors putting "Hi IHouse" on their talk pages, now would we? BTW (warning - joke incoming), why does this sentence remind me of Wikipedia? "Any University of Chicago student with a GPA above 0.5 may apply to be a judge." Humorously yours, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK the full item with the correct numbering is "88. A Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team (on its talk page). A Wikipedia account created before the Hunt that posts its support for your team. A Wikipedia account with one of the various non-admin privileges (auto/extended/confirmed does not count) that posts its support for your team. An admin Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team. A bureaucrat Wikipedia account that posts its support for your team. User:Jimbo Wales posting his support for your team. [1, 2, 6, 9, 25, and 50 points, respectively"

See top left hand corner Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the full item. I can't speak for any other Scav teams, but IHouse has exactly zero financial resources, so you don't have to worry about any back scratching here. I think we're counting on our roguish charm and clear moral superiority over the other teams making supporting us its own reward. :P IHouseScav2020 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm seriously demotivated here, I'm only a 6 pointer (AP, ECo, IP, Rv) - and not even sure of the 6 points (the IP thingee should do it, it lets me edit in the local library!). "15 years of editing and they put you on the day shift".[1] If I were you, I'd wait for Jimbo to show up. If you are motivated by six points, let me know and I'll give you a 30-60 minute task - an example of how to participate at Wikipedia. This can be delayed, I'll assume good faith. Smallbones_{([[User talk:Smallbones|smalltal, k)} 21:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Haven't been able to confirm that scav404.org is the official 2020 edition of the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt. But assuming it is, that item 88 could disrupt Wikipedia a bit. So..

F*** it. Let's all stand up.

I suggest we all post support for all the teams on our talk pages! Just add {{User:Alexis Jazz/item88}} to your talk page. I pity whoever has to tally up the points.. actually I don't. - Alexis Jazz 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I was probably joking around here too much. I wanted to see more about what the scavenger hunt was all about, and get Jimbo some more information if he really wanted to endorse that team. An apparent tragedy has now struck IHouseScav2020 has been blocked for having a group username and not being here to build an encyclopedia. I won't criticize the blocking admin. IHouseScav2020 can get a new user name just by asking the admin. As far as improving the encyclopedia (this will probably work - but no guarantees), please write up 2 paragraphs to appear in our on-site newspaper for Wikipedia editors, The Signpost, on why U of C students consider getting the endorsement of Jimbo Wales to be worth the top point prize. Just drop it off on my user talk page whenever.

Just because this now looks like a mess, I'll put my endorsement on my user talk page (all 6 points worth). I'll even suggest to the blocking admin that he do the same (9 points worth) on his talk page. (I realize that not everybody shares my sense of humor). Heck, let's go for the whole 50 points! Jimmy, would you please consider giving the IHouseScav2020 team your endorseemnt here?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: it's a shame they didn't make item 88 something like "Participate in WikiGap Challenge to improve the coverage of women (don't be misled by that page: it's not restricted to Nigerian women), win a prize in the WikiGap Challenge, reach the top 3 in the WikiGap Challenge. [5, 15, 150 points respectively]"

Don't spam Jimbo, spam the encyclopedia with useful content! Really, they should retroactively change that rule. - Alexis Jazz 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they can do that too. They are much more likely to do it if we try to be somewhat nice to them! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They would be much more likely to do it if they just did it! But if the event is almost over, well, maybe next year. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Worlds Largest Scavenger Hunt Request

Hi! I am participating in the University of Chicago's annual scavenger hunt. One of the items this year is a shoutout by you for our team. I know its a silly request, but would you be willing to help us out by posting support for snitchcock scav on your talk page? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liabg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: hey, look, another one. - Alexis Jazz 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, multi-spam is a drawback to my approach. I suggest that Jimmy just support the first requester and make a simple statement that he can't support everybody who is likely to come by now. In any case, as I understand it, the contest ends today and it looks like Jimmy might be off doing something else today and won't have time to check this page today. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'd say it would be a much better idea to support none of the teams. Alternatively, if Jimbo or any other Wikipedian wishes to support the event (and prevent spam for other teams), support all the teams. If you support one, the others will just keep begging and come back next year. - Alexis Jazz 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I say we do not support any of this, because Wikipedia is WP:NOT social networking. These WP:MEAT puppets are using off-wiki organization to subvert the purpose of Wikipedia.

I don't care how fun it is. I welcome anyone who comes to build an encyclopedia. For you Scavenger Hunt dudes, Facebook and Twitter are thataway. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Not supporting is the best option. The scavenge hunters would be welcome to contribute to the project though and award each other points for that as part of the scavenger hunt. Wikipedia isn't a social network, but there inevitably is a social aspect. Might as well try to take advantage of that to benefit the project. - Alexis Jazz 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Minnow

Plip!

Just a joke xD

User:Ntfresll (talk) Ntfresll (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I stop

By User:Gun23man I have realised the damage I done and am sorry to everyone peace and love! 2A00:1FA0:441E:3B22:F8AF:5973:903D:320C (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are or what you have done, but if it was damaging, and now you are stopping doing it, I thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think they mean to say they are Gun23man. Perhaps this user is very young. Just a guess though. - Alexis Jazz 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Was it okay fo me to do this?

Per Wikipedia policy, was it okay for me to do this? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If I am reading it correctly, then yes it is fine, however I would recommend some additional steps. First, the discussion should be copied to the relevant talk page. Second, I recommend raising some attention at WP:BLPN. Third, if the claim that the website is fake seems in any way credible to you, then a temporary removal of the link from the page seems warranted. As for me, I wouldn't consider it impossible that someone might create a fake website to smear someone, making it look plausible, and linking it in Wikipedia to give it some credence. On the other hand, random people claim all kinds of random things all the time, so it's hard to know. I would, out of an abundance of caution, remove the link unless some reliable source of international repute confirms it to be real.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits to remove unsourced material but I encourage everyone to take a look at this one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger: Wikipedia "scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics"

In the news today.[2] It's on Fox News, so please don't post a load of comments saying that it isn't a proper news source. Although I don't normally discuss politics on Wikipedia, I am not a lefty and don't think that Wikipedia is biased. We must be coming up to an election somewhere, this always happens in Britain as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, He is correct. Just edit articles in the political area and you'll see that. There is even a tracker of admin action that shows how not just the articles are biased but the admin boards and decisions are also biased. A "right leaning" editor can edit an article and get a specific sanction whereas a "left leaning" editor won't, or get a much more milder sanction if any. I don't think it's news to anyone who reads the articles here, let alone edits the articles that Wikipedia is biased. As to how to mitigate it, I'm not sure what the solution is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias is always in the eye of the beholder. I've never come across a Wikipedia article that had an obvious left wing bias, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well, to be fair, fact and neutrality have their own bias, and one largely at odds with Fox.

Any bias we have arises from the self-selection of our editors: what people would be most interested in contributing to an open content project? Fifteen years ago, when I was a new editor, the project was more anarchic, and I think we had more libertarian, lefty, and fringey types than we do now. As we've become mainstream, any bias we've had has become so as well. (For the record I'm not a lefty either and don't think we have much overall bias.) Antandrus (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, agreed...I recollect a vast swarm of 9/11 CTers and Bigfoot believers. Seems the nuttiest moved on or we simply chased them away.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

For a man who isn't involved with Wikipedia, Larry Sanger sure does commit an awful lot of airtime to it. Like an ex he still secretly loves... If we have a left bias, that reflects our sources, I'd say. The most prominent reliable sources tend towards the liberal side. Wikipedia doesn't claim that every article is neutral either, merely that we strive towards neutrality. I'd be very interested to see Larry Sanger actually get involved in a talk page conversation about say, Donald Trump, and see what his suggestions are to make it more neutral. Easy for him to sit back and say we have a problem, harder to help actually fix it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, the problem is as seen here is that many editors are unwilling to admit that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, so how can you sit down and discuss ways to improve when the other side says there is nothing to improve? Do you think Wikipedia has a left-wing bias in the political articles, especially when it comes to US politics? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, it has happened (not about Trump): Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_86#My_$0.02_on_the_issue_of_bias Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Fix ping to CaptainEek Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, Your first sentence kind of negates the rest of your point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Only if you think they stick to the facts. They don't, and it's a problem. What we desperately need are conservative sources that do. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, you are confusing Fox News with the Fox News shows. Do you think Don Lemon or other commentators at CNN or MSNBC are RS? The actual news at Fox is just as reliable as any other news, if not more. As I say, your first sentence negates the rest of your point and proves the bias, as you say, there is no bias on Wikipedia and then show your bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you are still confusing Fox News with a source that reports facts. It used to, a long time ago (see Guy's note below). We need moderate conservative sources that reliably report facts, and have very few; unfortunately Fox is not one of them. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, as I said, your point proves bias, and I don't think Guy is the one we need to be judging sources. Have you seen his rant on US politics and conservatives? I recall watching Rachel Maddow talk about the Naval hospital ship and how terrible it will be and what a poor decision it was to sail to to NYC and that it'll never get there on time, etc. But as Mandruss kind of alluded to, any criticism of left wing sources over here is ignored, yet as you continue to point out, you just throw out Fox merely for being Fox, and then claim you have no bias. At least admit you have a bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I think your error may be in assuming that I think Maddow is a reliable source. I don't. Maddow is an opinion show. Blowout is probably a RS, but the Maddow show is not. The Daily Beast is not reliable. Alternet is not reliable. Counterpunch is not reliable. On social media, I do not share the Palmer Report, Daily Kos, Occupy Democrats, The Canary. My politics are slightly left of centre (in as much as I have a party, it's the Liberal Democrats), but I don't judge sources by whether they agree with me, I try to stick to objective measures of reliability.

What the facts show, pretty clearly, is that left-leaning media, even highly partisan leftist media, are influenced by factual reporting, so conspiracy theories do not easily persist, whereas the conservative media bubble is dominated by an echo chamber effect that causes positive feedback. Which is why if you look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba you see a huge gap between the conservative bubble and the mainstream. It's why Hannity is still blethering on about Seth Rich, joined as of this week by Geraldo, and it's why a guy with a gun showed up to liberate the non-existent children held by non-existent paedophiles in the non-existent basement of a pizza joint.

And let's not forget that the opposite of mainstream is not conservative: the opposite of mainstream is fringe. Guy (help!) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, That may be so, but there is a big difference between Fox News Channel and Fox News. That site doesn't take that into account. I'm not going to keep debating with you since it's clear you don't think there is a media bias and you live in your little bubble looking down on everyone with a different opinion as dumb Americans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Sir Joseph -- you're still accusing me of bias when I merely recognize that Fox News is not a reliable source of factual information.

Let me put it this way: right-wing populism has divorced itself from objective reality and truth. There was a time, long ago, when conservatives routinely used facts, when the fact-using professions — science, medicine, and others — were full of conservatives. They are no longer, because facts matter when you are a scientist or a doctor. Tragically, this has all changed, as right-wing populism now develops its narrative from grievance and emotion, and looks for supporting facts: and if it cannot find them it invents "alternative facts", i.e. lies. Center and slightly left-of center sources still look at facts first; as you get farther left, of course, you find narrative-first, facts-second sources (Alternet, Occupy Democrats, and other such rubbish). Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Trump administration, and cannot be trusted for factual content. Put the facts first and develop the narrative once you know the facts, and the Goddess of NPOV will put her arm around you and give you a big sloppy kiss. And it's good for Wikipedia when you research and write with her blessing. Antandrus (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Antandrus, Let me know when you need help with your shovel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, one of the problems we have here is that a few of the conservative editors, including you, flatly refuse to accept that there is a serious problem with conservative media's feedback loop, and that this is directly relevant to Wikipedia.

Plenty of us here wish that the US had more reliable right-leaning mainstream sources. Right now, the WSJ is about it, though IJR is interesting. I was a fan of Shep Smith, a moderate and sane conservative voice.

It's not the case in the UK. Most of our heavyweight papers here are right-leaning. And you'd be surprised how often The Times aligns with The NEw York Times despite The Times being quite right-wing (owned by Murdoch) and the NYTR being dismissed by the right in the US as liberal fake news. Guy (help!) 08:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Here's a little secret, I just voted in the Democratic primary a few days ago. I am actually an independent in a purple state. See, it's these little things that you as someone sitting in your castle in the UK don't get. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, oh I am not so isolated that I don't know about open primaries. Guy (help!) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Sorry, my state doesn't allow open primaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, yes, there is a difference between FNC and Fox News. Look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba. FNC is on a par with Daily Kos or Truthout for accuracy and balance, Fox News has the same bias level as The Daily Beast but is about 25% less accurate.

I think you might be living in the past. Prior to 2016, Fox News was roughly equivalent to CNN, but the 2016 election cycle and the influence of Breitbart changed that.

That doesn't mean Fox News only publishes bullshit - up to a third of its climate change coverage is now considered accurate and truthful - but it does mean that you can't trust it, because the distinction between fact and opinion is insufficiently delineated.

Note also that I (and most of my fellow liberal-leaning editors) do not cite CNN. Or MSNBC. Or HuffPo. And certainly not "News & Guts" or Palmer Report or any of the other liberal analogues to the conservative bubble. A rule that strikes out Newsmax also strikes out Mother Jones, and I'm good with that. Guy (help!) 08:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, "The consistent pattern that emerges from our data is that, both during the highly divisive election campaign and even more so during the first year of the Trump presidency, there is no left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing of the media ecosystem behaves precisely as the echo-chamber models predict—exhibiting high insularity, susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy theory, and drift toward more extreme versions of itself. The rest of the media ecosystem, however, operates as an interconnected network anchored by organizations, both for profit and nonprofit, that adhere to professional journalistic norms.” - Benkler, Yochai,. Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)}

Fox used to be mainstream, with bias. It's now part of the conservative media bubble, because theyw ere losing shares (and thus ad revenue) and because every time they criticised Trump, they were savaged by Brietbart. It's a dangerous truth that most of the GOP base is effectively isolated from any facts that contradict the conservative narrative. This is clearly visible in charts like this: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Guy (help!) 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Yes, we get it, you love throwing out Benkler every chance you get. The issue here is whether Wikipedia is biased or not. And I think you can say the very same things about left wing media that you are ranting about, rumors, etc. I've seen some crazy stuff being sent out by Occupy Democrats and even Biden commercials that got fact checked. So let's not pretend the media is all one way bias. You are the one who got a bit unhinged and wrote a rant after all. You really shouldn't be the one to tell people that Wikipedia isn't biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, well, that's an issue, but there's another one, which is what the hell we're supposed to do when the vast majority of conservative sources are unreliable. A problem bigger than Wikipedia, I think. Benkler is not the only source to make this point, but that book is unusually compelling because of its mathematical analysis.

Incidentally, you might not have noticed, but I am the one who got Occupy Democrats added to the deprecated source list. I also don't use HuffPo or a dozen other popular unreliable leftist sites. Guy (help!) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, That's your opinion that conservative sources are unreliable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, also the opinion of many others, including reliable independent sources. OAN and Breitbart, in particular. Guy (help!) 22:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile just to go to original blog to bypass the fox spin. Bulk of the post can be summarized on this point here: The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. which I'll let speak for itself as to why that point has issues that is not related to NPOV. The only aspect of his post that I do know is probably in the right direction is on the politics, though I would not say it as obnoxiously bad as claimed, but it is there. We rush to include any type of judgement that may fall on those on the right, but it can be difficult for any type of legitimate criticism of those on the left to be added. It's not that we need to be able to add more criticism to the left, but we need to back off on the criticism of the right (and in general, period, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, and to the point of NPOV). --Masem (t) 19:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Enlightening link, thanks Masem. I somewhat agree that Wikipedia has issues of political bias. But I reject Sangers suggestion that our WP:FRINGE policies need changing. We don't give minority scientific viewpoints traction for very good reason (like MMR causing autism or climate change not being real). As the Plandemic video showed recently, the internet is increasingly being used as a tool of misinformation, and Wikipedia is perfectly suited to fight that kind of misinformation. Sanger mentions that "false balance" is flawed, but what would he have us do about that? Portray all viewpoints with equal weight? Let people claim 5G causes Corona?? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that when it comes to fringe aspects that have been disproven based on objective and sound scientific principles, we are fully in our right to disfavor them, hence the point of the quote I pulled. In areas of subjective "who is right or wrong", that's one we should be more cautious about and where I agree to a point that we're not NPOV anymore, just not to the alarmist level. --Masem (t) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I wish that there were some moderate conservative sources. Apart from the WSJ, there's close to nothing that can be used as a reliable source for facts. Guy (help!) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not that we have to be looking to include conservative criticisms of the left, it is that we should be a lot more resilient from including criticism from any side in the first place, and only after it's clear that such criticism is part of the enduring part of that topic to include. That still might be more liberal than conservative leaning in the long run, but it will absolutely be much closer to a central and neutral view than what we do now. --Masem (t) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, oh for sure. It should pass the "ten year test". Problem is, so many editors want to make Wikipedia into a real-time blow-by-blow commentary. Guy (help!) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Trump articles are really suffering from that, its a big WP:NOTNEWS issue. I think in ten years we'll see most Trump articles get trimmed down a great deal, once perspective starts to set in and we realize what was and wasn't important. But for the time being, we're hyper-reporting, which gives a feeling of great bias. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I like that term "hyper reporting" and that it does apply across the board to even not-as-political areas such as our coverage of COVID-19 in a broad sense, eg Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020 this is laughably not of any use to anyone in this form but its kept up to date. We've established a bad habit mindset of seeing something on the news and rushing to insert it, usually in WP:PROSELINE style, rather to consider if it is information that will be enduring or relavant in ten years or can be merged with other content, or so on. That's above and beyond the NPOV here but clearly feeds into it. --Masem (t) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If Larry Sanger is proposing that we must give equal time, space, and credence to the wildly-discredited claim that climate change is a scientific conspiracy hoax, or the frankly-dangerous nuttery around purported COVID-19 miracle cures/quackery... then we stop containing the "sum of human knowledge" and start containing "the sum of human foolishness and fraud." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, Larry Sanger tried this with Citizendium. He ended up with articles written from the perspective that homeopathy is legitimate, for example, and had to nuke great swathes of content.

I am forced to the conclusion that Wikipedia's model is the worst possible, apart from all those others that have from time to time been tried. Guy (help!) 20:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, after witnessing Sanger’s last abortive attempt to edit here, I can say that’s pretty spot-on. He was little else but disruptive, and didn’t even know or comprehend most our current policies. This was in the area of intelligent design, where he strongly advocated WP:FALSEBALANCE for various fringe views. If Wikipedia had continued the way he was saying he had intended, it would have likely suffered an even worse fate than Citizendium, and would not even be a fraction of what it is today. The project would have failed. Miserably. If he had his way, articles would just become endless coatracks that imparted little actual information, and certainly not in an encyclopedic way. Which would render Wikipedia at least partially useless. I’m sorry, but WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV (in its current incarnation), WP:RNPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:WEIGHT is what keeps Wikipedia ticking, growing, and becoming continually more accurate. Sanger would have us scrap over half of those foundational policies, from what I’ve seen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, indeed. Much of the noise about "political bias" comes from the outspoken conservative editors, who feel (and indeed probably are) outnumbered. But their voices are heard, and, where factual, I think usually recognised in content. We live in extraordinary times, though. Guy (help!) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t disagree that this is a subject that perennially crops its head up. I also feel that’s something of an American versus a global issue; most of the rest of the world doesn’t hold the opinions of that minority (especially nowadays); in fact, they’re actually rather dwarfed by the mainstream views. This is largely due, I think, to a shift in the Overton Window, and thus reliable sourcing with a “conservative” bent becoming less and less reliable as a result (with some exceptions).

Basically, what Masem said below. In this particular context though, I was talking specifically about Larry Sanger. I wouldn’t be surprised if he chose a controversial topic at random, that he knew involved fringe subjects, and chose to be a provocateur. I saw him pop up in a few other places in my watchlist around that time, but that was the only place I saw any sustained conversation. What I described was pretty accurate. He wanted to give equal time and priority to all “sides”, and “let the reader decide”. I also think I was pretty accurate in saying that this would have just turned the topic area into an inevitable mess, a morass it couldn’t emerge from without reliable sources and expert opinions. I believe that whether it be religion, or politics, we can present minority (or even fringe) views perfectly well, and accurately, but that they need to be in the context of mainstream scholarship And opinion, and weighted accordingly. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, that is consistent with past experience with Sanger. I put it down to a desire to be nice to people. The problem with that is also the problem that has sunk pretty much every political experiment in human history: it is in the nature of bad faith actors to exploit niceness, to take without giving. Guy (help!) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help!) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I dunno, only one side seems to constantly quote comedians as their source for reality. It really is a joke though I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, No it doesn't. and it's opinions like this that should really get you out of any political editing. It's clear you have some sort of crusade, and you are unable to edit in a neutral manner, whether it's with regards to religion or politics. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it's a joke, but one which is funny because it contains truthiness. Much of the current dogma of the conservative movement is counterfactual. It's also comparatively recent. Richard Nixon created the EPA, George H.W. Bush signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It's only since the 1980s that the GOP selection process has imposed de facto purity tests on climate change, abortion, unfettered gun ownership and the rest. Guy (help!) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Careful...don't you know that JzG is an ADMINISTRATOR! That means he has a monopoly on the truth, especially regarding American conservatives...which are all rebel flag waving, climate change denying, backward, antiscience, anti-vaxxers, bambi huntin, cousin marrying, well...they also do noodling...etc. Get with the program!MONGO (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, you forgot gun-toting. Which is odd considering the 300 million+ guns in the US and the number of people who voted for Trump something doesn't add up, some evil gun owners might be liberal. As for hating science, here's an interesting read how the left is far more dangerous to science than the right, consider GMO, anti-vaxx, and to quote, "Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others." The Real War on Science/ The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. by Jonathan Tierney I also think there is something odd with the vehemence in how someone from the UK thinks he is able to talk about US politics merely from reading newspapers, and of course leftwing ones at that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very much an Anglophile, even though my ancestor was told to skedaddle from there abouts 400 years ago. But I think its common in Britain to poke fun at the right wingers here, maybe even be scared of them, though in most cases, bet they have never met one of them in person. Its almost as if the noodlers are going to organize their armada of rowboats and set sail across the Atlantic and storm the cliffs of Dover. They are afterall, to the left of our center, so to them, an American conservative is like some kind of wild eyed crazy and armed to the teeth. The reason no liberals own a gun is because Billy Bob and his three boys own an average of 175 guns apiece...least that is the usual talking point.--MONGO (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, yep, same here, I enjoy watching PMQ's for some reason and I love anything British. One of my downtime activities is watching these YouTube videos and I have a few of them are British/Irish/Scottish and they travel to the US and they all can't believe how amazing the US is and more importantly, how amazing the people are. It's perfect timing because the Scottish guy just put out a video yesterday and he said if he can get a visa, he'd move to the US in a heartbeat. He can't stop raving about how awesome it is. This just goes to show you how powerful the press is. Maybe we should start a GoFundMe to bring Guy to the US and show him around. Just as long as we avoid campfires and baked-beans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I have met plenty of right-wing Americans myself. My work has taken me to Fort Worth and Tampa, for example, and there are plenty of conservatives in Philly, a town with which I am very familiar.

I'm not heading off with a gunboat. You buggers hanged the last member of my family to try that. And it's not that we're tot he left of your centre, but that your left is the rest of the world's right. UK political parties align closely with the rest of the developed world apart from the US. Guy (help!) 20:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Philly? Have you ever stepped foot in Philly? Somehow I doubt it if you think there are "plenty of conservatives." The city council has GOP representatives because it's mandated to have third party seats and they still had to fight with other third parties for a chance. Also out of all the seats in the State House, they have 2 seats and no Senate seats. I wouldn't call Philly a place where you can find "plenty of conservatives." [[10]] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Last time Philadelphians voted for a Republican presidential candidate was 1932.--MONGO (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only 1 district in Philly that elected a GOP member, the other GOP is at large and the other at large is a different third party or Dems. That's 2 out of 17 seats. Also, Philly has been under Dem control since 1951. (Incidentally, it is the poorest large city in the US [3] similar to what happened to Detroit from 1950 to now. ) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Philly is a city where people commute. My good friend Jim62sch (no longer active) lives in the area and I am in daily touch with people from my old firm, SunGard, in that city. They live where there are trucks with gun racks on every driveway.

Bizarrely, though, it was only on the fifth visit that we went out of the back door of the Curtis Center and I realised that the Liberty Bell is right next door. Go figure. This was before I was diagnosed coeliac, so I was able to experience the legendary Jim's. But in five years of visits I never managed to hear the Wanamaker Organ play, sadly. Guy (help!) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Are you going to Britishsplain me the Philly area? I'm going to call BS on your statement that people in Philly have gun racks in every driveway. Nope, sorry doesn't happen. You visited the area a few times and you think you know Philadelphia enough that there are trucks with gun racks on every driveway? I think they were pulling your leg considering you seem to be gullible enough to believe any stereotype about Americans. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

SirJoseph, American conservatives are all nuts! You know it, I know and JzG knows it. Even those crazies over in Hong Kong know it.[4].--MONGO (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes you wonder why the US is still the number one country people want to move to, and the number two spot isn't even close. [5] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit articles on politics much but I have been heavily involved in articles on the Bible/Christianity/martyrs, mostly trying to have the articles make clear what can be known as to whether the stories in them are historically accurate. Sanger says in his blog post "the article on Jesus is biased because it would upset a lot of Christians" by saying for instance “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” We do not censor scholarly consensus because it might upset people. My colleague Tgeorgescu has contributed a good essay on this - Wikipedia:Academic bias -Wikipedia has, and should have, a pro-academic "bias". Yes. We are biased and should be proud of it. We are biased in favor of the academic, scholarly, mainstream consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is fine that we have an academic and mainstream bias, but we need to be fully aware this is well accepted as a liberal bias in a broad sense in both what material we are going to draw from and how we may want to present it. Our hands are sorta tied on the sourcing side (as JzG has rightfully pointed out, the collection of reliable, conservative-leaning media is very very thin), and while we are not going to create false balances there are many many ways to temper the liberal coverage to still respect the weight of those sources without exalting those voices, and that's part of the issue that Sanger is pointing out and that I and others have seen. We may be stuck to using only the liberal subset of reliable sources for inclusion on articles, but we're not limited in topic awareness and discussions of how to approach a topic, knowing what's controversial and what's not, what probably is a spur-of-the-moment controversy compared to a actual long-running issue, and the like, and that's the cautions I've put out. We're still going to come out with Wikivoice being more liberal than conservative, but we should be only very slightly off-center compared to the media's placement if we're doing it right. When we blindly follow the media bias without any corrections, that's the problem--Masem (t) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, I'd agree with that. Just because there's a conservative media bubble that behaves differently from the mainstream, that doesn't mean the mainstream is immune from the echo chamber effect, just that in general it is less powerful than the fact-checking ethos in the kinds of sources we consider reliable. Guy (help!) 22:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a left bias on article involving current political and left vs. right themes. Sometimes it's in places where the reader can can just "dial in" for the bias and it's still a useful article. In some other case it distorts or hides coverage of the topic so much that it badly degrades the coverage. It comes from dozens of different places. At the top of the list is wikilawyering to slant the article, a problem that could be helped by tweaks in policies. Unequal treatment of editors based on politics, by admins and even occasionally by arbcom. Editor headcount at contested places is also a cause. Policies that favor "old media" in the US also contribute. WP:NPOV which has nothing that is operationally usable regarding wp:weight is also another big contributor. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Derp. Who is "Wikipedia"? Did Fox ask for a response on WP:Helpdesk or WP:Teahouse or something? And they got no response? How long did they wait, two seconds?

This is not surprising, Larry been trying to compete with Wikipedia ever since he left. I thought it wouldn't be appropriate to post the following link here. It's rude and all. Then I saw Larry Sanger tweeted the Uncyclopedia logo in relation to Wikipedia's neutrality. That's it, I'm posting the link! No, make it two! Do you like Uncyclopedia, Larry? Do you? - Alexis Jazz 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually very, very pleased to see this topic being discussed here. no matter what one's political viewpoint may be, it is always good to revisit this area of discussion from time to time. and also, whether one agrees or disagrees with Sanger's viewpoints, there is a legitimate issue to discuss here, simply in terms of how well we are upholding WP:NPOV.

when I first arrived at Wikipedia, the articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were in a state of total stalemate. no matter what edits one side made, the other side was almost always sure to revert them. the edit wars were becoming recursive and circular, with each side blaming the other for violating NPOV.

With the help of a few other positive-minded editors, I helped to implement a basic but important compromise; I simply said that one side should allow the other side to express their point of view; by doing so, the side of this conflict that made that concession had thereby achieved a legitimate basis to present its own view; in other words, by allowing the views of one opposing side to be fully covered as one valid side of a conflict, this made it acceptable for the other side's views to also be depicted as a valid viewpoint.

I think that what this really established is that in the case of a genuine controversial area, the best way to adhere to NPOV is not to seek some mythical objective viewpoint, but rather to present the two sides, if each side has some valid point, or some valid basis for making the points or assertions that it makes.

I would suggest a similar approach to the current topics referred to above. yes, there is often a mainstream view that does not need to be diluted or counteracted by alternate theories that are no more than fringe. however, if any editors come here with good intentions, and only seek to provide coverage for alternate viewpoints that have some valid basis, then they should be given some ability to do so. I look forward to hearing further insights on this. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, there is a regrettable tendency for disgruntled grifters (including people like TDA and Kohs) to dominate off-wiki discussion of Wikipedia. Some recent stories have been much better,, though, including the one that looked at the million-milers.

The most egregious example I can remember was when Cla68 fact-washed his wild speculations through The Register and then added them to mainspace as criticisms of Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a good example of just how misleading and potentially damaging Larry's line of argumentation is. Beyond arguing that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral, he cites the abortion article: No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” - It's a claim accompanied by high-quality references that meet our particularly stringent standards for biomedical claims, but because "no conservative would write" it, it's an example of Wikipedia political bias. In general, if you're qualifying your edits to medical any articles with "would a [conservative/liberal] write this?" instead of following the highest quality sources, find a different topic start a different project? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, sure, no conservative would write that in 2020. In 1980, it would have been mainstream. The pernicious influence of evangelical "Christians" has poisoned the GOP as much as dark money has. You cannot now be a serious GOP candidate unless you pass the "purity tests" set by Big Oil, Big Armaments, Big Pharma and Big Jeezus. If only RepublicaN jESUS LOOKED MORE LIKE THAT HIPPIE SOCIALSIT GUY IN THE bIBLE... Guy (help!) 08:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

With that I think it's safe to say that we can surely look forward to a very thought provoking and NPOV edition of any article you edit regarding an American GOP member or related article. So pleased to see that we can trust you to offer an unbiased and well, so highly educated perspective.--MONGO (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

MONGO, I mainly don't touch them. But that doesn't change the facts: the diversity that was visible in the early 80s has virtually disappeared. In every sense. How many African-Americans are there representing the GOP in Congress? What percentage of the Congressional GOP is made up of straight white men? Guy (help!) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

So I imagine this means if I sent you a MAGA hat you would be unlikely to wear it?--MONGO (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would go halfsies but only if we get a picture of Guy wearing said hat. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, In contentious interview, Biden says black voters considering Trump over him "ain't black" For someone who loves talking about racial ratios and disparities, you might want to check how the UK or even just England is doing with regards to number of non-whites. The GOP has more non-whites in Congress as a percentage than the number of non-whites in England, by my reckoning. But again, the GOP isn't big on identity politics, Gov DeSantis won in Florida in big part due to minorities voting for him in part because of his stance on vouchers, but you wouldn't know that because it's a hyper-local issue and I don't know if your local castle gets such the local news. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This Sanger guy is basically both-sidesing like Trump did after a Neo-Nazi killed a woman in the Charlottesville. A second of time spent debating such a morally bankrupt person and his indefensible point-of-view is a second wasted. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras, a bit, yes. You also wonder why Fox News would want to undermine a source of reliable information on, to pick a topic completely at random, the coronoavirus outbreak. Guy (help!) 10:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably the most common form of bias isn't lack of giving two sides on some debated topic, it is in applying an unequal bar to what get included and excluded from the article.North8000 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, being "lefty" in America doesn't mean aligning with the left. When neither of the two main parties are on the left-hand side of the political compass it is unsurprising that many in America, including Sanger apparently, believe that even centrists are "lefty". Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare the politics of 60 years ago compared to the politics of today. Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Five minutes after this interview, this would be in the Trump article, and we all know this to be true. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. In contentious interview, Biden says black voters considering Trump over him "ain't black" And yes, NOTNEWS applies, but it's not applied uniformly. Look at Joe Biden and see how many RFC there are on the page for RS stuff. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

[6] Anyone who thinks both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US have not shifted left overall is uneducated. No doubt Kennedy's policies and beliefs of 60 years ago would land him as a middle of the road Republican today.--MONGO (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For die-hard Socialists or Communists, Wikipedia has a terrible right-wing bias. Of course, they are rather scarce in the US, but there is plenty of them elsewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how the Communist Chinese could see that considering their far left political machine bans Wikipedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: That's not evidence against my claim, it is evidence for my claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Its evidence that the extreme leftist communist regime there is opposed to free speech, a free press and supports censorship.--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: Which I never denied: free speech is bourgeois ideology as far as they are concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is starting to look like the degenerated American political discourse scene which is basically limited to "bash the other team". Why not just strive for fixing any problems that we have so that we have informative articles. It sounds simple-minded but isn't. It's what we're here for, and is more fun. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia mainly derives political content from modern news sources, nothing will be changing. If your main sources for current topics are CNN, NYTimes, and WaPo, you're going to be able to safely assume what our articles will say. "RS" is now more important than "NPOV," something I'm not convinced is necessarily a good thing. News wouldn't exist if people didn't pay for it, and you've got to satisfy your customers and give them what they want so they stick around. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree: we certainly can use current news sources to build topics on politic issues, but we simply have to drop the commentary facets from it, which is the point of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. If the political commentary itself becomes the news, we have to simply make sure we're reporting factually on that. Eg we'd still be discussing the whole matter of US's response to COVID as there's the entire blame game that's been going around, that's unavoidable, but we've got to be careful of how this intersect MEDRS and the RECENTISM issues, and the less we focus on the he-said-she-said and more on the broad aspects picture is, which we still can do with mainstream sources, the better. The problem is that many MANY editors want to rush to include even the slightlest bit for commentary that is coming from journalists or outside observers that is above and beyond the news itself, and that's where using current media sources is dangerous. UNDUE/WEIGHT absolutely needs a factor related to time, the closer an opinion or opinionated statement is to the event that prompted it, the less weight it should carry. --Masem (t) 21:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV has always been dependent on RS. WP:NPOV is defined as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By definition, this explicitly rejects views which have not been published by reliable sources. It is not the fault of the left that the right increasingly buries itself in echo chambers which publish utter nonsense as a matter of course, and thus cannot be trusted to reliably publish truthful, factual accounts of reality - which is the basis of the NPOV policy. There's nobody on the left who forced One America News Network to, say, falsely claim that the father of a Democratic Congressional candidate celebrated the death of Israelis or spread malicious and false conspiracy theories about the survivor of a school shooting. Those, and many others, were entirely the choice of those who run the network, and those choices have destroyed its credibility as a reliable source. The right has only itself to blame for these issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Guess that means since they published utter nonsense resulting in multi million dollar defamation lawsuits as happened during the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation should we examine if the WaPo, CNN and NBC are also "reliable"?--MONGO (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And our stance on that situation, just like all other court cases, is "innocent until proven guilty". The only aspect being that CNN actually settled [7] implying, but not asserting any fault. We (Wikipedia) can't take action on that at all though this is my point on RECENTISM and adding the time factor to UNDUE/WEIGHT. --Masem (t) 23:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As our article on that incident notes, several news organizations, including CNN, took action to clarify and/or correct their reporting. The Washington Post published a report by its media critic which took issue with some of the paper's own reporting, as well as others, and critically analyzed the situation. I'd invite you to point me to where OANN has clarified, corrected, retracted, or even critically analyzed its claims that George Soros collaborated with the Nazis and funds migrant caravans, or that COVID-19 was developed in a laboratory in North Carolina with the help of funding from Dr. Anthony Fauci. You can't, of course, because they never have and never will. They exist in a universe where facts have no meaning. There is no possible equivalency between OANN and The Washington Post. One is a credible mainstream journalistic reporting organization which occasionally gets things wrong, and the other... is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone sounds awfully defensive. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone seems to want to personalize what has, up to this point, been a civil discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it you? Because you seem to be taking this pretty personal up to this point. PackMecEng (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see so many words here on Larry Sanger's latest antic. So surprised I'm going to add more words to this section.

Why should we bother about what Sanger says or does any more? Once I had a bit of respect for him, although I didn't necessarily agree with him: he was the Trotsky of the Wikipedia revolution, the leading figure at the beginning who was maneuvered out of the project, & deserved better. However, at every step he's provided evidence that would convince any disinterested observer he had less to do with the success of the Wikipedia model than first thought. His biggest attempt to prove he & his ideas were right -- Citizendium -- is a failure. When he became the CTO of Everipedia, I thought he had hit rock bottom. (All you need to know about that episode are a few facts: Everipedia was founded by two white guys who described it as the "gangsta Wikipedia"; & that Singer planned to use "blockchain" technology to make it better than Wikipedia.) He's managed to gain media attention only thru his vicious, at times irresponsible, attacks on Wikipedia & the related projects. This was the guy who claimed Commons was a source of child pornography. And his latest attack on Wikipedia is nothing more than clickbait for right-wing readers, a boilerplate screed that any conservative columnist could write on an off day. I figure he must be angling for a commentator's job at Fox News. Or to encourage disunity at Wikipedia. Or, since the man has a Ph.D., maybe accomplish both with little effort.

To repeat an old canard, yes there are errors in Wikipedia. The best way to address them is to find more & better sources -- not to fight amongst ourselves & give satisfaction to Sanger, a bitter young man who had one great idea once in his life, failed to find another, & simply needs to move on with his life. -- llywrch (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)