User talk:Jim-Siduri

Welcome

Hello Jim-Siduri, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Jim-Siduri, good luck, and have fun. – Winter^eu (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Executions

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Executions, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Meters (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ok, I agree, but I still think any of us should get at least one last request to be heard before being permanently banned.

Jim-Siduri (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. Meters (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Siduri Project issue

I'd like to take some time myself and break down why editors are concerned, and also why the Siduri Project likely won't be allowed on Wikipedia. These are all my opinions, of course, but based on my understanding of our policies and guidelines and also years of experience on Wikipedia.

Your goals as stated at User:Siduri-Project essentially duplicate—with some notable variations—what we're all doing here: writing articles, improving articles, creating multimedia, incorporating material from experts, removing/reducing vandalism, manually and with the use of bots. We really don't need The Siduri Project because it is redundant. Now it's true that your goals do vary slightly from our normal methods of editing?—the "variations" mentioned above—but they all do so in ways which violate our policies and guidelines:

The account hopping is a distraction and violates WP:MULTIPLE. We need a single point of contact, as it were, to reach you. Even in the few cases where multiple accounts are allowed, you must clearly declare which accounts are yours. That being said...
Your sandbox account, User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World, is unnecessary because every account has access to a public sandbox (WP:SANDBOX) and unlimited personal sandboxes (WP:USERPAGE), of course with certain expectations and rules. Both new articles and tests can be made in these personal/user sandboxes until they are ready to be moved to WP:MAINSPACE, where the rest of the encyclopedia articles are located.
Your project account, User:Siduri-Project, is unnecessary because our WikiProjects don't work that way. WikiProjects have a designated space outside of Mainspace where team members can discuss how to best work on their specific topic area or task. That's it. Because we edit by consensus (WP:CON), there's no "leader" or primary account responsible for making the agreed-upon edits.
Your main account, whether you choose User:Siduri-Project or User:Jim-Siduri, is the most concerning. You've stated that you intend to consolidate the edits of multiple contributors in a public/open source way, but—and I'll be perfectly frank here—there is no way to do this which will satisfy our verification and licensing requirements. We require that statements on articles be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). You cannot directly incorporate material sent to you by your "cuneiform expert", but if this expert has been published in reliable sources, you can write material based on those sources. Likewise, uploading multimedia sent to you by your "2 multimedia experts" is not allowed per Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, so they will have to upload the multimedia themselves via our File Upload Wizard. These are only part of the reason why "role accounts" (WP:ROLE) are not allowed and typically are summarily blocked.
Linking to your website needs to stop. At this point, it's WP:SPAM which can result in blocks and bans. In some of the cases, you're claiming "fair use" by hosting journal articles, but from Wikipedia's perspective it's a copyright violation. (On a side note, sources need not be hosted online for us to cite them.) I would strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:Non-free content because many of your edits have not been compliant.
Finally, you'll want want to read through WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:SYNTH. I know Siduri's words are important to you, to the point where you've based your personal philosophy on them—which I can respect, by the way—but you're going to clash with the community if you try to make non-Siduri articles about Siduri. In general, articles should reflect what reliable published sources say, and they should do so in proportion to those sources. There's nothing wrong with mentioning Siduri in other articles, of course, but it's best to keep it brief.

Now this isn't to say you aren't welcome here on Wikipedia. We all make mistakes, and my own early edits aren't stellar. You're obviously passionate about what you're doing and we'd like you to stay, but you need to edit within our guidelines. I would suggest picking one account and sticking with it, and stop editing your other accounts' pages. If your other experts would like to contribute to Wikipedia, consider asking them to create their own accounts as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi Woodroar, thank you for taking the time to write out all of these concerns, I'm sure they are shared by many. You deserve a complete response to each one, but it will take me some time to dig my way out from the mountain of Wikipedia regulations I've been advised to review, by you and your colleagues, and I'm not sure if all of these issues can be resolved under the current regulations. Like Gilgamesh, I find myself lost in a mountain, fearing I may never get out!

Also, even if I can address every concern to the satisfaction of you and your colleagues, I have increasing doubts about my own abilities to affect the necessary change on Wikipedia, but having said all that, I do have to respectfully disagree on one thing. Wikipedia does have a problem, and I may not have the answers, but we need to find a solution. Over a third of the editors have left since 2007 and even the Wikimedia Foundation calls our articles out-of-date and needing improvement[/multimedia]. You clearly care very deeply about Wikipedia, how can we solve these problems?

I have a great deal of respect for the hard work and dedication you and your colleagues have put into Wikipedia, and I would feel just as suspicious and concerned as you, if I was in your shoes. Thank you for your kind words regarding Siduri, but I would propose we leave everyone's philosophies, beliefs and passions to one side and focus on the elephant in the room. Wikipedia needs help. You and your colleagues have acquired a tremendous amount of experience and expertise over the years and any feasible solution is likely to come from you guys. You and your colleagues have the expertise, experience and support I lack. You should be leading the charge. You know all the problems. Please help protect what you love. Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Siduri Project" claims 1.0

These are the claims of the "Siduri Project", the "Woodroar Project", the "Wikipedia Improvement Project", or whatever we want to call it. Please feel free to add, modify and/or refute any one of these claims, I am often wrong, but I need a clear explanation of where my logic has gone wrong. Rather than fill pages and pages with justification text, perhaps you and your colleagues would like to point out which exact claim they do not agree with:

Claim 1. Wikipedia is out-of-date and in decline.

Claim 2. Wikipedia needs more multimedia.

Claim 3. Wikipedia needs a bot to monitor the other bots.

Claim 4. Wikipedia needs a formal internal project to figure out how to make these changes within current regulations or Wikipedia needs to modify the regulations.

Claim 5. This project should be created as a open source consensus-based Wiki-concept where anyone can contribute, change or suggest anything.

Claim 6. Wikipedia needs volunteer editors, contributors and experts to help this effort.

Claim 7. Bringing in new ideas, new contributors and new skill sets may require some outreach.

Claim 8. Before the project can begin the Wikipedia community needs to reach a consensus decision on whether or not they want to adopt a new project, and if so, what it will be called and how it will go about resolving the current Wikipedia problems.

Claim 9. This project, as a Wiki-concept to improve and protect Wikipedia, does not need any form of formal leadership, and even if it did, I would propose that I (Jim) am one of the least qualified to perform this role. Wiki-admins such as Woodroar, Doug Weller and, probably my most consistent critic, Future Perfect, possess the necessary experience, expertise and support to potentially affect significant change.

Claim 10. If we do not affect change, eventually we may lose our prime Google search result position, on almost every encyclopedic subject, to future competitors willing to more rapidly adopt new multimedia, applications and other novel technologies. Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily feel that Wikipedia is in decline, needs a jump-start or a miracle cure, or any of the other analogies I've heard over the years. The English Wikipedia has 4.5 million articles, nearly 3 times as many as the Dutch Wikipedia, which is the next largest. In 13 years, we've written about 13.8 billion years of history. And because we require reliable sources and don't publish original research, there would need to be an exponential increase in sources in order for us to maintain that pace. In fact, if you read Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia you'll see a similar growth curve across all of our language projects.

So while there's still much to be done, there's not as much as there used to be, and that will necessarily lead to a decline in editors. And of course there are blocked and banned editors, and vocal former editors who don't understand what Wikipedia is and also what Wikipedia is not. Believe me, every day I need to undo the work of editors trying to write about the band they just started in their garage, or how a YouTube video proves that the Moon landing was a hoax.

As far as changing Wikipedia goes, there are numerous means to do so, via Village Pump and also WP:RFC, but I don't think you'll find the sweeping change you desire. Our core content policies (Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Verifiability) go hand in hand. Allowing original research necessarily means that our material need not be verifiable and may no longer be neutral. Our article on the Moon would become a mixture of science and conspiracy theory and debate as to which kind of cheese it's made of. No bot is smart enough to police that.

I'll admit, I still don't understand your concerns about multimedia. There's nothing stopping you from creating your own multimedia and uploading it. Sure, there are rules about copyright violations and fair use and licensing media, but you're going to find that anywhere. A web host that knowingly allows illegal multimedia on their servers is not going to exist for long.

As an aside, you may also want to read WP:TALK and WP:INDENT. They'll give a good breakdown of how to format both replies and new sections on Talk pages in order to facility communication. And I'm not an admin, just a long-term editor.

I hope this helps. As always, feel free to reply! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroar, you are one of the most dedicated, thoughtful, intelligent, inclusionist voices on Wikipedia. I apologize for my mistake, but I hope you take my assumption that you were already an admin as both a form of respect, and a reflection of my belief that you should, if you wish, become a Wikipedia admin. I am certainly no Wikipedia expert on the regulations, but if this process requires some form of nomination, then please consider this my formal nomination for you to be considered, if you are interested? Jim-Siduri (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. There is, indeed, a place to nominate or self-nominate for adminship, but to be honest I don't think I do enough article-writing to gain the necessary consensus. Oh well! Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroar, ideally I'd like to keep this page focused on general Wikipedia improvement/protection ideas/discussion, but I would like to continue this conversation. Would you give me permission to follow up on your talk page? Best, Jim

Jim-Siduri (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Woodroar (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd look at some of your claims since you asked for feedback up there. I'm not an administrator and although I'm not an especially experienced editor, I do have opinions and I have been spending time getting a sense of Wikipedia's history and how things work here.

Claim 1. Wikipedia is out-of-date and in decline. I think you mean that the presentation is out of date because it doesn't user a lot of technology or multimedia. The way information is present is important but not as important as having good content that is verifiable, reliably-sourced with no original research, and presented neutrally.

Claim 2. Wikipedia needs more multimedia. Wikipedia could probably use more multimedia, but multimedia is not required to develop good content.

Claim 3. Wikipedia needs a bot to monitor the other bots. It seems that you decided this based on the erroneous assumption that a bot had changed link on a page you watch. Instinct tells me that the number of irreversible rogue bot changes is very small, and therefore that a monitoring bot is neither wanted nor needed. Do you have data on the number of rogue bot changes and their impact?

Claim 4. Wikipedia needs a formal internal project to figure out how to make these changes within current regulations or Wikipedia needs to modify the regulations. Considering that there is no evidence that the changes you propose are needed, such a project is definitely not needed.

Claim 10. If we do not affect change, eventually we may lose our prime Google search result position, on almost every encyclopedic subject, to future competitors willing to more rapidly adopt new multimedia, applications and other novel technologies. I'm fairly certain that Google gives Wikipedia prime search result positions based on the number of links to Wikipedia and the reliability of the content here, and that more bells and whistles and new technologies are unlikely to have a significant impact on those results. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?

It seems like you have developed solutions to problems that are not proven to exist, and that in developing your solutions you did not consider Wikipedia's policies on copyright, original research, verifiability, neutrality, reliable sources, bots, user pages, or project guides. It's highly unlikely that neither your project or your bot will be approved. Perhaps you could spend some time editing and reading policies and guidelines to become familiar with Wikipedia and what it needs before designing new projects? --Ca2james (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you're allowed to move discussions around on your talk page, per talk page guidelines, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. You've added claims 5-9 to my comment, above, which changes the meaning of my comment. Please undo all of your edits that changed my comment right away. Thank you. --Ca2james (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Let's ditch the contributor order number, all voices are welcome and equal in this Wikiverse, this space in our digital reality. Let's make sure everyone is heard out with regards to how they might improve and protect Wikipedia. For the record I am an agnostic empiricist rationalist humanist Darwinist ancient literature/Gilgamesh/Siduri's Advice enthusiast, but: 1) my beliefs and philosophies should be independent of this conversation, in my opinion, and 2) I am an inclusionist and I welcome any editor, contributor or visitor here, regardless of their faith. Indeed, I respect anyone willing to step up, friend or foe, regardless of their position on me, I respect anyone who cares enough about Wikipedia to actually volunteer their time and efforts, to expose that part of their desires, their passions, their soul. There is only one reason to be here. We think this effort is important, we think Wikipedia is important, we want to do our part, however small, to try and help.

If we were not passionate about the Wikipedia mission, in one way shape or form, then we wouldn't be here. I propose the second "rule" of this project (after the "no wrath rule") is that every voice is welcome to contribute. Sometimes I think, in many ways, I may be an idiot. I have a tendency to tell the truth as I see it at all costs, and this philosophy has hurt me on so many occasion that I am starting to question my faith in this philosophy. To be in any way effective I have to pick my battles. I don't want to hurt you, or hurt your feelings, you and your colleagues have done a truly amazing job, 13 billion years of history, wonderful, but would that passion you have for that subject be more effectively shared if there was more ways to experience it? Watch the video of the article? Listen to the audio version in the car or while walking? These are not difficult to do if you have the instructions. Let me make the instructions. I'll either fit them (eventually) into Wikipedia's rules, or I will lobby with everything in my power to change the regulations to make this dream a reality. Yes I have a dream of what Wikipedia could be, not a 2001 relic from the past, but a trailblazing multimedia-rich portal into all knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim-Siduri (talk • contribs)

Jim, I've restored the full talk page entry by Ca2james as he requested per WP:TPO. Please do not move text around on this page if it changes anything that was intended by the contributor. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Binksternet. Jim, it's great that everyone can contribute to a conversation, but it's important in every conversation that each person's words and meaning are left as they intended and aren't changed by others. --Ca2james (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old accounts blocked

I've blocked the 3 old accounts and moved some material to your new userpage. Please don't create any more accounts. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, thank you for moving the relevant content over. I'm sorry for the headache the extra accounts caused, each had a defined purpose, but until I have Wikipedia consensus approval to do so, I promise to use no account but Jim-Siduri.

I also wanted to thank you for suggesting the village pump as a formal location where the "Siduri Project" or whatever it ends up being called can be proposed. I told you I would leave if this project for change at Wikipedia fails to achieve consensus.

I'll admit, it is looking like a bit of a long shot, I'm not sure if I have the time, energy or even ability to make even the smallest change at Wikipedia currently.

I'll also admit that it hurts me to see the text stub article we now have for Siduri and I wanted to ask you a favor?

What? And I wouldn't call it a WP:Stub. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to, if possible, keep the Siduri-specific parts of this conversation separate for the more general Wikipedia improvement and protection Wiki-concepts, so I will post this request to your talk page, with your permission?Jim-Siduri (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us suggest focusing on Wikipedia/Diderot

Doug, yes, of course. I agree, you are, as usual, correct. The current Siduri Wikipedia article is not technically a "stub" as per the Wiki-definition. Trust me, I'm genuinely very sorry to refer to the article as a "stub" as my many critics already have quite an impressive arsenal of permanent online mistakes I've made pointed at me regarding my competence to even be here at Wikipedia, let alone propose any form of solution to current or future problems, and I'm not doing myself any favors misusing Wiki-jargon.

The WP:Executions joke was just my poor effort to inject a little humor into what is otherwise, in general, quite often an unfriendly, humorless and hostile Wikipedia environment; not you, but some of the other Wikipedia editors might consider being just a little less, how can I put this politely... a touch less grumpy. It would go a LONG way in helping recruit and retain new editors, contributors and talent. Ideally, all new editors would be welcomed into our ranks as a brother or sister who shares our passion for Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia's mission is incredibly important and serious, but let's not forget to have a little fun too.

Having said all that, I am not a fool, I know I have many critics. This perhaps misplaced humor, the bot editing mistake and now the "stub" definition mistake, along with I'm sure countless other mistakes and "bizarre"/radical ideas, none of these things are helping me fit in. I did make you a pledge that would try to do better to fit into the Wikipedia community, and I can not help but feel that my actions over the past week, which have escalated beyond anything I originally imagined possible, should be regarded as a failure in that regard, and I wanted to apologize. I'm sorry.

I also wanted to try to clarify what I meant by a text "stub", and I fully admit I had not read the Wiki-definition before I used it. I meant "stub" more along the lines of an encyclopedic article about Siduri that does not include the quote for Siduri's advice, which is, at the end of the day, the majority of what we know about Siduri. That encyclopedia article is so close to useless as an educational tool, so uninformative to the Wikipedia visitor, that it felt, to me, like it was little more than a stub.

I don't know if this is possible under Wiki-regulations, but the use of quotes is probably the most basic form of multimedia there is. If Wiki-regulations prevent us from putting Siduri's only quote in Wikipedia's Siduri article, then perhaps we need to take a second look at our regulations, they may need some updating to reflect our increasing focus (hopefully) on integrating new multimedia. As you know, not including Siduri's advice in Wikipedia's Siduri article represents a serious loss to the Wikipedia visitor. I would propose that any useful encyclopedia entry on Siduri should include the quote for Siduri's advice, especially Wikipedia.

Here is the text I would suggest we consider somehow re-incorporating into Wikipedia's Siduri article:

Gilgamesh, whither are you wandering? Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands. Gilgamesh, fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let days be full of joy, dance and make music day and night. And wear fresh clothes. And wash your head and bathe. Look at the child that is holding your hand, and let your wife delight in your embrace. These things alone are the concern of men. (Before Philosophy; The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man - Frankfort, Wilson and Jacobsen, Penguin Books, Baltimore, Maryland, 1949).

I know you mentioned copyright concerns, but I think this quote of Siduri's advice, or indeed any Wikipedia text or multimedia, would technically fall under the blanket protection offered by the doctrine of "fair use" as codified in section 107 of copyright law (www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). I may be wrong, and I don't know yet if Wikipedia regulations reflect this (I am still buried in an enormous mountain of Wiki-regulations that need reviewing), but my current understanding of copyright law is that as long as the text and/or multimedia is solely being used for non-profit educational purposes, which is essentially the definition and function of Wikipedia, then we actually have, if my interpretation of copyright law is correct, an incredibly broad umbrella of legal protection for essentially all of the multimedia creation activities proposed in the Siduri Project, including the use of quotes, images, audio, video, software, or indeed any other data file would be protected under the same legal umbrella.

Doug, you are the principal administrator for Wikipedia's Gilgamesh/Siduri articles. Like me, you feel very strongly about ancient Mesopotamian literature. I've edited the Epic of Gilgamesh and Siduri page with you for years, this is our shared passion.

I want to bring change to Wikipedia. I want to improve the Wikipedia experience by making lots of multimedia, and the only subject I am sufficiently passionate about, to fight against the long odds, is the Wikipedia Siduri article. However, I am worried about this article turning into an ideological battleground, especially in light of the increasingly likely scenario that I will lose this virtual war and be forced out. The favor I wanted to ask you is, when disagreements inevitably occur, would you be willing to judge both sides of the argument and let me know your decision?

I can't speak for my critics, but you have the experience, expertise and support to make fully informed decisions about content additions and removals to the Siduri article that few others possess. You have the subject-specific knowledge, you know the field, you know the Epic, you know who Andrew George is. You have the authority, both as an administrator and someone who's opinion I respect. You have the experience, the long and impressive editorial contribution history, and you have significant support in the Wikipedia community. I of course understand when you are too busy to review the details of a disagreement, but in the cases where you are available, would you be willing to fill this role?

Ultimately, I trust your opinion, and I would appreciate it if you would be willing to provide your judgment on any future disagreements regarding content additions for Wikipedia's Siduri article. Your judgment would very likely be respected, if not by everyone, then at least by me and anyone who respects my position on the matter. I would also regard it as a personal favor. Is this something you would be willing to consider?

Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim-Siduri. With respect to copyright concerns merely, Wikipedia does not rely on the latitude offered to non-profit educational use and in fact deliberately chose not to accept material licensed for non-commercial reproduction even though we are non-commercial - one of our chief goals as a movement is to create content that is as free from restrictions of possible, which includes permitting reuse (even commercially) and modification anywhere in the world, even areas that do not have fair use provisions. Accordingly, our own policy and guideline are deliberately stricter than fair use: WP:NFC. All non-free content must conform to that policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you, I really appreciate your input, expertise and primary focus on this copyright area. Would you give me permission to follow up on your talk page? Best, JimJim-Siduri (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moonriddengirl:, there seems to be some confusion regarding Wikipedia's multimedia policy. Any help you can provide, in any form, to help clarify the situation would be very much appreciated. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, Jim-Siduri, we have a WikiProject devoted to recording spoken versions of our articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. As you can imagine, they're invaluable for visually-impaired readers, people learning the language, or to take on road trips. I don't know of any drive—via WikiProjects or elsewhere—to make video versions of articles, but it will probably happen eventually. That being said, audio (and video) requires a great deal of resources to do well, and, unfortunately, the resulting media quickly falls out of date as the text article continues being edited. (Imagine recording a lengthy article, only to finish and discover that someone added a new paragraph or tighted up some of the language. Do you record it again or call it a day?) There's also the concern of recording a version of the article with vandalism or an error. And of course, we have to consider that text files use a fraction of the disk space and bandwidth of audio files, which use a fraction of the disk space and bandwidth of video files. Because Wikipedia is funded primarily through donations, I'm not sure we could afford such an undertaking without selling advertising space, and that's a dangerous road. Anyways, just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page

I haven't forgotten you, just haven't had time yet and want to check something Meanwhile, we have our own copyright policy. Read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for information, not about the quote. I'm asking someone about the quote - we could normally use it but I need to check whether there's any problem with it being the entire text, short as it is. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Doug, thanks for the update. I understand this may represent a radical change to Wikipedia copyright regulations and standard practices with regards to multimedia creation and use. We need to be sure that Wikipedia is really free to operate in this way in a legally protected way. Please take your time. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, that's not going to happen. Not possible. Please don't even think that it is. It's too fundamental and most of it can't even be changed by the community as it is the Foundation itself that would be liable and that sets the basic outline for our copyright policy. Please don't waste your time (or anyone else's) trying to change our policy. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I fear you may be right. This may be impossible. This may be just too fundamental a change in policy. But, with all due respect, shouldn't we at least check the Wikimedia Foundation's position on updating their policies to facilitate the adoption of more multimedia on Wikipedia? It's not hard to do, I'll shoot them an email and post their reply (with their permission) here. If the Wikimedia Foundation confirms that updating their copyright policy to facilitate the incorporation of novel multimedia, applications and data files is impossible, then the "Siduri Project" is dead before it even began.

You are also probably correct that this is a waste of time, but if we don't at least try, then nothing is going to change. Best, Jim. Jim-Siduri (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to compliment this effort with some outreach to help solve the potential funding concerns Woodroar raised. And I think that both emails could could be constructed as open source consensus built Wiki-concepts, demonstrating a (hopefully) united voice from the Wikipedia community.

I realize that creating the emails in an open sourced way may mean the emails never achieve consensus to even be sent. But I would hope that even my most diehard critics would not wish to prevent the sending of an email that however unlikely, might help facilitate the addition of multimedia that may help Wikipedia survive in the long term. The basic copyright policies were created for a different time. It's not 2001 anymore. It's time for change. Best, JimJim-Siduri (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

offwiki.org

Hi Jim. I haven't been following your efforts here, I just noticed the thread at the administrators' noticeboard and thought this might interest you. http://offwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Maybe not, but you should at least know it's there.

Wil, the founder of that site, has set up a forum which looks surprisingly like your user page here - and you may find more people willing to engage in "meta" discussion there than here. Best wishes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually coming here to suggest the very same thing. You and Wllm, the founder of the site, have some similar ideas and you both might benefit from working together over there. --Ca2james (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to see you on Offwiki. Right now we're going through some growing pains, so the more the merrier. We most definitely need more opinions, and we're still accepting co-flounders. -wʃʃʍ- 01:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wllm:, @Anthonyhcole: and @Ca2james:, thank you all for your suggestion, offwiki.org may well be the perfect place to experiment with new ideas and approaches to solving some of the problems I and others have observed at Wikipedia. Would you guys be open to potentially discussing the possibility of: 1) developing multimedia and software under a standard non-profit educational-only use 107-"fair use" license (rather than a "commercial use" license, which has essentially killed multimedia development on Wikipedia to date and resulted in a restrictive, deletionist, hostile atmosphere), 2) restricting editing ability to email-registered users only (rather than the current open editing approach at Wikipedia that has resulted in excessive vandalism and astonishing levels of over-regulation), and 3) experimenting with new Wiki-based approaches and concepts with regards to problem solving, tech development and other related activities? These are just a few of the areas I would love to discuss, create and develop on offwiki.org, and I am happy to help out with any other projects to help make the best encyclopedia we possibly can. An encyclopedia full of images and sounds and video. An encyclopedia with little to no vandalism. An encyclopedia that strives to stay open to new ideas, new technologies, new people. An encyclopedia that strives to fulfil the true purpose of any encyclopedia "to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." -Diderot

Thank you for inviting me. I really appreciate it. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Jim-Siduri

User:Jim-Siduri, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim-Siduri and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jim-Siduri during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I'm fairly certain that your User page is going to be deleted. If you desire change, you will need to suggest separate recommendations at the Village Pump (specifically the proposals page) or start a Request for Comment. Again, focus on separate, extremely specific recommendations (and no platitudes!) as I can guarantee that your entire proposal will be rejected outright:

First and foremost, even if some of your suggestions are implemented, your User page is not an appropriate place for that discussion. Why? Because it makes you appear like the boss of the project, when we operate by consensus. And because User pages are generally only edited by their User, and that creates a social taboo which will keep many editors from contributing even if you give them express permission to do so. And also because, as it stands, your User page is already blurring the lines between personal promotion/advocacy and WikiProject.
Our license allows for commercial use of our material and that is not going to change. Wikipedia is popular and prominent in search engine results largely because we are referenced and linked to within commercial projects such as textbooks, blogs, even YouTube and Facebook.
Our commercial license isn't prohibiting anyone from contributing multimedia. The Copyright Act of 1976 as well as legal prohibitions on licensing the work of others—essentially the same as signing a contract for another person—are vastly more prohibitive. This is something you'll have to take up with your local representatives.
Believe it or not, massive funding from Google or any other large corporation is going to be a big problem to a lot of people.

I would also like to suggest increasing your focus on the encyclopedia, even if it's something simple like reverting vandalism. Those who are not here to build an encyclopedia, and especially those focused on creating something that Wikipedia is not, quickly burn out or are blocked. Again, focus on small policy/guideline changes via VP/RFC if you desire change. The vast, sweeping changes you suggest will turn Wikipedia into something else—along with rendering most of our content unusable to you—and that point you're better off starting your own project from scratch. Even if that is your desire, Wikipedia isn't the place to start that project.

Again, my apologies if I've been too blunt. If you have any questions or comments, feel free. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroar, I really appreciate your advice, and the advice of your colleagues. I am at heart an empiricist, and the results from my initial efforts at improving and protecting Wikipedia have been disappointing, but I accept all fault myself and pledge, if given the opportunity, to do a better job in the future.

Ideally, none of these project proposals should come from me. Long term administrators and editors, such as yourself, have far more ability to identify and correct Wikipedia's problems. I consider myself an outside consultant, pointing out possible problems at Wikipedia that few want to discuss. I think I know enough about what's going on at Wikipedia to get a sense of some of these possible problems, but I have not yet lost hope for our ability to affect change. However, any real changes at Wikipedia, if they do happen, will come from you and your colleagues. I can give honest feedback, highlight potential problems I encounter, and suggest both organizational mechanisms that may be able to help Wikipedia, as well as suggest possible solutions to the problems, but in reality, I am powerless. You and your colleagues hold the true power in Wikipedia, the power of consensus.

My previous efforts failed to achieve consensus. I spent some time trying to understand why long term admins and editors are so concerned about my good faith efforts to improve and protect Wikipedia. I've carefully read and thought about everyone's comments and I am actively trying to incorporate every piece of advice, to the best of my abilities, into a new approach. But I can't help feel that there is a deeper misunderstanding at play here. Wikipedia has a fascinating power structure whereby a relatively small group of long-term admins and editors hold the vast majority of the influence. These long-term admins and editors are unpaid volunteers that have put an astonishing number of hours into Wikipedia. Many have been here since the early years and watched Wikipedia grow and develop into the huge largely text-based but nevertheless impressive encyclopedia of today. They log in, day after day, working on improving Wikipedia, protecting it from vandalism. They are some of the most passionate, knowledgeable and hard-working people I've ever met. It is incredible the number of edits I've seen performed by you and your colleagues. I can only imagine how annoyed I would be if a newcomer came in and started to criticize and suggest improvements to something I care so much about. I would probably delete me too! So, to those of you I have annoyed by my methods and words to date, I'm sorry. I hope I can develop a new approach that you will be both supportive of and willing to engage in. Also, if anyone is concerned about some of the changes I'm proposing somehow reducing their influence at Wikipedia. I wanted to take this opportunity to assure them that I see no reason for their influence to decrease. Indeed, I would imagine that the new proposed "non-commercial multimedia license", should it ever achieve consensus and WMF approval, would actually increase their influence, giving them new multimedia content to accept, easily modify or reject. I would like to develop the mechanisms to facilitate the creation of a new base of multimedia contributors that the existing Wikipedia power structure would sit on. The current Wikipedia elite would sit at the top of an even larger pyramid. Their power, influence and importance at Wikipedia would grow. Regardless of positions anyone has taken on me in the past, or doubts they may still have, please let me once again assure you that I am here to help.

I may well not have the time, ability or support to make any of this happen, but I should probably better explain why I'm here, why I believe in Wikipedia. I want to help Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia. I want to help the Wikipedia community, the Wikipedia elite, you, become more effective at what you do, with simple user-friendly approaches to edit multimedia content to make it acceptable for Wikipedia's many regulations. I know how bizarre, off-the-wall and radical some of my ideas may seem, but if my or anyone else's idea does not achieve consensus, then we won't do it. There is nothing to fear from open and frank discussion on how to improve and protect Wikipedia. I have a lot to learn on the subject, but I am willing to learn from my mistakes and I am willing to take the advice and guidance of my more experienced colleagues. I want to help the Wikipedia visitor to have the most effective range of options for learning, including images, audio and video options. I want my daughter, who is nearly 4, to be able to visit Wikipedia on her iPad and see educational videos that will inform her on any subject. I want you to be able to sit in your car and hear an audio version of any article. I want to help all of our children and our children's children have the most effective educational experience possible at Wikipedia. I want to move the reality of what Wikipedia is now closer to the dream of what Wikipedia could be.

Wikipedia has many problems, from lack of multimedia, to unstable funding, to loss of editors/contributors over time, and many more. You and your colleagues know the problems better than I do, I am merely an inexperienced newcomer. Eager to help improve Wikipedia, but unsure of how to achieve this. Perhaps one function I could provide for Wikipedia, at least at present, is to give you and your colleagues a completely open and honest perspective on what it is like for a relatively new editor who wants to volunteer their time to help improve and protect the Wikipedia dream.

Wikipedia is the world's virtual portal into useful encyclopedic knowledge. It is a primarily text-based encyclopedia that has become increasingly out-of-date as multimedia technology has progressed around it. Whether or not Wikipedia wants to facilitate the adoption of multimedia will be decided by consensus, but I for one think adopting multimedia is extremely important to ensure Wikipedia's long term survival. Unfortunately, I just finished a three-day camping trip with a close personal friend who co-runs the largest multimedia generation organization in Oregon (focused on making multimedia for non-profits), and he flat out informed me there was nothing he could do for Wikipedia unless they adopted an additional "educational-use only" optional license for multimedia that allowed him and his colleagues to make multimedia under "educational-use only"/"fair use" copyright law. The liability for him and for the Wikimedia Foundation would be too great to make educational videos, or indeed any multimedia, under Wikipedia's current "commercial use" license. He really wanted to help, but his hands were tried until this new "multimedia license" was agreed to. I strongly suspect there are many other multimedia creators who feel the same way. I don't know if we as a community could even change this policy even if we wanted to, as copyright policy is set by the WMF and permitting commercial use of Wikipedia's multimedia, for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me, is very important to them. I don't yet know the deeper reasons behind the WMF's position, or what else I am missing from this picture, that will require more analysis and thought, but I understand the initial appeal of keeping content "as free from restrictions as possible" and understand why that was proposed, adopted and defended to this day. However, as an empiricist, it seems to be my unfortunate position to have to point out that, based on the results to date, this goal has largely backfired from a multimedia perspective and has resulted in such a restrictive copyright policy at Wikipedia that multimedia generation, such as educational videos, are almost impossible to make. The most effective audiovisual learning tools available to us can't be created on our most popular encyclopedia. This is a big problem and is only going to get worse over time as the multimedia generation technologies get even easier to use. There are multiple commercial and non-commercial entities that would love to replace Wikipedia as the world's number 1 encyclopedia, and our lack of multimedia puts us at significant long term risk. But we shouldn't be facilitating the adoption of multimedia because we're scared, we should be doing it because it is the right thing to do. We all know that, and indeed when I look back at the comments, suggestions and advice I've received to date (sorry for the ones I have not replied to yet), the overwhelming consensus is that Wikipedia probably should have more multimedia on it.

I obviously need to do a lot more background research before formally suggesting any Wiki-project on the subject, but my current extremely simple preliminary position is that Wikipedia is a non-profit Wiki-based encyclopedia, and should, in an ideal world, strive to be the best encyclopedia it can be. According to our beloved Wikipedia, the word "encyclopedia" comes from the Greek "enkyklios paideia", meaning "general education". Together, the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge". According to the 18th century French Philosopher Diderot "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come." I share this dream of what an encyclopedia should be, and I propose that restricting the most effective methods of transmitting information, namely the incorporation of multimedia, is not in any encyclopedia's best interests.

I currently know of no reason why any site would stop linking to our Wikipedia articles if our multimedia was under an "educational use only" license. Couldn't they still link to a "educational-use only" encyclopedia? What would be the problem? I suspect that with the multimedia component that Wikipedia would get even more links and thus further solidify their prime Google search position.

Unless I am missing something important, it appears that the easiest way to solve Wikipedia's current "lack of multimedia" problem would simply be to approve a secondary optional "educational-use only multimedia license" that could focus simply on new multimedia. This would operate with the original licensed content (which is primarily text) and would be an optional license for multimedia only. I will, as per the advice of my peers, need to do more background research on this subject and the implications for the WMF, in terms of global copyright law, liability risk, increased server costs, and other related issues, but I also wanted to re-emphasize that I am fully aware that my current position could well be wrong and is open to change as more data and concepts are carefully analyzed.

Regarding the vandalism problem, I notice that the vast majority seems to come from unregistered IP addresses. I understand that this would make editing Wikipedia a little less accessible for the new editor who might start editing from an IP address, but surely a new editor who's really here to help would be willing to create an account using a valid email address? I may have missed something, and I could be wrong, but my current position is that this one change (only email-confirmed registered users can edit Wikipedia) would largely solve most of the vandalism issues and free up our talented admins and long-time editors to do more useful things with their time, like helping create multimedia :)

Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I simply don't understand the need for an "educational-use only" license. We can already claim fair use when using multimedia, as can anyone who comments or makes parodies or reports news. Adding an additional educational requirement for our multimedia has literally no benefit to Wikipedia, and would cause many, many problems. I don't want to make assumptions here, but it sounds like you or your colleague believes that an educational license allows us to sidestep copyright or remove liability, but it does not. Nor does it relax the requirements of fair use, like allowing us to use "more" media or negating the need for commentary. Copyright is copyright and fair use is fair use, and whether you claim fair use for an educational encyclopedia or a parody music video makes no difference. If I've misunderstood your position, I apologize. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woodroar, thank you for following up, it is a pleasure to converse with someone who has a positive attitude, is open to dialog, and sincerely wants what is best for Wikipedia. I really hope you are right, it will make everything MUCH easier if we can start making non-commercial educational videos, which would include copyrighted material (allowed under section 107 "fair use" provisions) under Wikipedia's current regulations. Unfortunately section 107 "fair use" provisions only actually apply for non-profit educational use. Wikipedia, which allows commercial use of their multimedia, actually falls outside of 107 "fair use" legal protection and thus exposes the multimedia creators and the WMF to significant liability. For example, if I make an educational video for Wikipedia that allows my daughter and indeed all of our children see a video version of the Epic of Gilgamesh article, an audiovisual version of Wikipedia text; one that is extremely easy to make and modify/edit I might add. This video will, almost always, need to contain copyrighted material that is educational in nature and essential to the video's educational purpose. Under an educational use only license there would be no money being made from this video AND it would be protected under 107 "fair use" provisions for non-profit educational material. Great! The liability risk for me and the WMF would essentially be close to zero. No judge in the world would have a problem with this dream Wikipedia world. However, this is not the world we live in now. Currently any company, let's call them company X, under Wikipedia's current commercial use license, could sell the educational video I made and make lots of money. The copyright holders would not be able to sue company X for a share of that money as Wikipedia's commercial use license specifically allowed them to sell this multimedia, thus the liability shifts to us. The copyright holders would have just cause to take me and the WMF to court for having allowed third parties to profit from their copyrighted material. It would be a nightmare with this commercial use provision left in for multimedia. Trust me, I REALLY hope I am wrong and your interpretation is still right. I have reached out to Maggie Dennis (Moonriddengirl) from the WMF for clarification on this issue. I will also need to double check our respective interpretations of copyright law with a friend of mine who is a copyright lawyer, but this will take considerable time. In the meantime, I thought I could continue this multimedia copyright conversation under the caveat that while I have a fair amount of experience with intellectual property (mainly patent) law, I am by no means an expert and my interpretation could be incorrect. I hate that I have to point these things out, I don't want to make you and your colleagues life difficult. Hopefully I am wrong and creating multimedia for Wikipedia will not be restricted.

Best Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for any of that? Which law exactly is it that permits the reuse of copyright material based on nothing beyond an assertion that it is done for educational purposes? It sounds like complete bullshit to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, you need to bear in mind that Wikipedia contributors may also be bound by intellectual property rights legislation in the jurisdiction from which they are editing - US 'fair use' provisions are of little relevance to a contributor from the UK for example, and the WMF is unlikely to accept policy which puts a significant proportion of its contributors at risk of prosecution for breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jim, your interpretation is indeed incorrect. Fair use claims are equally valid for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (a direct quotation from § 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976). Of course, there are limitations on use—how much of the copyrighted material is used, for example—but these limitations apply across the board, even to claims for educational use. Woodroar (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Woodroar, I agree, 107 "fair use" claims can be used for the broad range of educational purposes that you mentioned and there are of course common sense limitations of use, for example Wikipedia could not simply reproduce entire academic textbooks and claim 107 "fair use" protection, no judge would buy that argument, but that is not the actual problem here. The problem is the commercial use provision of Wikipedia's current multimedia license. If I started making educational multimedia for various articles, and helping others make multimedia too for Wikipedia, we would, as I currently understand it, be forced to use Wikipedia's current license which permits commercial use. If company X actually uses that commercial use provision to make money from the multimedia in the aforementioned example, the WMF and I (and anyone else who creates multimedia with copyrighted content in it) can be held liable by the copyright holders and the courts, pretty much anywhere in the world (except maybe China and a few other countries, where they don't really care much about copyright, at least not currently). However, if company X made money from our multimedia that was specifically and clearly licensed only for educational use, well, now the liability shifts to company X and it will be them in court not me and the WMF. Again, I need to double check all this with my copyright lawyer colleague, but money (or the potential to make money) drives all the court cases in the patent field, the more money involved, the higher the liability. Remove the money, remove the risk. Best Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary pre-concept initial draft pre-village pump submission proposal: Siduri Project, v1.2

Mission statement: facilitate fully informed open discussion regarding the predicted advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia adopting a new optional “multimedia license” and then propose a new Wiki-project to see if Wiki-consensus can be achieved for the proposed new “multimedia license”, or at a minimum a consensus-supported statement from the Wikipedia community that we would like more clarification from the Wikimedia Foundation as to their copyright policies regarding multimedia, such as educational audio/video-based versions of Wikipedia's articles.

Step 1.1 Identify appropriate location for preliminary pre-concept initial draft pre-village pump submission proposals. Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Why_should_I_contribute_here_and_be_a_part_of_this_community_.3F appropriate?Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, check if userpage can be developed with new template. Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Let me offer you some advice when it comes to changing copyright policy on Wikipedia: Don't try. Copyright policy really isn't the result of the opinions of the community, it is a function of the Foundation and their legal team. To be perfectly clear, the Foundation doesn't give a damn what the community thinks about copyright policy, they are dealing with legal issues, not consensus. They own the website, not us, so it isn't a matter of voting. So for your own sake, just stop it, you are only headed for heartache. Let me also state that a great many of us oldtimers that have been around since the first GNU/GPL was penned have always supported "commercial use" for a number of philosophical purposes that borders on religious fervor, so I don't think you could ever get a consensus anyway.

You seem to be getting involved in a lot of meta discussions, unusually so for someone so new. As a matter of fact, I see only FOUR edits that aren't meta discussion, which looks very suspicious. If you have any previously undeclared other accounts that need declaring, now would be a good time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, thank you for the advice. I agree with you and I think you may well be right on both counts. I am developing increasing doubts that I, or indeed any of us, could affect significant change in the Foundation's copyright policy, even if we wanted to, regardless of any empirical data, logic of the arguments, compelling nature of simple predictive modeling based on known trends, or indeed even overwhelming consensus opinion of the community. It's funny really, the community consensus so far, as best as I can ascertain, is both: 1) yes, Wikipedia could probably use more multimedia, and 2) no, Wikipedia does not/should not/could not change its copyright policy regarding new multimedia for a wide spectrum of reasons, not all of which, as your rightly point out, am I fully aware of yet.

Interestingly, from the Foundation's legal perspective, one of my top concerns is regarding the legal issues and liability for the Foundation of using their current commercial use license for any copyrighted multimedia on Wikipedia. I could well be wrong, and I am by no means a copyright expert, but I would propose, based on the concepts and data that I am aware of, and my limited experience of intellectual property law, that the current "commercial use" multimedia license puts the Foundation and multimedia creators at considerably more legal risk that a non-profit educational-use only multimedia license would, but it is difficult to even discuss these potential issues without having some sort of Wiki-space (where-ever that might be) to have this conversation.

Again, I think you are right that I am headed for heartache, but in many ways my heart was already broken when I saw the problems we have today at Wikipedia. We can solve these problems together and, I hope, find consensus-based solutions to any Wikipedia problem, now or in the future. If even a single one of my countless suggestions for possible solutions to Wikipedia's many problems gets adopted, at any point in the future, then I feel like all the time and effort would have been worth it. Utlimately I want to make a better Wikipedia for my daughter and all of our children. I know this task may be close to impossible. I probably should start smaller, with a goal that was more achievable, such as addressing vandalism. Even my critics appear to largely support my position on making Wikipedia only editable by registered users. Perhaps this should be the first project (as advised by Woodroar), rather than the "multimedia faciliation" project? Is this what you would advise me to do? I have promised to try to be responsive to the advice of my senior colleagues, and I would be a hipocrite if I don't take your advice. But I will admit that I am still very conflicted and don't know what to do. I am still learning a lot about Wikipedia as I spend more time here, and I could be wrong in this interpretation, but currently it looks like the majority of Wikipedia's problems, from the incredibly restrictive deletionist hostile atmosphere, to the continued loss of editors/contributors, to the lack of multimedia, all seem to stem, as far as I can see, primarily from this one commercial use provision. Let me once again assure you that my current interpretation may all be a mistake, and I am always willing to carefully listen to and analyze new ideas and perspectives that I had not originally considered. I admit I am relatively new here (although I have a fair number of good faith edits from previous accounts) and have a great deal still to learn before even considering submitting a Wiki-project on the subject of copyright policy for Wikipedia multimedia, or indeed reducing vandalism (the other top priority issue). I respect what you and your long time colleagues have done with the development of GNU/GPL, and pledge to try to better understand the advantages and deeper philosophical reasons for keeping all future Wikipedia multimedia exclusively under a "commercial use" provision. I have not read enough to comment on the "philosophical purposes that borders on religious fervor", but trust me when I tell you that I completely understand and appreciate the passion you and your colleagues feel for the subject and promise to tread lightly in any future discussions on the subject, should indeed this discussion still occur.

Yes, as a direct result of my focus on improving and protecting Wikipedia, this Jim-Siduri account is primarily used for "meta" discussions, specifically focused on how to improve and protect Wikipedia now and in the future. My previous accounts had all been declared on my old userpage, but I deleted everything based on the consensus decision of my peers and inserted the new draft RFC template your recommended. FYI, here is the old deleted text, with the vast majority of "non-meta" edits from account 1:

Old account text moved to sandbox as per Woodroar's advice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim-Siduri/sandbox/

Requiring registration is also not going to happen. Restricting anonymous contributions has been repeatedly proposed and rejected because a significant percentage of positive contributions come from anonymous editors and—perhaps more importantly—it is a founding principle of Wikimedia as a whole. (You'll also note that commercial licensing is also a founding principle.) It's probably best to drop it.

Also, I feel obligated to offer another piece of advice: You've spent a not-inconsiderable amount of time advocating for changes that don't stand a chance of succeeding, in places which are not appropriate for advocacy. Your fellow editors are no longer tolerating it, as evidenced by the deletion discussion on your User page. At this point, moving offending material—advocacy and polemics as well as advertising/social networking information—from your soon-to-be-deleted User page to your User Talk page is not a good idea. A User space draft would be better, but keep in mind that even drafts are subject to community policies and guidelines: policy proposals violating what Wikipedia is not will be deleted just as quickly as an instruction manual masquerading as a work-in-progress article. I'll again suggest focusing on changing the things you can change in the appropriate place, and of course working on improving encyclopedia articles. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the advice Woodroar, if our lack of multimedia and excessive vandalism problems are impossible to solve, which they may well be (unless you have any other ideas), then I will admit to being concerned for Wikipedia's long term future. I have not completely given up hope, but I will need to reflect more on your suggestion that I focus more on things that I can change, rather than on the things I think should change, and of course I will make every effort this time to post any proposal (if there is one) in an appropriate place and in an appropriate way. I am sure there are a multitude of Wikipedia reformers that have better ideas, more insight and greater support in the Wikipedia community than I do, and I think my first task is to do a much better job of learning from the current Wikipedia reform movement (such as Dennis' Editor Retention WikiProject) and seeing where I can help them. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions/advice. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I don't know how to say it other than to just say it: you are focused on things that most aren't concerned about. I'm not completely sure what all you are concerned about because your comments are too long. WP:TLDR is worth a read. Personally, my focus is providing the reader a platform for a free, accurate self-directed education, no matter what country they live in. This is why I focus on admin problems as well as attracting and keeping great prose writers. So I patrol, I write, I help out writers. I'm not sure where you fit in all this, as all your time seems to be discussing meta things, and none is actually on content. Maybe you need to focus a little more energy on content. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, thank you, it is a hard truth for me to hear, but I am forced to agree with you that my concerns are clearly not shared by the general community. I've tried to be friendly and logical, and clearly explain what I've observed and possible solutions we might want to consider discussing, but fear I have come across as pushy and alarmist. I don't want to be Wikipedia's "harbinger of doom". I'll admit I don't particularly like how I have been characterized and feel my positions have, on certain occasions, been taken somewhat out of context and misrepresented. I am not blaming anyone for this, I would probably do the same thing in their shoes, but this, and the constant attacks, certainly wear down your spirit, your desire to help. Personally, my only concern is Wikipedia, fixing its many problems, and, if possible (probably not) facilitating getting multimedia content on it. I assume when you said "content" you were referring to text? I want to open up Wikipedia to audio, video and other educational content. I still believe multimedia content in the future of any encyclopedia. For me text was the beginning of the Wikipedia dream, not the end of the road. However, the harder I’ve pushed for discussion of these issues, the stronger the resistance I’ve faced. I don’t want to be yet another editor to leave Wikipedia, but I will need to give a lot more thought to what, if anything, I can really achieve here.

Dennis, I envy you and support your goal to develop a “platform for a free, accurate self-directed education”. I don’t know where I would be able to help you achieve this dream, and my presence may bring unwanted attention to your project that you'd rather avoid. Like I promised you before, I will do whatever it takes not to drown out the great work you are doing on the Editor Retention WikiProject. Having said all this, if there is anything you'd like me to do to help, please don’t hesitate to ask, I support your goals. In the meantime I will need to give more thought to what transpired here and what, if anything, I might be able to do to still help Wikipedia. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, let me just chime in here and reiterate as succinctly as possible without myself falling guilty of TLDR, just a few points and correct one of your assumptions:

Wikipedia has a fascinating power structure whereby a relatively small group of long-term admins and editors hold the vast majority of the influence. This is strictly incorrect. This is a myth created and supported by a small number of users who appear to be mainly editors, some of them nevertheless excellent and prolific content contributors and among whom are a few who are extremely well versed in our policies and guidelines. They resent what they perceive as a 'power structure' because they have either been unable to get their own way, or have repeatedly infringed policies and have thus been warned or made subject to sanctions either by those who the community has elected to be able to do so, or by a community decision. It is true that some editors have been around a long time and their knowledge, tact, and diplomacy are highly respected - they obviously get heard, but so do the voices of everyone else. Hence there is no 'power elite' at all - the power is the community itself. You are part of that collective power. Anyone can start a WP:RfC in order to propose changes and improvements to Wikipedia, but before they do, they should carefully examine the existing policies and practices to see if their proposal(s) really stand a chance of being carried.

...largely support my position on making Wikipedia only editable by registered users. This will never happen. It is a core Foundation and Founders' policy that the Wikipedia is 'the Encyclodeia anyone can edit'. Even for creating articles, the restrictions are very low - indeed, the community attempted a couple of years ago to to get this tightened up a little in order to significantly reduce the work of those who patrol new articles, but in spite of the overwhelming consensus for the proposal, it was rejected by the Foundation

Some things are beyond the remit of the individual language Wikipedias, such as here at en.Wiki. They are the legal requirements that permit the Wikipedias to operate globally the way they do. Copyright compliance is the major major function of the Foundation's highly experienced legal team. They have to ensure that what gets published on a Wikipedia complies with the copyright laws of every country where the encyclopedia may be read. That is a huge task and one on which no Wikipedia or its users can bear much influence. That's why the Foundation employs a team of expert jurists.

Talk pages: I do urge you to read WP:TLDR if you have not already done so. That essay is true not only for Wikipedia but for anywhere else people can freely post their comments on the Internet. Readers will often ignore such messages, or at best , simply gloss over them. This is especially true for Wikipedia where those of us who are interested in improving the way the encyclopedia works and listening to the ideas of our users, are nevertheless a relatively small team, and are unable in most cases to dedicate themselves to complex and detailed issues of any one particular user. This does not mean we are not here to help, but there are times where we feel that we may be dedicating too much time to what we may perceive to be a good faith, but probably a lost cause [1].

Kindest regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Kudpung is much brighter than most, myself included, I suggest taking his advice in the most literal way possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and in particular the section entitled 'How to contribute'. Spamming multiple AfD discussions with nothing more than "Keep - WP:DIDEROT" is unhelpful, to say the least, and might be taken as disruption. Rather than citing non-existent pages, you need to explain why you think the relevant article conforms with Wikipedia policies, and thus merits retention. In almost all cases, this comes down to demonstrating that the subject matter meets Wikipedia notability criteria, either via sources already cited in the article, or by providing additional sources yourself. AfDs are not a vote, and a 'keep' with no relevant rationale is unlikely to be taken into consideration by the closer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use our URL for your project

User:Jim-Siduri. I didn't bother to read your press release on Gender Gap task force page that carefully and now see it references the task force. One doesn't do that without a thorough discussion. If you want to start your own thing, off wiki, fine. But using a Wikipedia group to back it up without permission obviously is a no no. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The specific section is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Beyond Differences

I'm not sure what you intend to write at Draft:Beyond Differences, but an edit summary that suggests we support specific charities goes too far. It's okay to like something and write an article about it, but we are absolutely not here to serve as advocates or advertisers or a soapbox. This runs counter to the fundamental goals of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation. You may want to explain your edits at the ANI on you because there is a clear consensus to ban you. I've tried to remain out of it but using Wikipedia to promote off-Wikipedia projects is unacceptable. Woodroar (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Go Phightins! 17:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block violation

Please note that posting as an IP [2] while subject to a block is a violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and will undoubtedly be taken into account should any future request for unblocking be made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]