User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ongoing problems for several months now...

...and I'm sure not the only one.
Any chance the problems with extreme long loading times, I.E. up to a minute for my 1 day watchlist, script notices on even mid size articles and missing editing tools in edit windows at times? Are the so called "professionals" here able to keep up with those problems or are they just pleased with causing them? Seriously, this is going on for several month by now. I posted about those problems on different venues since it started (just like others did too) but all I got was a lousy T-shirt and no response from those responsible for the problems. WP should be user friendly and for some time now it is certainly not. Are you, Jimbo, aware of this and if so, do you have any intention to try to force some changes or roll backs of scripts/software or whatever it takes to make WP accessible again for the average computer owner? I'd be quite appreciated for a real honest response that leaves out any silly and fake excuses. Thank you, TMCk (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(It took over 20 sec. to save that post using the "new section" feauture. Imagine that.TMCk (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Slow performance in IE 7 and IE 8 noted before: I have also warned Jimbo that support for Internet Explorer is lacking and very slow. I make a habit checking usage at hospitals, hotels, and public libraries, and "other third-world browsers" using Windows 7 with IE 7 from 2009, just 3 years ago (now with Wikipedia screens garbled and slow). Many users have resorted to using Firefox browser, but fortunately, I was notified that "useskin=nostalgia" skin still runs quickly, even though the screen lacks formatting, as crude scrolled text. Recently, I was able to correct for mislocated map dots, with new template:Location_map_all to show map dots correctly on any browser, but we are months away from restoring performance for the IE browsers. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikid, thanks for posting and re-afirming my point. You've kindly explained part of the problem to me on your talk page a while ago in response to an inquire from my side. Now I took the step to post where those in charge would see it for sure and hope to get some solution get started.TMCk (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Using screen skin=Nostalgia until others fixed: We definitely need to directly notify developers, and gain some high-priority fixes to the Monobook interface, because the S-L-O-W response, or lockups, in some browsers would definitely drive newcomers (or long-term users) into abandoning Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it is imperative that users currently frustrated by the snail speed, by the S-L-O-W editing of talk-pages or articles, try to set Special:Preferences to default the browser skin from Monobook to "Nostalgia" (or equivalent basic skin), so that response time can increase to over 10x-20x times faster for users on older browsers. Then when a user needs to check the exact Monobook-skin appearance, then just re-display an edited page with the URL suffix "&useskin=monobook" (or "&useskin=vector") to show the same page as it would appear in the (much S-L-O-W-er) Monobook-skin format, but with full-screen formatting of image placement and charts, etc. The whole, prolonged series of months of slower-interface changes, which have relegated some browsers to the wiki-trashheap, seem to be motivated by insideous, gradual dropping of old browsers (from 2009) to proudly dog-and-pony-show wiz-bang features with the latest, trendy browser gadgets. I even warned people to beware commercial "planned obsolescence" of browsers, where vendors would not complain if Wikipedia editors bought new browsers every 4 months, to showcase their trendy boasting of the latest cool-technology gadgetry.

    The dropping of browsers from 2009 is not just a Wikipedia software problem, but rather a worldwide computer-technology toyland, which becomes quickly bored with last season's so-3-months-ago computer device. I sometimes like to mention, in passing, that Egyptian hieroglyphic writing remained stagnant, following basic standards, for over 1,600 years, just in case people think that everything must be quickly changed, every 3 months. The support for thousand-year standards in ancient Egypt was possible due to periodic part-time use of other languages, as they were developed over the intervening centuries. There is no technical reason to drop support for browsers which were the "latest technology" in 2009, nor 1999. Intelligent software people can create software which runs reliably, on many browsers, for many decades. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Any input from you, Jimbo? It is your talkpage afterall and you should (IMO) show some interrest in keeping WP user-friendly, not user-fiendly. Any thoughts at all?TMCk (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Another "problem" on the side

Not related to download times but wondering:
Why the change from "my talk, my contributions, etc.? I, like any longterm editor with an account sure wont have a problem with that but imagine how a new user would interpret those links? They might be lost as it is not that obvious that it relates to their own editing. Who the f. made those changes? Did they put tome thoughts in it before doing so???? I don't think so. Just another screw-up in my opinion [That's why I made it a subsection of this thread].TMCk (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 105#Small change to the top right menu. I can kind of understand the desire to drop the possessive language – but I don't understand why, when I click on the links, my watchlist is still called "My watchlist", and my preferences are still called "My preferences". Maybe I'm being pedantic, but this kind of inconsistency irks me. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Seems like another useless/unneeded change made w/o consulting the broader wp-community. "They" never seem to ask themselves the question if such change is a real improvement/really necessary/maybe counterproductive/maybe just a waste of their time/maybe just a result of having nothing better to do = being bored if they don't make any changes to what worked quite fine for years/e.t.c. TMCk (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson report

Lord Justice Leveson's report is big news in the UK press with much talk of press freedom and regulation. There has been comment that his coverage of Internet news reportage was thin — just a page — and now the story is that he used Wikipedia for this... "Leveson's Wikipedia moment", The Independent . Andrew Davidson (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting.. Shows how even the Lords haven't discovered the history button yet. This should be better publicised, the irony of the incident in the report is what makes this a good laugh for wikipedians and a frown for Independants. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It should hardly be a "good laugh" for us. We should feel embarrassed. It's disappointing to see such a seeming lack of care. --Errant (chat!) 12:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Is that the best dirt they can find on him? Amateurs. Formerip (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Follow-up in today's Telegraph: Wikipedia, the 25–year–old student and the prank that fooled Leveson. "An American man wrongly named in the Leveson Report as a founder of The Independent newspaper has expressed surprise that a judge would accept without question information on Wikipedia. [...] 'My friend went on and edited a bunch of Wikipedia pages and put my name there. My friend did it as a joke.'" The joke here is as much on Wikipedia as it is on Leveson. Flagged revisions, anyone? Andreas JN466 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, although it is unclear to me that this is the classic sort of case where flagged revisions would have been helpful. I mean, if it were turned on for this page, it would have been helpful. But I'm not sure that it would have been, even if it were available to us. Still, this is a HUGE problem that needs a better solution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Flagged revisions are a bad, bad, bad idea and I hope that you were only just picking up the drum rather than banging it. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You have absolutely no evidence for that argument, I'm afraid. I will concede that the committee-designed version of FR that we got from the Foundation wasn't perfect, but it was a huge leap forward in our capability which got majority support in the community. So yes, I'm banging that drum loud and clear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The German and other Wikipedias have had flagged revisions for years, applied across the board, and many of the glaring problems we have here (including this sort of thing, along with outright hoaxes and defamation) do not occur there to the same degree. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. Andreas JN466 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually mulling on "fixes" for this problem, which as you say is huge, the other day. Rationally, stopping all vandalism/innacuracy is an impossible job without severely limiting the amount of people who can edit. However an alternative approach might be to address this from the other way; to inform readers that Wikipedia might not be accurate, and give an idea of what quality level an article is. I know we are anti-disclaimers, but it might be an approach worth considering. We already have an article rating scale. What I also suggest is a version of "flagged" revisions which does not materially affect the content being displayed (i.e. an edit from any user immediately displays), but the article is marked as "unchecked" until a reviewer flags it. This would then introduce a quality scale something like unchecked -> checked (stub,Start,C,B class) -> Good Article -> A Class -> Featured. We could more prominently display an articles quality along with a link to an explanation of all of these issues. The intent would be to encourage readers to use good judgement when reading Wikipedia, and educate them in good practices (such as checking sources, etc.). All in all a win :) --Errant (chat!) 12:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that pending changes was enabled by Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3 a week ago? How is this so different to flagged revisions? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
For a start, Pending Changes are only used as an option here, and are currently applied only to a very small number of articles, rather than as standard across the board as Flagged Revisions are in de:WP. As for the precise difference between German-style Flagged Revisions and English-style Pending Changes, beyond the number of articles each is applied to, I confess I've been told there is a difference, but have never really got my head round what exactly it is ... and would be grateful for anyone capable of explaining it. WP:Flagged revisions does not really say what the difference is, nor does WP:Pending changes. Andreas JN466 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, PC is only used on ~60 articles, but it's only been a few days. The good thing is that the threshold is quite low (autoconfirmed editors) on enWP, comparable to german and polish WP (where gesichtete Versionen works OK, editors get the right automatically and are only asked to look out for vandalism) and not as in the russian or arabic WP (where editors need to apply for special rights, which caused a huge backlog). It's a start. Why don't people here put out some ideas for A/B testing PC, say 3 or 6 month testing on 10.000 articles (maybe BLPs or the messy indian/pakistani articles or ...?). With statistical evaluation: How does PC affect article growth? How is it affecting the number of references? Maybe some manual evaluation with the mechanical turk too? Get creative, it's a great tool! --Atlasowa (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
All for it, Atlasowa. We need more people like you here who have the actual experience of seeing it work on a grand scale. Andreas JN466 23:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Start up something for sports

I see Wikia is in the news here, there is a little proposal I would like to put forward that a place be set up separate from Wikipedia but looking a bit like it to attract all those league championship lists out of Wikipedia please? There is a strong contingent in Wikipedia that keeps these fanboi sports nerd lists here despite there being no or little citation for most of it and really I think Wikipedia is the wrong place.

I envisage a place like that working on a different basis from Wikipedia in that one would get points for being an expert in each field rather than depending on proper citations like Wikipedia, this would cut down on the vandalism problem there and mean the figures were the responsibility of the 'expert' contributors. It could allow all and any kinds of leagues - if stuff is already being forced in Wikipedia then one might as well allow it but direct it to a place for that sort of stuff rather than corrupting the basis of Wikipedia. People would know the figures were contributed by fans rather than being backed by citations. If it was easy to move stuff over from Wikipedia and reference it that would solve lots of problems with the current inability to delete such stuff and the anguish people have at having their stuff possibly deleted altogether.

p.s. I'm not talking about moving notable cited things out of Wikipedia, that can stay or even be duplicated to start up such a site, just the lists of peopleon teams the scores the got in every match till the championship etc etc. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to build on Dmcq's proposal and suggest that the WMF sets up a similar site for living people. Editors would get points for being experts in certain fields: knowing whether or not someone is Jewish, knowing whether or not someone is a Scientologist, knowing the sexual preferences of celebrities, and knowing how to make the routine legal problem sound like major crimes. Oh, wait, I think that would be redundant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey Jimbo, I hate the topics Dmcq edits. Can you be sure to kick them off Wikipedia as well and force them into their own project? Resolute 14:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't have articles that lack citations but I believe we should do something to support the people writing those sport articles in a proper manner rather than just try and straightforwardly delete them. There obviously is a some sort of demand for all these reams of statistics of who scored the winning goal in the second round of some game in 1983. Just liking or not liking a topic should not be the basis on which articles are kept. Wikia could make a bit of money with them from ads and if the people writing were acknowledged experts and there was some protection we could put in external references without elevating them to proper acknowledged experts for making articles from. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. That includes sports encyclopedias and sports almanacs. I you don't like the sports articles, no one is making you even read them. This really is a WP:JDLI complaint. oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Please try and engage constructively. Many of those article don't have citations that cover the statistics in them and even the best cited normally only reference blogs, few have books written with the statistics in and anyway WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is part of the WP:NOT policy. Where is the summary by secondary sources indicating that it is notable? Where is the enduring notability beyond what was put out next day in some local newspaper and even they do not normally go into the level of detail about teams and scores of these articles. The blogs regularly disappear and then some other persons private webpage has to used if available. How does anyone know whether it is a vandal changing figures of somebody with the knowledge?
I understand sports fans feel strongly about their sport but Wikipedia is not the right place to have a fanbase. A site that was devoted to the statistics could have rules ensuring they were checked better and were safer from vandalism and they wouldn't be threatened with deletion. The reason sports fans react so strongly here I believe is because they know a lot of their stuff simply does not follow Wikipedia policy and should not be here. I've had real trouble with them trying to change basic policy to say some of their stuff is okay, to say that notability is inherited by sub articles for instance. If a person is really interested in keeping statistics for posterity then Wikipedia is not the right place. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect other places not be the primary site. Putting stuff here and then defending it tooth and nail is silly, some day there may be a shift of power in Wikipedia and much of that stuff will get deleted. It is far better to use Wikipedia like it should be used to summarize about notable things as reported elsewhere and keep primary statistics in a place that is specially dedicated to the task. Dmcq (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Dmcq but you lost me at "fanboi sports nerd" and I stopped reading there. You may (or may not) have cogent points, but I'll never know. You might want to consider brushing up on your political savvy. Herostratus (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, my empathy has got exhausted when trying to talk with sports editors, I'd ignore the lot and let them get on with developing their garden except they try and change the policies and guidelines in the rest of Wikipedia to make it even easier for the lists of statistics avoid deletion. You are right and there is no point talking here without getting ones politics right. Also from the link in the section below I see a number of projects have been proposed at meta which would solve this problem and one even identified the problems I'm talking about but they have not been pursued. I really do believe that there is a genuine need for a sports statistics site which fits in the Wikipedia scheme but with different standards and ways of establishing credibility but I can see there isn't much point proceeding with this here. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Judging by your condescending attitude, I can't imagine why nobody likes talking with you either. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not, never has been, and never will be a good argument. Deal with it. Resolute 14:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
What would a person without a condescending attitude say? Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


Dear Jinbo,
ClueBot III archived this proposal, left on this page. But we didn't talk about it. I would like to know your opinion on it. :) Thank you. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really the decision maker on such things. I have no strong opinion about it one way or the other!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
And whom can I contact? Or it needs a discussion on Meta-Wiki? Face-smile.svg --Maxtirdatov (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Your intuition is correct - the correct place to request a new project is at meta:Proposals for new projects. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Maxtirdatov (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


Can i have some feedback on my suggestion here please? Thanks. Pass a Method talk 09:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I´m slovak editor. Ahead I´m sorry because I have only break English. You are my ideal. Thank you to wikipedia. Dlhý Dan (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons is broken - topless boys edition

I started a discussion on the Commons admin noticeboard about dozens of recently uploaded images of boyscouts that had been uploaded from Flickr by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe using a bot mechanism. Children are not able to give consent in the sense required by law or by COM:IDENT. The fact that many of these uploads depict topless boys is an additional COM:IDENT issue. Neither of these situations is well-covered by COM:IDENT, but it is a moot point since users uploading Flickr images via the bot do not seem to get any guidance about which images may or may not be acceptable on Commons.

Instead of deleting the images or looking at my concerns, I have been attacked, as usual, by User:Russavia and User:Mattbuck. To my surprise, User:Fæ has shown up to claim that I am accusing the user of pederasty. While I continue to believe that MaybeMaybeMaybe deliberately chose these images from the larger set of images because they showed topless boys (this run of 24 consecutive uploads of topless boys suggests it is more than coincidence), there is no reason why they cannot upload such images so long as they meet the rules of Commons. These images do not, which is why I started the thread. It was Russavia and Fæ who brought up insinuations about these uploads in order to attack me.

Pointing out problems on Commons is like being an unwitting actor in a theatre of the absurd performance. Is it time to shut it down and start again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my sole contribution to the topic:
Sigh - DC, please do what we have told you to do before time and time again - nominate images for deletion and/or talk to the user. There is no need for this topic at all other than you grandstanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not attack you, I told you to use the processes Commons has in place for dealing with issues. You seem to have trouble doing this - your solution, on encountering a problem, is to
  1. Create a topic here, on Jimbo's talk page on another project;
  2. Create a topic on the Commons admin noticeboard.
Neither of these are appropriate fora for getting images deleted, or for facilitating Commons community discussions. Community discussions should take place at the Village Pump, requests that files be deleted should be done by deletion requests (the clue is in the name).
I speak the following as an individual, not a Commons admin - if you really cared about the issue, you would follow the advice that has been given to you (it has been given repeatedly, in several places). Instead, you just use each issue as an excuse to beat on Commons admins, for whatever reason.
You wonder why we don't take you seriously - it's because we don't believe you are being genuine, since you seem to be totally unwilling to actually discuss the issues, preferring instead to just attack Commons users. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's just note that Russavia, a bureaucrat on Commons last time I looked, is now advising DC to only edit Commons when stoned. This puts a whole new spin on the Commons precept that editors should be "mellow". Andreas JN466 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I am more than willing to discuss the issues, that's why I started those threads on the Commons admin noticeboard, after all. Filing individual deletion requests is not discussing the issue. It is hiding the issue. I have tried your methods in the past with no success. It wasn't that I didn't get the result that I wanted, but I got the impression that Commons editors are largely apathetic with regard to process and governance issues. I have found that posting on Jimbo's talk page is actually a more effective way of getting images deleted than filing a deletion review. Russavia keeps a very close eye on this page and deletes anything that might be used to make Commons look bad. And my last thread on Commons was quite effective. Almost all of the copyright violations I mentioned have now been deleted, even these ones. It would be nice if someone would take a closer look at File:Sauna Jen 1.jpg, File:Sauna Jen 2.jpg, and File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg - these are copyright violations with bogus EXIF data, as I told Russavia in that thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That interesting misrepresentation of Russavia's comment reminds me of an ANI thread I saw a couple weeks ago in which an editor accused someone of calling his edits "testicles" after rightly being reverted with an edit summary saying "That's bollocks". You'd have to be pretty severely autistic to take that comment literally, and as someone with PDD-NOS even I could tell at first glance it was an attempt at humor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? For reference, Russavia wrote, "Please don't come to Commons, expecting a fight; which appears to be what you do. If you have to smoke a big, fat spliff to mellow out before coming here, then do so, because the problem you have on this project is the way that you approach issues. [...] But when you come to Commons, please leave that type of attitude behind, smoke a spliff and mellow out. Peace mon." The phrase "That's bollocks" is an established part of the English language, and has a widely accepted metaphorical meaning. Neither applies to the phrase "Smoke a [big, fat] spliff", and I believe you well know it. So take your contrived ad-hominems elsewhere. Andreas JN466 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It was readily apparent to me that it was intended as a bit of hyperbolic humor, playing upon the trope of marijuana's calming effect (couldn't tell you whether that's actually true, I've never once tried it and have no intentions of doing so). The overarching message was basically "Chill and work with us, not against us", not a serious admonition to do marijuana before editing Commons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Balance the bad against the good: As noted above, numerous photos can be deleted, eventually. Meanwhile, the same user had uploaded many Flickr photos of town scenes (with no shirtless boys there), so not every photo causes concern. The child-privacy photos can be deleted, yet we could keep the August 2011 photo of "File:Festung_Hohensalzburg_(6035853940).jpg" (Hohensalzburg Castle) as a stunning, dramatic photo which contrasts the architecture in Salzburg, Austria. Perhaps consider that any person might be your former friend, now The Third Man. As long as there are other people checking the image contents, then the whole will be kept in balance. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That's all very well, but getting some Commons admins to delete mediocre and dubious sexual images is like trying to get water to run uphill. For example, File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg (previously mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) survived a deletion debate despite a clear majority of delete votes and comments.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion requests are not votes, and while the direction of consensus should be a guiding factor, it is not a deciding factor, especially when the comments go against policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

thumb|Naser al-Din Shah slide 1, [ kept] by Mattbuck as being of realistic educational value.

Let's just note that you are the Commons admin who kept that file, shown right, believing it to be of educational value. --Andreas JN466 10:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that we didn't need to go through an administrative maze to ensure dubious photographs are deleted? If these photos are genuinely disturbing - and I would suggest an mass uploading of shirtless children means they are - then Wikipedia must delete them doktorb wordsdeeds 08:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A deletion request is not an "administrative maze", it's the system set up to discuss potential deletion of items which are not eligible for speedy deletion. As I mentioned, the clue is in the name - it's where you request that things be deleted. Again and again we have told DC to use this process, instead they just keep creating new righteously indignant threads on our admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I think there's a more important point here. Merely pointing people to the deletion process is not satisfying many of us who are neither prudes nor lunatics. I think that commons needs to reconsider policy here. The issue is human dignity and the treatment of people who have not given consent. That's an important enough issue that, at the very least, policy needs to accomodate speedy deletion followed by a deletion review in cases like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Individually I wouldn't say that there was any concern about the photos themselves as images. However, there are real problems with images of children being made available under a CC license where neither the parent, nor the child has given informed consent. This is a major problem as the subject, in this case children, effectively lose all control over the image. This is particularly so when the images are tagged 'topless', or 'shirtless' because as I pointed out, in the hatted section on Common, such tags are a magnet for those whose interests are not exactly wholesome. John lilburne (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
How about changing the rules on Commons so that any identifiable photograph of a child under 18 (which these clearly are) would be speedily deleted unless e-mail permission was available? These are not images that should be transferred from Flickr by a bot, as happened in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds very sensible. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, very sensible. I look forward to seeing someone attempt to get it past the commons admin corps! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
And here is where such a proposal should go: commons:Commons:Village Pump/Proposals. Please do not add more self-righteous postings to the admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you support such a proposal? If not, why not? And if yes, could I ask you to kick it off at the appropriate place? Thanks. Andreas JN466 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
While I sorta agree with the proposal, why should he kick off a proposals that others proposed? --Cyclopiatalk 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Because the last thing the proposer some editors here is are going to do is something constructive about it. Formerip (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and made the proposal. Everyone's free to comment at Commons:Village pump/Proposals, of course. --Conti| 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
We're not here because we're free, we're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose. *takes off his sunglasses* -mattbuck (Talk) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH! Writ Keeper 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't decided if it's hate or love...but I feel strongly some emotion towards you for providing that clip. --OnoremDil 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The sooner we are chugging beer in a Commons Admin free world, and the sooner they realize that they have made themselves irrelevant, the better. John lilburne (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Amend that to "Commons-free world" and I can support your sentiments wholeheartedly. Graphics on WMF servers should be there to illustrate encyclopedia articles, not to warehouse pixels on some wack Bill Gates-meets-Citizen Kane mission to accumulate everything in the world that might be theoretically be someday useful to somebody, commercial or non-commercial, educational or non-educational. Until then, I'm gonna keep using the { {keep local} } template on my graphics uploads and encouraging others to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Conti for starting this proposal, but while such a change is welcome, it is not needed for the current case. Many of the images under discussion should be deleted simply by applying the current Commons COM:IDENT policy. Images of boys apparently taken in a pool changing room are not acceptable. Same for images taken inside a tent (the policy even uses this scenario as an example of a private place inside a public place). More importantly, as Russavia noted in his very first comment in the discussion I started: "there are COM:IDENT issues in that they appear to have been taken in Germany, where permission will be required for all use". He has not, of course, made any move to delete the files. Yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that COM:IDENT currently prohibits uploading a photo of an identifiable half-naked boy taken inside a tent without appropriate permission. We don't need a new policy that would completely prohibit photos of a large crowd outside the Vatican to handle that. It is unfair to hunt through all the new uploads to an entire project for weeks hunting for a set of images to complain about, then post about it, not by an appropriate deletion request, not on the project at all!, but outside the project, then blame people because they didn't delete the offending (but not illegal in Florida) image the second you complained about it. This is true for any image site on the Net - YouTube, Flickr, whatever - if you don't file a complaint with them about an image it's not going to get deleted in a hurry. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, I know you operate in a different reality from everyone else, but where did anyone state, suggest, or imply that an image of a topless boy would be illegal in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Please stop with your inflammatory non-sequitors in every thread that I start, and referring to me as the "High Inquisitor". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt has a point here though. It seems you are far more interested in stirring up dramatics than launching deletion discussions. Personally, I am not surprised that when you say "jump", others reply with "piss off". While you have a point in this case, it becomes difficult to side with you when you choose to be so adversarial. Resolute 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If it is "adversarial" to bring issues to the admin noticeboard so that they can be dealt with, then I am adversarial. I have done more or less the same thing here and it almost always leads to editors working with me to address the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Again and again, we tell you, neither Commons admin noticeboard nor Jimbo's en.wp talk page are not the appropriate places to ask for images to be deleted or to demand new policies. You were directed to the right place time and again, your continued refusal to bring up problems where you have been told they should be brought up leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are interested in trolling rather than the issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No, Matt, I am not interested in "trolling" - I'm interested in getting results. It is quite simply bizarre that you would consider my attempts to inform the community about issues on Commons as "trolling". This is trolling in the same sense that someone who tells you that your car's headlight is not working is trolling. You don't have to thank them, but telling them that they need to put their comment in writing or you won't fix your headlight is not a useful response. If you look at my contributions on Commons you will see that I do nominate images for deletion if it is the image that is the problem. When the issue is more general or involves multiple images and multiple users, that is not helpful. It is actually harmful, since it tends to obscure the problem. I have no doubt that I will be indef blocked on Commons if I keep bringing issues to the community's attention trolling, but that is not my goal. In the short term, I would be happy to see a few simple reforms enacted. The longer term is unclear, because Commons is so broken that it probably needs to be completely rethought and started over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If your purpose is to nominate for deletion the photos that violate Commons policy, then you are nearly there. Nominating them, even publicizing the nominations when they don't get proper attention, is a respectable volunteer activity. If your purpose is to prove that "Commons is broken" and should be shut down because it doesn't instantly, without being asked, delete photos that are not illegal (my point with that is not to imply they are, but to suggest that great haste is not formally required) then that is just ridiculous. There's not a publicly editable site on the Web that isn't "broken" by that definition. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, thank you for your validation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify your actions as trolling either, but WP:POINTy might fit. If I may ask, have you actually proposed any of your hoped for reforms to commons' village pump? Or is your only strategy to run to daddy Jimbo? Resolute 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Fae has emailed the person who made the pictures, and - unsurprisingly - they do not want the pictures on commons and are in direct violation of commons policies. [1] Can an admin on commons please delete all these pictures? Now? --Conti| 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess we can add that to the list of reasons why these images should be deleted. I wonder if it is long enough yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
They've been deleted. Thanks to 99of9 for requesting their deletion, Fae for enquiring with the photographer, and russavia for closing the requests. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
... and to Conti for starting the Village Pump proposal, to FormerIP for chipping in, and to Delicious carbuncle for highlighting the issue and getting additional eyes on the situation ... without which none of this would have happened. Andreas JN466 12:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but perhaps all it needed was for someone to follow the usual procedure and actually nominate the photos for deletion. Of course that doesn't fit the "Commons is broken" storyline that some persist in pushing here. --Avenue (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
When a web site under the auspices of the WMF has a culture where the local yokels think it is perfectly ok to swipe Flickr images of half-naked children without their parent's/guardian's permission, then yea, "broken" is a quite fitting description. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Now, now, Tarc, be civil. Are those "perfectly ok" photos the ones that I mentioned had been deleted a few posts above? --Avenue (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The photos were well over the line and were rightly deleted. There has been an attempt to whip up a dramafest over this, but it is time to move on. The lesson is that COM:PEOPLE issues should be sorted out before uploading images, not afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that this is just one example, and there are thousands of others just like it. COM:IDENT is routinely ignored in Commons. In my experience, an individual DR without attendant drama stands no chance of being successful. Here is one I made earlier: [2]. Very clear message from the Flickr account holder that she does not want her images on Commons because of COM:IDENT issues. Kept by the admin. This one had to be nominated six times, even though the photographer made it abundantly clear that the models were absolutely horrified to have these private images on Commons. The files were only deleted after a long Commons-l mailing list thread in which a WMF board member and several WMF staff members got involved. This is too much bloody effort just to get people in Commons to do the right thing, and that is why the Commons administration is indeed broken. Andreas JN466 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, they were deleted after a bright spotlight was aimed into the cockroaches lair. The point is, it never should have come to this in the first place. Someone puts his own pictures in his own Flickr stream, and some Commons yahoo comes along and copies them. How long would it have been before they were categorized into commons:Category:Male toplessness ? Or were they in their already prior to deletion? Click on that link right now, but make sure to tilt your screen to the side if you're at work. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There is something I don't understand: Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.--Cyclopiatalk 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:IDENT is a separate issue from copyright, and Flickr is such a rummage sale of images that the licenses should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. Best practice is to ask the uploader for permission beforehand, particularly if children are involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
What Ian said. The issue is not one of copyright, but one of subject or parental consent for pictures taken in a private context, per commons:COM:PEOPLE. If you take a picture of a 12-year-old boy in a swimming pool changing room, or an upskirt shot of a five-year-old girl, then you are the copyright holder, but you do not have subject consent for hosting the image on Commons (which in this case means parental consent). To have your image on Commons, you need both (in theory at least, though not in actual practice). An additional complication is that many of these cases are transfers of anonymous Flickr uploads. Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds. (This is known as Flickrwashing.) Andreas JN466 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
That reads like the defence that was put up by the perverts and predators that were defending creepshot and jailbait on reddit. Congratulations in importing the nonsense here. John lilburne (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear. I was not talking of the kids' pics. I was talking about the other deletion discussions JN466 linked, like this. Yes, if these pictures weren't uploaded by the authors, then it's different. But if they were indeed uploaded by the author, as it seems from this diff, then the author can complain how much she wants, but still she has no right to ask us to remove the pic. She should have thought about this beforehand. --Cyclopiatalk 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Read and commons:COM:PEOPLE – Commons is supposed to be so ethical as not to host images taken in a private location without the consent of the people depicted in them, and certainly not over their strenuous bloody objections. Wikimedia's mission is not to make image authors miserable by appropriating, against their will, the images they took in private locations. Andreas JN466 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. If people upload stuff on a public website with a CC license and acknowledge so, they have no right to bitch when we host them. Why are always us the ones who have to bend over backwards? --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If you see not having a right to do as you please with something someone else created in their own private space as "bending over backwards", and you really don't get what this is about, then I assure you the deficiency is all yours. Certainly, the WMF board got it, as evidenced by their 10:0 vote in favour. Not one of them took your view. I am especially aware of the difference between your statement, "they have no right to bitch", and the board's request that we "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same." I suggest you ought to think about that for a couple of minutes. Andreas JN466 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what part of "upload stuff on a public website with a CC license and acknowledge so" is not clear? Because the resolution you link talks of " which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission." - which is a totally different case. If I photograph someone in my home and then release the pic under CC without their permission, then I'm surely in the wrong, and that's why the resolution makes sense. But if I photograph myself and then I put it on Flickr under CC, I have no possible right to decide what's done with the pic in agreement with the license. --Cyclopiatalk 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The pictures were not of herself, and she clearly said our having them here violated both her privacy and that of the people in her pictures. Yet we still did not comply with her deletion request. Why not? In addition, sometimes people have an incomplete understanding of licences. They may feel comfortable having an image in the adult section of Flickr, and yet feel deeply uncomfortable with having it on Commons. Why anyone would then force that discomfort upon them after they've asked us to stop is a mystery to me. I think it is very cruel, and no way to treat a content creator from whose work Wikimedia benefits. Andreas JN466 08:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"The pictures were not of herself, and she clearly said our having them here violated both her privacy and that of the people in her pictures." - Okay, point taken: but the subjects were consensual, AFAIK, and did not complain with uploading on Flickr. If not, why did she upload them on a public site under a CC license? And if yes, why does she complain? Because it all boils down to this. If people have an incomplete understanding of licences it's their problem, not ours. The "mystery" is easily solved: if you publish stuff in public with a very free license, you can't complain if people reuse and distribute it -that's the whole point of such a CC license. Why anyone would think we must bow under people's nonsense requests, that's the mystery to me. --Cyclopiatalk 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You forget that the people in the pictures may have consented to an upload to the adult corner of Flickr – which is not generally visible – but not to an upload to the image archive of the world's no. 5 website. In my view, you simply do not understand what treating people with respect means, and argue in a way that is completely selfish, to the extent of being oblivious to other people's feelings. I guess you'd say if a roadworks employee crosses the road in front of you, even though your light was green, it's okay to run them over ... it is their problem if they get hurt. You know what, mate? Talk to yourself, or find someone else to give you the time of day. I'm done with your whining. Andreas JN466 16:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"You forget that the people in the pictures may have consented to an upload to the adult corner of Flickr – which is not generally visible – but not to an upload to the image archive of the world's no. 5 website." - Then why the CC license? Because that's the point. Why, if you don't want stuff reused and reposted everywhere? You can't revoke licenses, otherwise they're moot. That's the problem, it's not selfishness and has nothing to do with respect. The problem is that if we begin to stop standing for what free licenses say, we can shut down every conceivable open source/free culture project, because "hey, maybe the people who released GNU FDL/CC/public domain stuff didn't really mean to release them as such". You care about their feelings? Well, I care about the concept of free culture in general. Guess what's more important, on the long run. Anyway, if you prefer to put your fingers in your ears instead of listening, that's your prerogative. --Cyclopiatalk 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Saying that you can't revoke licenses is misleading, because it implies that as long as the license permits use of the photo it's okay for us to use the photo. At best it means that it's legally okay for us to use the photo, but legally okay is not the same thing as okay. Some things are legal, but still wrong, and we should not do them even if the license allows it. (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"because it implies that as long as the license permits use of the photo it's okay for us to use the photo." - Exactly. That's what free licenses are for. What part of "free" is not clear? If someone doesn't want his photos to be used in a certain way, that someone can choose to use a non-free license, and nothing happens. --Cyclopiatalk 15:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Cyclopia, just because an image is freely licensed, it does not mean that Commons should host it or that it is within the scope or guidelines of Commons. You know this. If you want to test your theory that a free license means Commons will accept a copy, I suggest that you ask for File:The making of an adult film by David Shankbone.jpg to be undeleted. I can give you several more suggestions when you are done with that one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's very true, it doesn't mean that we're obligated to host it. But it also does not mean that people who took them and, with other people's consensus, uploaded them on the Internet under a free CC license have the right to complain if we instead decide to use them -because, guess what, they haven't. Nor it means we should listen such nonsensical complaints. --Cyclopiatalk 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course they have the right to complain, and we should act on those complaints if they are reasonable. You are welcome to your views on free licenses, but they do not erase the other rules and responsibilities set out by the WMF. This isn't a magical kingdom free from interference by The Man - it is a website owned and operated by the WMF. You should read [ this. Carefully. Twice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That policy is about private pictures of people that are uploaded on the Internet without people's consent. Here we're talking of something different: people who upload their own pictures on the Internet under a CC license, willingly and happily, but then complain if they end up in the part of the Internet they didn't expect. --Cyclopiatalk 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that's not a policy, it is a WMF board resolution. Secondly, if someone uploads an image to Flickr without thinking through the consequences of their choice of license (or failure to choose a different license if that is the default), then everything in that resolution applies equally. My personal opinion is that Commons uploaders should be able to have images containing identifiable people removed at their request, no questions asked, whether or not they are in use. Your opinion seems to be that if they made a poor choice, we should make them live with it rather than being compassionate. Here's a good test case for you - File:AussieBum_wonderjock.jpg. Taken by the subject, placed on their Flickr account, uploaded by them to Commons, and then added to articles here. And then deleted out-of-process under false pretenses *which should not be necessary). There is no doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing. Go ahead, ask for it to be undeleted because they made poor choices. Let me know how that works out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"Your opinion seems to be that if they made a poor choice, we should make them live with it rather than being compassionate." The point is not one of "compassion", the point is that if we accept such a philosophy, every free project, from Wikipedia to the Linux kernel, is doomed. According to your philosophy, tomorrow I could change my mind and ask all my edits to WP to be redacted or reverted, because I suddenly don't agree more with the copyright I accepted before. I think last time someone tried this they were banned. I have no idea what the image you talk about was about, or why was it deleted, so I can't ask for undeletion even if I wanted to. But tell me more about the out-of-process and the false pretenses. --Cyclopiatalk 08:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
We've covered this. Whether or not Commons hosts an image has nothing to do with revoking the license. The Linux kernel is safe. Please let this thread die now. You are welcome to continue it on my talk page if you can think of something new to say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"They've been deleted." No, they haven't - Russavia deleted only the ones which were specifically mentioned in the original thread. When I pointed out that there were more, his response was "I have deleted 24 images. As far as I am concerned, that is all that is covered by my close....take them to DR". When I questioned this, he closed the discussion with the edit summary " there is nothing more to do here", but then thought better of it. Why a deletion request closure for a single image can be applied to 24 images but not the remainder of the images is a mystery that I will leave for the reader (hint: Russavia is only interested in protecting Commons from criticism, not actually addressing any of the problems, and is really more interested in trolling than anything else, which is why he started uploading Flickr images of topless children after I started the discussion. Oops. I guess I spoiled the mystery). Although I used the example of MaybeMaybeMaybe's uploads to highlight the issue of COM:IDENT and children, I don't have any quick way of identifying those images out of the literally thousands (yes, thousands) of images uploaded by him with the Flickr upload bot in the last few days. I did helpfully point out that some could be found in the Commons category "Topless boys", but even those have yet to be deleted. If anyone continues to think that the problem here is that I personally haven't filed a deletion request, they are missing the big picture. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in fairness, it does make you look a bit foolish, although how much of a problem that really is is not for me to say, obviously. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
What on earth kind of ill-informed comment is that? How is pointing out that there is a problem on Commons that the Commons' admins are unable/unwilling to address unless forced to "foolish" ? Tarc (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Trouble is, that's a hypothetical question.
The OP linked to a discussion where they had identified images in likely breach of Commons policy. The problem was immediately recognised, the images were nominated for deletion and then deleted. Commons may be broken, fine or it may need oiling, but this has been a badly botched illustration. Formerip (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Two things, FormerIP. One, I don't mind looking foolish. Two, your summary of the situation is completely and utterly wrong. For one thing, some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted. For another, it was Conti's post on COM:AN which got the images deleted, presumably alerted by this discussion. By the way, thanks Conti, for this and for starting the discussion at the Village Pump. Good luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
DC, the files were nominated for deletion around 1 pm UTC on 27th. That's nine hours before you started this discussion, so I don't think the causal link you suggest can be all that real. The votes were almost all unanimous and it was actually your pal Fae who precipitated the early closes by positively establishing a lack of consent. The thing that's really broken here is your glasses.
For clarity, when you say "some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted" do you mean that you know of further problematic images, or just that it's not impossible? Formerip (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is or isn't a good example is irrelevant. As Andreas says above " Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds.". In other words, what is actually needed - and has been for some time - is some Commons admins living in the actual real world and possessing some clue, and quite frankly there appears to be a particularly high number at that location that are failing on both criteria. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think whether or not it's a good example is the main issue. I'd guess no-one would doubt that Commons processes could be improved, although exactly how bad they are is a question shrouded in hysteria on the one side and defensiveness on the other. What I wonder is whether the best approach is to spin bullshit. And, if you do, whether you should make sure you don't fall on your face. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It's only not a good example because of Fae's quick actions. But even then one could argue that the first admin with clue who saw that collection of images (via the deletion request or wherever) should have nuked them on the spot. That would have happened here - why can it not at Commons? And even in the discussion we above we have idiotic statements like "Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.". I'm not entirely sure why we allow anyone with that attitude to edit at all, although at Commons nothing would surprise me. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The apparent lack of an effective speedy process for this type of image is something that's being constructively discussed on Commons at the moment. And I agree its an issue. But that's rather separate from the thesis of OP, which is the same ol' "look at these disgustin' images, Common's won't do nuttin' about it, where's my gun?". You jumped it is the answer to that. All we have here is a null hypothesis.
Dumb comments on Commons are also not the issue. We also get those here, quite a lot. In both cases, discussions are a sausage machine and the only thing to consider is what comes out. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem is that everything at Commons appears to be discussions rather than actions. There are situations, of which this is one, in which Commons admins need to be seen to fixing problems rather than talking about them. However, if an efficient speedy process for this type of thing does emerge, then all well and good. But I won't be holding my breath given some of the comments from Commons admins above. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP, since you seem to be trying your best to spin this into something that it is not, let's really look at the sequence of events:
  • 06:20, 27 November 2012 - I start the discussion on COM:AN
  • 11:25, 27 November 2012 - Russavia (the first person to reply in that thread) notes "they appear to have been taken in Germany, where permission will be required for all use" (i.e., they are in violation of COM:IDENT and should be deleted on that basis)
  • 13:16, 27 November 2012‎ - Commons admin 99of9 starts deletion request for the seven images specifically mentioned in my original post
  • 22:17, 27 November 2012 - after Russavia archives part of the COM:AN thread in the middle of a discussion, I start a discussion here
That's probably enough for you to get the idea. Here you have an admin stating the reason why these images should be deleted and then refusing to delete the images and actively stifling discussion until someone starts a deletion review (which 99of9 had already done). When Russavia does delete the images at around 20:45 on 28 November, he cites the Flickr user's statement that " were photographed in a private place". Note that consent is required in Germany even for photos taken in public places as far as upload to Commons is concerned and recall that Russavia himself made that observation more than 24 hours earlier. In addition, Russavia states that the Flickr user says "they do not want to have them hosted on Commons". Note that it is generally very difficult for uploaders to have their files deleted and some Commons admins regularly vote against such requests. If it seems like I am singlng out Russavia here, it is only because of his specific actions in this situation. Any Commons admin could have deleted those images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that neither you or Russavia nominated the images for deletion, but I think that has to do with your respective egos rather than anything worth discussing.
As your timeline shows, you raised the images at COM:AN, which led to them being nominated which led to them being deleted. So the system-test showed a working system. Who, really, gives a shit that Russavia didn't offer to shine your shoes for you. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
FormerIP is a "if you want to delete images, you support censorship" sheep-bleater. Now I generally agreed with that anti-censorship position when it came to the Muhammad images issue last year, but after a point the OMG TEH CENSORZ stuff really does cease to be an effective or even meaningful argument. The context matters, which is why I looked at the Muhammad situation and said "this isn't a good case to censor" and why I look at this case of shirtless boys being categorized alongside sexual images of topless men and say "y'know, that's really not OK". It was funny how I was cast as the Bad Guy(tm) last year just because I put some people in their place with some unkind words. What we see here are people like FormerIP and Resolute, the latter another opponent of the Muhammad censorship, knee-jerk ANY attempt to remove ANYTHING. We see now what the real problematic mindset is here... Tarc (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You've made up the idea that I'm particularly anti-censorship in your own head, Tarc. I'm very much opposed to imbecilic, self-regarding drama-wank masquerading as informed comment, which is something and the Muhammad saga have in common. Censorship really is a side issue. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If an image on Flickr contains identifiable people, it is common sense and basic politeness to ask for permission before transferring it to Commons. The wording of commons:COM:PEOPLE should make clear that this is a requirement rather than an optional extra. The current wording is too vague.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
There are at least a couple of problems with that statement, but this is not the best venue to go into all that. If you're concerned about the wording of commons:COM:PEOPLE, please come over to Commons and discuss possible changes there. --Avenue (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point here; the bulk of the Commons admins are reluctant to lift a finger to act on any such changes. These are the same people who argued vociferously to keep Beta M, a convicted sex offender, a member of the project. The few sane voices over there are drowned out by the corrupt. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the specific Beta M case, but why shouldn't convicted sex offenders participate to Commons (or any other Wikimedia project), as long as they abide to policies? Do we discriminate people because of their personal wrongdoings? Should everyone disclose their own past before participating here? --Cyclopiatalk 14:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Trying really hard not to be snarky, but if you cant see the problem with a child sex offender working with minors in an area that contains pictures of half-naked children... I dont think anyone here can really help you. Although if Commons cleaned up its content, it wouldnt be so problematic having sex offenders contributing there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)What about hypothetical pedophiles, Cyclopia? Would you be as equally quick to go on the defensive for such an editor? If not, why? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am "defensive" of deciding the right of everybody to participate on WMF projects only on the basis of their behaviour in the editors' community and benefit to the project. You could be a convicted pedophile, a serial killer, a church burner, a former KKK member, or even all of these things together, but as long as you behave properly with other editors and contribute to the project, I see no reason to ban these people from contributing. Again: should we ask everyone to disclose their past? Should everybody provide proof of having always been a perfectly law-abiding citizen before collaborating to WMF projects? --Cyclopiatalk 14:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You dont hand an alcoholic the keys to the pub and ask them to tend bar. Likewise you dont (knowingly) let a sex offender loose in an environment that caters to their illness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec)You're on the wrong side of Wikipedia:Child protection, my friend; such editors are banned, no wiggle room. I was hoping to elicit even the tiniest bit of common sense from you...that yes, a hypothetical editor discovered to be a pedo should be booted form the project immediately. As they say, Cyclopia, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Really? I guess you haven't been reading this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the policy. It looks to me like a textbook example of moral panic. I personally think we should give ex-convicts an opportunity to try to become again positive contributors to society, even with something like WMF projects. I would understand topic bans on stuff related to children and sexuality, but if a convict sex offender wants to edit articles about linear algebra, why don't we allow it? Should we reject, hypothetically, contributions by Hans Reiser on the subject of computer science because he's a convicted killer? --Cyclopiatalk 15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Cyclopia, I deeply respect you as an editor, yet despite initial skepticism I came to side with Delicious carbuncle on that case. The way he presented (and still presents) the issues involved was very confusing - beginning by saying that an editor stated philosophical opposition to age restrictions on viewing sexually explicit material. I had to look up the editor's contributions myself to find the thing that gave me pause (all this is in the discussion there and I think it does no good, maybe harm, to reargue the case here, plus it probably violates WP:Child protection to do so ... and that's a whole other argument; see that page's talk archives also). The problem with DC is that he acts like an autoantibody, raised against a perfectly valid concern of pedophiles on Commons, but cross-reacting against everything from the Shah's waterpark to the very concept of a Creative Commons licensed photo of a person that can actually be reused. He still comes up with a useful catch now and then - mixed in with unacceptable calls to close Commons, institute censorship, and humiliate good editors like Fae. But we can't ourselves overreact and ignore any actual danger to kids - nor should we forget that on a site that anyone can edit, where most of the contributors are anonymous, that only some tiny fraction of the sex offenders present will ever be known to us. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, I'm not sure which "case" you are talking about, but I suspect you may have me confused with someone else. Michaeldsuarez, perhaps? As for "the Shah's waterpark" and etc, I don't know what you think you are talking about. Frankly, I've had enough of having to respond to such nonsense posts just in case anyone fails to realize that your words are unrelated to reality. I'm asking for a topic ban. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I should acknowledge that I did misspeak above about Naser al-Din Shah's slide; that was JN466. Wnt (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Naser al-Din Shah's slide is now at AfD. As an example of historical scholarship as practised in Wikipedia, it turns Wikipedia into a caricature of itself. Andreas JN466 08:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

From my limited experience with the process at Wikimedia, it appears to be chock-full of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages of images from people who don't want to pay to store files and who use WM as their personal spank bank. I've asked this before: can anyone tell me the purpose of these images? It appears to be a gallery of drawings by an amateur artist who has no other venue. The only pages using those images are mattbuck's, for whatever reason. Getting rid of these useless pages would free up several servers, but it would cost the labor of millions of editors chained to keyboards for millions of years, since they're being added at an exponential rate. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think those are quite good, actually, but I don't think that they have any realistic educational use. Personally, I'm more puzzled why Commons allows so much material to be imported from Flickr, when it is already available there under a free license. The user who sparked this latest episode, MaybeMaybeMaybe, has returned to mass-uploading images from Flickr after a brief block (and an early unblock from Russavia). What use anyone will have for dozens of images of small toy bears I don't know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well here's the deal, DC: have you ever wondered why homeless people gravitate around public libraries? It's because they're free. It's exactly the same principle with WP and WM: if you offer free space on the ethernet to anyone for a specific purpose, the powerless, the talentless, those pushing an agenda, and the marginalised (for whatever reason, be it sexual or political or any number of orientations) will flock in, attract like-minded individuals, set up communities, and eventually take over large areas and subvert it to their own self-absorbed purposes.
When I was much younger I was very adamantly against any form of censorship or prudery or personal restrictions, but as I look around and see huge areas of the cities littered with discarded needles and used condoms to the extent that my grandchildren can't play in the city parks for fear of accidentally contracting a disease or discovering some couple publicly expressing their sexuality in whatever way they see fit, I tremble to think what my generation will have to answer for in the Galactic Court, if there be such a thing. It's one thing to fight for the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover or Tropic of Cancer; it's quite another to listen to those who have never lived under any form of censorship condemn any type of restraint on content as a Constitutional issue.
tl;dr: They do it because they can. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well that would be the same Commons admin mattbuck who apologised to the aforementioned sex offender for him being blocked from Commons by a "witch-hunt mentality", so you can make of that what you wish. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
"it's quite another to listen to those who have never lived under any form of censorship condemn any type of restraint on content as a Constitutional issue." - "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." (John Stuart Mill). --Cyclopiatalk 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What's really strange is those editors who misread the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as saying that "Wikipedia shall make no rule governing its content". I suggest you contemplate the differences between the objectives of an encyclopedia and the objectives of political charters.
FYI: if you need something to do the Coprophilia and Dirty Sanchez articles need illustrations. Sum total of human knowledge and all that, you know. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that I'm not American, I wasn't thinking about the First Amendment. And you're building a straw man: Wikipedia should definitely have rules about its content. Only, these rules should be all about neutrality, not censoring information and having verifiable content, for example. So yes, the articles you cite should definitely have illustrations -I am serious. Unfortunately I can't find images on Commons about them. --Cyclopiatalk 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure your camera has a time-delay shutter. Here's your opportunity to contribute some original photos. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Strange to say but I'm probably the least censorious around here. What people want to read, watch, and do is their own concern, as is what people don't want to read, watch, and do. I think it is just as bad making sure everyone listens to a speech by Palin as it is making sure that no one can do so. Similarly if some one wants to shoot junk, or make the beast with two backs in whatever way that suits, then they should do that in such a way that others aren't forced to watch or stumble over the mess. I mean for fucks sake we require people to take their dog's shit home with them, what's wrong with their condoms and needles too eh? John lilburne (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of speech is a good idea wherever it is applied - it is not simply a good idea for government, but for any organization. That said, Wikipedia is a collaborative venture in free speech for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia, a true social contract, in which people surrender certain free speech - i.e. vandalism - in favor of a goal of advancing free speech by working together. Nonetheless, the degree of freedom of speech surrendered within the confines of Wikipedia's pages should be the bare minimum, and the amount of free speech gained by collaborative article building the practicable maximum. If the former ever surpasses the latter, the project becomes counterproductive and dies. To the degree that the difference decreases, it withers and falls into infighting and gaming. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Those files are on my page because I set up a bot to track new nudity/sexuality images so that it was possible to see new uploads in the area for vandalism fighting, etc. There are issues, namely it only checks categories so if an image is uncategorised it won't be picked up, but it's a start. As for the Beta_M thing, I think that the child protection rules have merit, but I still think the results can have undesirable side-effects. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"undesirable side-effects"? Could you please be more specific. (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kicking out users who have done nothing wrong on Wikimedia on the grounds of statements they have made elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I would be interested to know how you feel about this edit? Do you see nothing wrong with adding Freenet pedophile site links to Wikipedia? Incidentally, we still link to that user's porn site in Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. I removed it once, but someone added it back. That article needs a serious cleanup of sources but I can't be bothered because it will only draw more aggro my way. That's the sad reality of WP - everyone knows that many articles are awful, but they aren't worth the trouble of trying to fix them will bring. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, speaking for myself I can say that given that these links were posted in the Pedophile movement article, they look quite germane, there. The only thing that we should ask ourselves is: is this link relevant for further understanding the topic at hand? Given that they look like primary sources of the movement described in the topic, they look relevant to me. We are not censored, no matter how repugnant to our morals is the topic. Should we remove the link of Stormfront from its own page? After all, neonazis, eeewwww. --Cyclopiatalk 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you just trolling now, or is your head really so far up your own ass that you can't see that NOTCENSORED does not mean linking to actual pedophile websites? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the websites in question, or are you simply reacting to what you think is on the websites? --Carnildo (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that neither site currently exists in the form it was in when those links were posted. You can read the descriptions of the links added by the user, but if that's not clear enough for you, one of those sites is described elsewhere as "a pro-pedophile freesite that advocated the legalisation of sexual relations with minors". Did it contain child porn? I don't know, but I am not concerned about child porn on Wikipedia (that gets dealt with very swiftly) - I am concerned by the advocacy of pedophilia. Speaking of which, have you read this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The point of Wikipedia is to create a legally usable resource (otherwise we would simply build a pirate trove), so it avoids web links with potential legal problems, most often for trivial copyright issues, and so obviously any site which we feel has real risk of getting us into trouble over child porn is going to be unacceptable. But excluding sources for mere advocacy of a point of view is a different idea, one we should not confuse with this - not simply because losing NPOV would undermine our credibility, but more so because it would do more harm than good. After all, the vast majority of readers will be non-pedophiles whose reaction to self-indulgent arguments by pedophiles will be subsequently to recognize and reject these ideas wherever they are found. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wnt, if think linking to a Freenet pedophile site is the same as linking to, say,, as we do in NAMBLA, you are mistaken. I believe there was a genuine legal risk in linking to those sites but, as I say, it may to late to determine that with any confidence now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't one step allowing the other? Just click on DC's wikipedia page and see the wonderful image he has on his own page and we are supposed to take him seriously on this issue? Really. Please. Commons allows the upload of naked pics even when there is a quetion of age and public space. Just some guy taking pics out his window at people groping each other. Yes...commons is broken. It is quickly becoming a sex image site with the images not used in any fashion with the projects. Mass amounts of naked people engaging in sexual activity with no purpose. Wow....Wikimedia has some issues to deal with whether or not anyone agrees with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
DC, nobody's trolling here, and keep civil please. If you're so concerned with "advocacy of X" (be X pedophilia, racism, death penalty, gardening or beauty pageants) that you want to remove relevant links about X from pages, then you should not edit topic X. Your moral panic is overriding your neutrality. As disgusting as it is, pedophilia advocacy exists and readers have the right to see what it's about in the page that was dedicated to describing it. This doesn't mean we should link illegal child porn sites, of course, but legal sites that just express a point of view (even if we find it horrible) can't be removed for censorship reasons. --Cyclopiatalk 10:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
So, uh....I just condoned WP linking to NAMBLA -- the North American Man-Boy Love Association, who advocate sexual relationships between adult men and boys -- and you think I am in some kind of "moral panic"? Give it up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like people here are having a big argument over a very fine distinction, if any. Nobody here is saying to link to child porn, and if you're saying you accept referencing NAMBLA when it is the relevant source for an article, then the only thing left to dispute is whether this Freenet link was appropriate (legal) or not back when it existed, which apparently nobody knows. (With maybe a side issue of whether it was ever really an important resource, which we also don't know) On this point, can we call it unanimous agreement and leave it at that? Wnt (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The more taboo this sort of a topic is, the less likely it is that cases of sexual abuse will be dealt with. It is not an accident that the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, the BBC etc. etc. have only recently come to light and/or been dealt with seriously. The best way to fight sexual abuse is to be maximally liberal about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hankey

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gregory Paul Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Albans School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed for you. BencherliteTalk 11:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. For fun, I hope to spend 30 minutes or so today starting to look for proper sourcing for the article. It needs a lot of work, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now enriching itself by contributing to the destruction of small businesses

Jimbo, could you drop by and comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia is now enriching itself by contributing to the destruction of small businesses? I'm not sure I can continue to work on this project if we are going to prostitute ourselves in this way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I find your argument unpersuasive. But even more so, I'm unhappy to see your personal attacks (accusing people of not being literate enough) on others who don't agree with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, there was some overheated rhetoric on the other side, too. Perhaps not as bad, but... Writ Keeper 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I lived in a town where the libraries were tiny and underfunded and ideologically sanitized. I associate free and independent bookstores and booksellers, be they left or libertarian or religious or genre-specific, with literacy and diversity of human opinion; I guess it just seems axiomatic to me that people who value reading would value books and thus would value bookstores and booksellers. I'm sorry if my language struck anybody as intemperate. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Like you, I was exposed to free and independent bookstores in my youth, so I know what you mean. I grew up with Aardvark Books, Central Park Bookstore, City Lights, Cody's, Kepler's, Stacey's, and all the rest. I think I can say with some certainty that people who value reading value free time, or as I like to expound upon at some length, contemplation. Contemplation is a form of blue-sky thinking, and it can lead to new ways of seeing ourselves and others—this is the "diversity of human opinion" you've observed. We need to bring contemplation back to the foreground, and when we do, the value of reading will increase. We need to have free time to contemplate ideas and the time to savor them. "Social media" doesn't allow or want us to do that. We need more time to leisure at thinking things through, and that means quiet time. The history of discovery, breakthroughs, science and technology is a history of contemplation by people who had lots of free time. If you want to value books then you need to value the free time and leisure required to read them. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazon has invested an undisclosed sum of money in Wikia, Jimbo's for-profit wiki operation. Readers may form their own conclusions. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, they may. But they'd be pretty mistaken if they formed the opinion that you want them to form.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm very much aware that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. Cui bono, on the other hand, is a rule-of-thumb (and nothing more) used by every law enforcement office and investigator in history. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The fallacy you are committing is called Ad hominem actually. And additionally, it's just a stupid thing to say. It makes absolutely no coherent logical sense and completely fails to address any interesting questions at all. You are behaving in an insulting manner.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Look, this isn't helping to build an encyclopaedia, is it? Much as the pair of you may love having political debates, here is not the place. Now go cleanup an article or something. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
@Rcsprinter, are you suggesting that Jimbo might be better off "cleaning up an article or something"? Thank you for the laugh. Yeah that's probably a good idea.
@Mike, I do not believe you are right on this one. Wikipedia has been always enriching itself by all possible means. All nonprofits do, and all for profits do. And about Amazon's destruction of small businesses, well, that's just the way it goes around the net. Wasn't it Wikipedia that first killed Encarta and then Killed Encyclopedia Britannica Books? It is the law of evolution: only the strongest will survive. (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That myth was debunked many decades ago. Try reading survival of the fittest to learn why you are wrong. "Fittest" does not mean "strongest". Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that. I used "strongest" on purpose. Wikipedia is not the fittest, it is the strongest, and it is the strongest mostly for the wrong reasons. (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That article is from 2006, very old news. Wrt book stores: what's the point? I've read 63 books since I bought my first tablet less than a year ago vs. the ~20 books I'd read annually before that. I can get any one of millions of titles delivered to me digitally within 3 seconds. For books without a digital edition I get free two day shipping as a member of Prime (which also gives me unlimited access to movies and TV shows). Every amazon page has recommendations based on my past purchase history, and my past browsing history, and based on the item I'm viewing at any given time - and if I'm still not sure I can read the reviews or google for more recommendations.
I have two bookshelves in my house with about 200 books that I'll likely never read again and another couple hundred sitting in my basement taking up space - not only are physical books inconvenient but a huge waste of paper as well. My Galaxy tab has around 85 books on it that I can access at any time so it stops me from having to lug around a bag of books for school or variety. If there's something significantly important about bookstores that Amazon can't provide I'd say the publishing industry isn't doing a great job of explaining what that is to the public because I have no idea. Sædontalk 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That article may indeed be from 2006, but is from four days ago. Andreas JN466 05:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have rooms floor to ceiling with shelves of books, cupboards full of books, and an attic full of boxes of books. e-books are great for serial works, stuff where you start at the start and end at the end, or where the work is a few pages or so. In my experience and those of my colleagues they are hopeless for reference works, broken technology in fact. So a novel I'll buy as an ebook, medieval history or a guide to a family of insects I'll have it on paper. John lilburne (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike, small book stores/libraries are purchasing print on demand (POD) machines like Espresso Book Machine. No shipping, warehousing, returns or pulping. Problem solved. This isn't destroying old business models, it's creating new ones. The problem is that someone at some point in the future might very well decide to erase or rewrite the digital copies, so there needs to be a way to preserve the text because both digital and printed copies have finite lifespans. Try to focus on the real problem. How do you preserve knowledge over thousands of years? Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Using your logic, and I don't think you have much, contributing to Wikipedia is killing off book stores by making a reference book available for free, on line. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do get some books from the local book stores but very often the ones I want are ranked over 200000 on Amazon and I am very grateful to them for making life easier and better for me. Progress always brings problems. I remember this one in Nigeria saying how they wished there was no modern medicine because it just led to overpopulation. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Didn't Wikimedia move away from GoDaddy over their support for SOPA? There is precedent there for considering the behaviour of suppliers, at least. And as an entity dependent on a community, Wikimedia might consider community opinions on the suppliers it chooses. However, it's probably impossible to please everyone, or even to get a representative sampling of community opinion, so making their own decisions based on what's practical is not unreasonable. Rd232 talk 13:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently on the say so, and in consideration of $500,000 from criminals, tax cheats and proven liars. 1, 2, 3 for the woefully ignorant. John lilburne (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Google are "criminals" for undermining the medical cartel's exploitative pricing of drugs needed by sick people. Horrors. That puts them in league with many American politicians who want to see our people have the right to buy things at the same price as others around the world. See also gray market, etc. - this is not an isolated case. I'd rather support criminals than people who withhold medicine from the sick and fight to ensure that America will forever run huge trade deficits until it is entirely owned by foreigners. And as for tax cheats - that's practice for all the big companies.
I trust you're aware the censors have their own economy - that companies like BAE Systems Detica have funded the "Internet Watch Foundation" to put the UK behind a censorship blockade, ostensibly to block child porn, but with the more important effect of making their spying black boxes a legally indispensable part of everyone's conversation in the entire country, something for which Britain now pays dearly in money as well as privacy.
I don't trust Google for one minute, but I'll gladly side with any corporation for exactly as long as it agitates for free speech and free content and the public's right to know. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
free speech and free content and the public's right to know John lilburne (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
free content John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
the public's right to know John lilburne (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously the first appalls me, though I don't know every detail. The second actually does not - yes, Google gets bandwidth cheaper than the individual customer, and that's unfortunate, but we all know that volume buying gives an advantage. They're comparing lines that the company probably owns itself, or leases, to lines that have to do metering and billing and such. And bargainers who probably make seven-digit salaries against Joe Bloggs who reads two brochures from the local telephone and cable companies before picking which. And, we're paying for some amount of "dark fiber" that is sitting there waiting for a TV station to mention something for us to go look at, whereas Google probably has to tailor its habits to whatever bandwidth is available moment to moment. As for the third, well, our message at [3] isn't all that different, and also mentions Chilling Effects. The fact is, issuing a DMCA notice is serious legal juju and does expose people to liability, and they should get a serious warning for their own good. Some news service's robot used one of those blasted things to sabotage NASA YouTube coverage of the Curiosity landing. They better be liable for this kind of automated censorship, and the people considering sending one had better know it. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you not understand the second link at all? Its not that Google is getting a cheaper rate, its that Google isn't paying a bean for the infrastructure that transports the content and what little infrastructure it does provide it got a $1 billion subsidy from the government. Secondly for most websites the download bandwidth is dominated by Googlebots crawling, and recrawling the site. The googlebots are the dominant visitors to my site accounting for some 4 hours of downloads in the last month. Everyone with a website pays the bandwidth bill for google leaching their site. And before you start on about robots.txt, robots doesn't stop the crawling it just stops the pages appearing in search results. As for the third link, the photos of children were being used for age play games on Orkut. The parents complained, Google ignored the issue, the parents complained about impersonation of the 5 year old kid by adults on Orkut, Google demanded driving license photo evidence for the 5 year old, DMCA takedowns were sent, the parents got lawyered up. Google is a multinational company that is out of control. It is fucking people over just as much as the wall street bankers, WAKE TF UP! John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your rant. Now, 1 is bad, sure. 2 is debatable, but that they seek subsidies seems normal: the fault, if any, lies in who gives them. As for 3, they are doing the fracking right thing. DMCA is an abominable law with mostly abominable consequences, even if I understand it was used for a good purpose there (it must be the first time I see DMCA takedowns used for a less-than-nefarious purpose). However if Google made it impossible to file DMCA, they could have had a point. But whining just because they put a fair warning about what filing the complain means is ridicolous and pathetic. I am not a particular Google fan, even if I use several of their products: but if that's the worst you can come up with, I'd say they're even less evil than I thought. --Cyclopiatalk 20:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I will always defend the individual against the powerful, the corporation, and the collective, the DMCA is the one piece of legislation that empowers the individual. A photographer, musician, film maker, author, and artist cannot fight a federal case against a large organisation. Mostly they don't want to either. They just want the abuse to stop. The DMCA gives the power to do that. In the last 6 years I've issued about a dozen DMCA notices to commercial organisations ripping of my work. It is quick, and it is fast, and 1000s of people use that route every week. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
DMCA has been used extensively by the powerful, the corporation and the collective. Just see this for an example. But yes, DMCA also empowers the individual: to punch other individuals in the face, taking down their content first and then asking questions later. I'm sure you also want people to go around with AK-47s and a piece of law that allows you to shoot anybody you find suspicious: doesn't this empower the individual? But anyway, Google is not making it any harder for you to send DMCA notices, it only informs you about what it is and what it means. Calling this a problem is disingenous. --Cyclopiatalk 12:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Your third sentence is quite out of line. You sound like a reasonable person, so I'm betting you will agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It was meant as a reductio ad absurdum of John's position: I don't mean that he literally wants that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Cyclopiatalk 14:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The DMCA provides remedies against people that abuse the system. The fact remains that should the Hubbardistas exploit my work I can fire a shot across their bows before deciding on a federal lawsuit. Also you are quite wrong about Google making it easy to file DMCA takedowns. It is impossible to do so when the infringer is Google itself. Try their street view on the pages are linked stilled photos, anyone can take an ARR image from flickr and link onto street view in order to promote the business, find a way to get Google to remove it. Also on maps they wrap geodata feeds from flickr and overlay maps with the photos. Say you have taken a load of shots of the Golden Gate bridge then Google will index that feed with Golden Gate, and overlay the images on maps. However, because the feed is dynamic so when someone clicks on it the feed might well be showing images of your kids birthday party, in Atlanta. Find a way to direct a DMCA takedown to Google, when the infringer is Google itself. Now take their YouTube service which is mostly full of infringing content, if the copyright owner issues a DMCA google will replace the video with an apology for the video's unavailability, they should be displaying an apology to the content creator that their site is full of thieving bastards. John lilburne (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That article mingles all sorts of issues indiscriminately, but if you're concerned with consumer bandwidth, well, that's easy. If, say, Wikipedia wants to keep Google from leeching up its bandwidth, all it has to do is put "FOAD" or whatever the proper technical language is in a robots.txt file, and the company will trouble us no more. If we don't do that ... maybe we think it's worth it? As for subsidies, I don't see any explanation of what subsidy Google is seeking or presently receives for bandwidth; until I do, I don't know the company has an unfair advantage in getting it. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a probably ill-informed observation. Amazon Payments isn't an additional way of paying compared to the other methods offered, but it's more convenient for Amazon customers and it's also something that Amazon would like to promote. Given that, are Amazon paying WMF for the promotion that's being provided? If not, WMF is getting a raw deal. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC) A couople of points:

  • If OM is interested in diversity and accessibility of books then surely Amazon is a good thing; they have much more available than a small independent store...
  • Amazon Payments is part of Amazon's "Web Services" section, an innovative and progressive business that has done much for making servers cheap, easy and accessible.

So, you know, 6 and two threes. --Errant (chat!) 09:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I've bought over a dozen books on Amazon in the last 6 weeks (and made a donation here through Amazon, for that matter) and each one came from a different bookseller. I've also "borrowed" books on my Kindle through their library. And bought another dozen from a local bookseller. I finally went to the county library today since I haven't gotten a card since moving into town over a year ago. And I buy books from Goodwill, small book stores (including Ed McKay Used Books in Greensboro when I get the chance). If anything, Amazon has made it easier for me to find these small sellers of books. Not sure you have the right idea Mike. Amazon just connects me to MORE small sellers, not less. And makes it really easy to trust them by backing it up. It is expensive for the individual sellers, however 25-35%, but so is a building on Main Street or a slot in the mall. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in any discussion of the role of large online retailers and digital books in the future of the independent bookstore. But to find out that we are using a company which has been utterly condemned by the UK Government for engaging in aggressive tax avoidance to process our donations is an extremely sour and unwelcome revelation. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, any company big enough to process payments for our donations is going to engage in that kind of sleazy financial practices – the worst of which are likely to be the banks and credit companies where the payments originate from. This is an artifact of our economic system and neither a reflection on the relative morality of one of those companies against the others. — Coren (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That's it!, Dennis, you have it! Wikimedia should work a deal with Goodwill for joint donations. To donate to Wikipedia, we should be able to go to our nearest local Goodwill or Salvation Army and hand them cash or any other medium in which they take donations. They can take, oh, 25% or so as a "processing fee" that goes to support poor people, and Wikipedia gets the rest. No greedy scumbag corporations required! Can we do that? Wnt (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it nice if it were that simple? It's not[4]. — Coren (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
According to our article, The Salvation Army has a yearly operating budget of $2.6 billion. The fact that someone managed to rob them once of 1/1000 of that is not really an indictment of their whole membership (our article cites a figure of 100,000 employees). Wnt (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The irony of your sarcasm, Wnt, is that by supporting The Salvation Army we'd be helping them press that pro-Christian POV complained about in a lower thread. Of the two, I think Amazon is the lesser evil. Resolute 03:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on buses

As an article rescuer who opines delete, I fulfil two of Drmies' criteria, but I'm finding it hard to be tearful. Although it is saddening that at least one other person, Trevj, has fallen hook, line, and sinker for Drmies' parody.

For those who don't know what Dennis Brown was alluding to, here are some of the many other "delights" from the sockpuppetteer who created this article, more on whom here, that you can enjoy: Combustion vehicle (AfD discussion) ("but, but, but I can put the string into Google!")  · car-to-car (RFD discussion)  · Child computer (AfD discussion) User:Nudecline/Child computer  · combination of vehicles  · Category:Battery swap buses (CfD discussion)  · car transportation (RFD discussion)  · notebook motherboard  · Special:Undelete/Electric go-kart  · English ham (RFD discussion)

Maybe if I go and eat a chile … Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that there was no mention of the article creator's history in the AfD up until now. Anyway, I'll have a closer look. -- Trevj (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please sell wikipedia.

Editors edit when they want to. And your page says edit things, to fix them if we don't like. But then someone deletes what we edit, what is the point?

Please sell it to a trusted major company like google or microsoft

Yes, please sell it to google, or someone else who would be accepted popularly. The adverts for donations are annoying. And I read you are receiving millions in donations. This is too much money to expect in charity. If the site costs that much to run, then sell it to a company like google, who can afford to run it at a loss, and offset it against their money making businesses. In order to keep supporting wikipedia for the value of it's knowledge and it's prestige with people. Much like facebook is run for popularity and not really making any money compared to it's costs. But it is popular. But it also can afford to run.

Wikipedia could be afforded easily if it was bought by google, or similar. And they seem to have a part of their company which is for public benefit ventures as well (such as campaigning to support open and free internet), and not only for money making. So I think google is a natural friend to support wikipedia, and perhaps to buy it and support it as a loss making venture, for prestige. Supported by their other businesses.

Wikipedia has a large problem with biased and muslim doctored pages promoting islam, and revising history to be written from an islamic myth point of view. Wikipedia seems to allow these biased pages, without reliable verification of facts, and then when the facts are checked and corrected to be balanced and not only the muslim view, then the correction is denied by editors and the biased one sided article is kept the same (even though it has no verification of many of the facts it presents), and the contrary facts which do have sources, are not allowed to correct the page, because the muslim side is deemed the only credible side for facts whenever islam or muslims are mentioned.

Google is a credible company, not run by volunteers or edited with personal views of editors. And is likely to be able to make wikipedia a much more accurate site, with better checks and guidelines, and verifications, perhaps some more automation of verification of sources, maybe by knowing if they are credible sites or popular or well known sites based on info from google search statistics, or little sites.

Or they might be able to contribute better volunteers! from other communities they already have around their other sites. Or to contribute more staff.

Wikipedia is decaying from the pages which have wrong information, especially about islam and religion. Too much pro islam propaganda, and too hard to correct such propaganda, because editors are biased against corrections of islamic propaganda. I have a feeling wikipedia is going downhill if nothing changes about this editing.

Also, wikipedia should be based on current and up to date sources. Not books from 1970s or very old sources, which have been proven wrong, and outdated. Or which state facts, which the facts have changed by today. Therefore wikipedia should not state facts from the past, as true today, without checking if they are true today or not. It should use up to date sources. And as i mentioned above, many islamic propaganda facts, are based on incorrect books from decades ago, which have all been disputed and discredited, and yet the modern sources which discredit it are rejected at wikipedia. And the original muslim propaganda texts are kept as the only main view presented at wikipedia, as the correct view.

P.S. Editors editing everything to edit half a conversation, while keeping other things, is exactly why it should be sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:54, 7 December 2012

We get similar rants from people who think this an anti-Islam site. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If Google want to set up their own online encyclopaedia, there is nothing to stop them. If they want to set one up using content from Wikipedia there is nothing to stop them, providing that they comply with the necessary attribution requirements etc - and they wouldn't have to pay for it. If they wanted to do it at a loss, their shareholders might of course object. As for the rest of your comments, I'll not comment, beyond stating that the suggestion that Wikipedia suffers from a pro-Islamic bias is so far off the mark as to be laughable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Google already tried that and it was a pretty dismal failure.--ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Google Knol started out with a hope to be various views, such as about Albert Einstein, but it turned into bait-and-switch Knols, as if twisting, "Einstein was a physicist, but for the physics of kitchen-remodeling, we have solutions to your appliance needs" and Einstein even typically disliked people using his name to sell their books, much less kitchen appliances". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The OP almost had me ... until they referred to Microsoft as "trusted" LOL. Reality is that no company would keep running Wikipedia as a loss-leader. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a small bias towards the (US) liberal and political correctness dictates. But it is an immense success story. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, it does not. It's just difficult for some editors to admit that their parochial view of reality is neither accurate nor desired. An encyclopedia takes a broader view than a fundamentalist in some small town with population 150. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Possibly - but given the conservative bias (by worldwide standards) of the average US liberal, that isn't saying much... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the pro Islamic claim is off base. One look at Talk:Muhammad Talk:Muhammad/images will show that it is not the commonly held belief and that if anything Wikipedia is more often accused of being Anti-Islamic than pro.-- (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is really an expieriment in making a million points of view combine to form one NPOV. It actually succeeds more often than one would think. Resolute 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
But a million amateur points of view don't trump the view of one expert. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft's Encarta encyclopedia wasn't all that bad. (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP, while misguided in general, may have been referring to the fact that Wikipedia has been misused with many UNDUE claims of achievements by Islamic scholars (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). That problem is irritating because of course there were many such achievements, but enthusiasts have gilded the lily (my personal favorite being the claim "Another contemporary, al-Kindi, described an early concept of relativity, which some see as a precursor to the later theory of relativity developed by Albert Einstein in the 20th century". Al-Kindi was a 9th century polymath; see here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • And the final score in the POV Warrior's rant: Muslim 5, Islam/Islamic 6. Thank you for your attention. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I’m waiting for someone to hat this unproductive drivel... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, good to review Wikipedia longevity versus Knol shutdown mid-2012: Many people have imagined that financing WP with ads could be very successful. Meanwhile, we had a multi-year comparison of the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" (limited by notability) versus the "knols where any owner can lock out changes (corrections)". To me, the knols reached the point to where actual articles could rarely be found amid all the adverts as far-off tangents to a subject. I think it could be a warning to beware nebulous disambiguation pages which can hijack and obscure wp:COMMONNAME topics. -Wikid77 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The title has a totally wrong idea about Wikipedia even before one gets to the rant. "And your page says edit things, to fix them if we don't like" is just wrong. If you go an investigate something and the weight of the reliable sources says something then that's what should be in irrespective if you like it or not - and if you've investigated it then that's what you should put in if what's there is wrong or too sketchy. Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Greg Martin

I think the assistance you're personally providing Greg Martin is really admirable. Thank you for helping out your fellow man. He's a really sweet man, it sounds like. -- (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for me the most important thing is that Wikipedia be of high quality. There's a lot of work to do!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I completed the typical, numerous copy-edit changes (+30 wikilinks) at "Gregory Paul Martin". More could be added re astrologer, whereas WP has articles about many of his films and TV shows. -Wikid77 09:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try to take another look tomorrow.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment about copyrights on CNN (music in birthday videos getting DMCAed)

I think you have brought an excellent point few people have the courage to put forward. I think we should start some discussion on the matter. I am unsure if you are interested in a broader discussion on the matter at this point. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the article, complete with a video of the interview, is here:
Andreas JN466 15:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The one thing that really sucks about that CNN article and its headline is that it creates the impression that if people don't donate, Wikipedia will be forced to introduce advertising. The fundraiser is perceived at least by some donors as some sort of indication of a financial crisis, like a plea for help. That's just not the case. Andreas JN466 20:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think CNN anchor fails to understand why we want to avoid advertisements altogether, however he also agrees that copyright is a bit out of control as it was designed for printing press hundreds of years ago not for the internet. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


For how amazing you are.

Content Creativity Barnstar Hires.png For all your work on Wikipedia!
Hello! I don't believe we've met. My name is Deidra. I started Wikipedia in August, 2012. You can find some things about me on my User Page. It would be an honor if you dropped by. I'm very excited, yet scared, that I have found your page. I've awarded you this barnstar for two reasons- 1st reason is because I don't........see any......other barnstars. I'm suprised by this. 2nd reason is because you are amazing for......Wait! Did you create Wikipedia? If you did, then you really need this barnstar. You may not drop by my page because I'm kinda crazy and my sense of humor is insane. Thank you anyway for playing the biggest role anyone could possibly play in Wikipedia. I'm proud to present...................wait for it............THE CONTENT CREATIVITY BARNSTAR AWARD! *confetti rains from the sky and people are clapping,smiling, and yelling* Congrats. BTW- hi. RaidenRules! (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

on German

Hello Jimbo, I'm a spanish user of wikipedia! Who your, I tryng learn An idiom in my case, simple english, in your case German, I learning some German

-Enjoy Wikipedia -Geniben Wikipedia! -¡Que disfrutes de Wikipedia!

--PokeBrawl (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles about namecalling terminology

Dear Jimbo Pardon me for canvassing here, but have you taken a look a how much of an Orwellian turn this project has taken of late? I just have to turn my head away in shame, but I am so concerned about this, it should be brought to the attention of the highest people in wikimedia. The latest most popular trend with massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV, seems to be ARTICLES ABOUT NAMECALLING TERMINOLOGY - Or articles that *should* be about impartially "describing" the name calling terminology, and who uses it, how it came to be, and why. But instead, these articles ADOPT the P.O.V. of those forces who employ such name-calling terminology, for which there are no shortage of "sources", just as there is no shortage of agenda-driven academia. These sources are not merely taken as evidence that these viewpoints exist, as they should be. These sources are further being taken as evidence that the viewpoints in them are hallowed and correct, and all opposing sources are wrong and unreliable.

When I say "articles about name calling terminology" I mean terns that virtually NOBODY would self identify as, polemic terms that are always applied by political opponents and detractors who are pushing for an agenda. I would like to see the articles describe, rather than adopt, these polemical povs, but it seems the view now is that even neutrality policy can be overturned if the partisans are vocal and numerous enough. There are several examples I have seen in the last month, but the most prominent is "Islamophobia", which I noticed after a message was left in the religion project talkpage. Some thoughtful editor there has suggested the content be moved to the more neutral "anti-muslim sentiment" [more parallel with "anti-Christian sentiment" amd "antiSemitism"] rather than the special word "Islamophobia" - a derisive term designed to convey that they are suffering from a disease or condition, who would oppose Islamic thought. He also suggested the page Islamophobia become a new article explaining the history of the word, who uses it, why it is used, and who disagrees with it.

Like I said, NOBODY self identifies as "Islamophobe" and NOBODY would accept that title on themselves. It's an exonym strictly applied by outsiders to their politico-religious opponents. But as the many shrill partisans of the word have explained with much characteristic venom, this is all neutral, good and proper, because those who advocate use of the term, includes such infallible sources as the BBC News and the British Police - and how could they possibly have a POV, that is anything other than absolute neutrality?

So in short, it doesn't matter if you say you are not an Islamophobe. If the BBC / wikipedia officially says you are an Islamophobe, you just are one anyway, even if you say you're not - because this is not a "point of view" open to debate, it's a neutral fact about yourself that the BBC knows, but you don't. The most vocal partisan at the Request for move has been User:AndyTheGrump, who has asked that I depart wikipedia for failing to see all this his way. I'm considering it. The mess of a move request is at Talk:Islamophobia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 10:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Nobody? [5] Fram (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I looked at this source, Fram. It says (p. 15, p. 187) one Polly Toynbee stated she was an 'Islamophobe' as well as a 'Christophobe' in an Guardian editorial in the year 1997. It goes on to say that in 2005 she was again taken to task for having opined thusly against Islam, and she passionately defended her right to hold her views, concluding finally (p. 16) "... --which is why the word 'Islamophobia' is nonsense." So that's your source. Something tells me however that this would automatically be considered unworthy information to add to the wp article, for no other reason that it goes against the grain of the overall agenda being pushed, i.e. that nobody ever suggested the word is nonsense because nobody has a right to do so. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not when nobody has the faintest idea what's been talked about. I'd consider removing the entire block of text, to be honest, it's incoherent babble doktorb wordsdeeds 12:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Let me know when you move antisemitism to "anti-Jewish sentiment", too. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do the only responses I ever get always seem like they came from a textbook for logical fallacies and arguments by flawed analogy? "antisemitism" isn't a word disguised to make it sound like it is a newly discovered psychological condition ending in 'phobia'. It is a long established term using the neutral, uncontroversial and easily understood Greek prefix anti- (commensurate with all other such articles) -- not a recent coinage with the polemic, inflammatory and confusing suffix -phobia. I came here because I really want to get Jimbo's response, for many years I have felt that I share his original vision of 'NPOV' when the project started. That is if some watchdog of this page doesn't hide it from his consideration as "incoherent babble" (strangely enough the other two out of 3 responses did not feign ignorance that I am indulging in 'incoherent babble', but seem to have at least grasped my point, maybe it just went over Doktorbuk's head) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What utter bunk. For example, the term "xenophobia" has been around for a long time, and does not suffer from the issues you're making up about the term "islamophobia". It means fear or hatred of something. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If people other than Jimbo are going to respond, could you please read a book about logical arguments first? True logic does not operate by making flawed analogy after flawed analogy, although a number of prominent fallacies do. Relying only on analogies is usually a dead giveaway that you don't have a logical thing to say about the case at hand. Xenophobia is a bad analogy for several reasons, you are right that it doesn't suffer from these issues, but you are wrong that I myself am making up the issues with "islamophobia", which are well documented if you would not turn your blind eye to them. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when one reaches for the Logic 101 card, it usually means they have little else but tolling to add to the conversation. There's nothing wrong with using "Islamophobia" to describe people who hate Muslims, it is a widely accepted and used term. Just like "homophobia" doesn't necessarily imply a literal fear of gay people, its widely accepted usage is simply hated or refusal to accept. Get over it and stop being so literal. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"when one reaches for the Logic 101 card, it usually means they have little else but tolling to add to the conversation." Says who? You? Did you just fall off the turnip truck or something? Logic is an essential tool for weeding out fallacies such as appeals to emotion, 'get over it' type statements devoid of true argument, and the like which are the bane of writing neutral, objective articles - resulting instead in attack pieces disguised as neutral articles. You really should look into pursuing logic sometime. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Til: part of logic, when discussing language, is avoiding the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You have used no logic in this discussion, in fact what you are engaging in is simply logical fallacy; simplistic appeal-to-emotion attempts, complaining about how we're being mean to Islam-haters by equating their racism with "a disease or condition". The thing is, that isn't the Wikipedia's problem. If you need a refresher on what service an encyclopedia actually provides, then by all means ask. An encyclopedia is not a producer of original content or opinion, it is a compendium of information from "Out There in the Real World". It so happens that "Out There in the Real World", many reliable sources use the term "Islamophobia" to when discussing hatred, often irrational, of Muslims. This encyclopedia reflects that reality, and this encyclopedia will reset your attempts to whitewash or neuter that reality just because it offenses someone's sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a WP article summarizing traditional phobias versus pseudo-phobias: Write about the general concept of separating a traditional form, such as "xenophobia" or "agoraphobia" from the pseudo-psychological terms. This would help educate more people to the differences, such as "truthophobe" being a more recent invention, versus "pathological liar". Cite the linguistic terms used to categorize the non-medical words, versus catalogued medical conditions. In fact, there could be several articles, based on different aspects about the use of such words, then back-linked to various articles about psychology. We also need to write about veiled ad hominem arguments, such as saying, "My opponent's ideas are not as childish, clueless or ignorant as many people would think" (or "nor is he a total idiot"), where the technical use of a negative statement can be used to disguise a personal attack. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that does indeed sound sensible. Finally a voice of reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, Wikid77, do you have a source for you proposed article? It looks a lot like original research to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel's argument is based on an entirely false premise: that the word 'Islamophobia' is somehow inherently loaded, in an unique way that say 'antisemitism', 'racism' or 'homophobia' aren't. This is of course nonsense in as much as any word may be loaded, depending on context. The question we should be asking is whether the word is in common usage, in contexts where there is no reason to assume any inherent bias - and the evidence presented at Talk:Islamophobia#Proposal to rename article to "Anti-Islamic sentiment" is overwhelming. Binksternet has demonstrated, through a long list of academic publication titles, that the term is in common use in academia. I have shown that the BBC routinely uses the term. I have shown that the Metropolitan Police use the term - though the term has also been used by others referring to them. I have shown that the Jewish Chronicle uses the term, and one would have to struggle to find an explanation for why they would be biased regarding this. It would be pointless to engage in further debate about usage - it is a common word, with a clear meaning that the media sees no particular need to explain to its readers. The correct title for a Wikipedia article on Islamophobia is 'Islamophobia', per both policy and common sense - and arguments based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, combined with WP:OR and pseudo-etymological waffle should have no place in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy is quite simple. It is like taking a bird's eye view of the struggling contenders in a controversial issue. Think of a controversial issue as like a playing field with opposing teams, if that helps. A bird's eye view of the field allows you to identify all the players, and where they stand. If you bring the camera down to just behind the Redskins line, or just behind Baltimore, that is called a 'point of view perspective'. Now in our controversy, we've got the BBC, the Jewish Chronicle, etc. on one side making accusations of islamophobia. If you look down from the birds eye view, you may be able to see that there is also another side - those being accused of islamophobia - and they are saying 'no, we're not, how ridiculous'. But not only do you seem incapable of taking a bird eye view, you cannot suffer wikipedia to take a birds eye view of the issue either, instead you want wikipedia right up there as one of the linebackers with the BBC and the Jewish Chronicle, and portray the issue from their perspective, which redefines 'neutrality' in rather machiavellian sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Facile and irrelevant false analogies prove precisely nothing. Given your evident misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV policy actually means, I can only suggest once more that it might be for the best if you ceased contributing to Wikipedia - at least until you can accept that it doesn't mean giving equal weight to Islamophobes, antisemites, homophobes and flat-Earthers, as the 'logic' of your arguments would seem to imply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Holy cow, ANdy, you talk about 'logic' while making a strawman? How did I ever imply such a thing? Without you twisting my words to say something I didn't? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that your entire argument has consisted of endless battalions of straw men being sent forward from the trenches to defeat the combined forces of Orwell, Machiavelli and the Jewish Chronicle, I think I'm entitled to put up a few of my own... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Can you do anything besides reinterpret what I argued into something totally different and weird? Combined forces of Orwell, Machiavelli and the Jewish Chronicle! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So a user comes here about a concern about the naming of an article, and then several editors begin to run them down telling them their idea is "bunk" and calling the user a troll? Folks, this is not how we should be acting on Wiki. Let's take a breath and a step back.

I think that there is some validity to this argument. I for one think that the suggestion to move the Islamaphobe article to a less POV title and then using the Islomaphobe as a place to descibe the term (or as a redirect to the newly placed article) is a fair one. I do not see this as the least bit unreasonable (although this probably isn't the right place for that discussion frankly). I definately do not think we need multiple editors who should know better filling this page with insults. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

When their first two sentences use the words "Orwellian" and "shame", they're not setting the bar very high, so it shouldn't be surprising when the rest of the conversation follows suit. Writ Keeper 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I guess that justifies it then! Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well to be fair, it does doktorb wordsdeeds 19:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't justify it, but the whole "stop biting the poor newbie, you meanies" thing doesn't wash when the newbie is who set the tone. Writ Keeper 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Could I just ask Writ Keeper what exactly makes me a 'newbie'? And I'm not complaining about the nature of any of the responses to me, it's come to be expected once you get to know this place. Except the guy who said I was eating at the kids table in the kitchen while the grownups are in the next room, that is a bit magisterial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It was supposed to be a general statement, not a reflection on you at all; my apologies, I should've worded it better. I don't mean to say that you're a newbie; it's more than possible you have more experience than I do, though I see why you would think I meant otherwise. It's just that Kumioko's rhetoric is reminiscent of the kind commonly used to defend actual Wikipedia newbies, and I don't think it's valid to use that kind of rhetoric even with newbies when the tone has been set from the start, that's all. Writ Keeper 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well needless to say I don't agree with the way the users comments have been treated. It seems to me that we could have responded in a much better way than what I am witnessing here, Newbie or Oldbie. I find it ironic that so many think I'm a jerk and I am the one here telling others they are acting poorly. Sorta makes me glad I'm not editing articles much here anymore. Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You're sure telling them, but that doesn't mean you're right. I'm not seeing all that much in the insult department, and in what little I do see, Til seems to be giving as good as they're getting starting from their original post, so I'm not really seeing your point that people are insulting and browbeating Til for having an unconventional stance (I do disagree with that stance, for the record, but that's neither here nor there). Looks more like a prizefight than a mugging. Writ Keeper 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well regardless of the original post and your sarcasm aside this discussion only proves to underline what's wrong with things in WP these days. I remember in the good old days a few years ago an editor would make a suggestion and the worst would happen would be that some folks didn't agree. What I see here in the current day more and more is muddslinging and folks like AndyTheGrump living up to their namesakes and just being jerks and others just mocking them. Just because someone makes a comment we don't like doesn't justify retaliating more of the same. And we wonder where all the editors have gone; why edits are down; why admins are drowning in some areas and why we aren't recuiting the numbers of editors we should be/used too. Because they see shit like this discussion. Someone needs to cap this thread and move on.Kumioko (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"muddslinging and folks like AndyTheGrump living up to their namesakes and just being jerks" Pots, kettles, anyone? And when someone starts a thread by calling everyone they disagree with "massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV", what should they expect? Then again, if it is 'narrowminded' and 'partisan' to object to an attempt to whitewash bigotry by inventing entirely bogus 'neutral' terminology, which seems to be the intent, I'm proud to be a 'partisan'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

While you're here, Mr Newbie-since-2007, could you enlighten us on what you meant by your reference to "an Orwellian turn" in your first posting here? Are you perhaps suggesting that we should use Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four as an instruction manual? You are after all proposing that we replace a perfectly common existing word with made-up NewSpeak terminology... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

👍 Like Andy duckspeak doubleplusgoodwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
.. some of us just fell off the end of Wigan Pier. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Orwell, and of language:

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them". George Orwell: Politics and the English Language. [6]

In our time, when an Islamophobic terrorist engages in mass the murder of children, I see no reason to dress what motivated it up (with "sheer cloudy vagueness") as 'sentiment' for no better reason than that other Islamophobes don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you still have not changed your tactic of merely misrepresenting your opponents' position with strawman positions that are on easier ground to attack, proceeding in a general slippery slope and guilt by association to something quite far removed. I distinctly said I want wikipedia to take a bird's eye view, if you can comprehend what that means, and not an involved view. Once again: The radical proposal under discussion (proposed by someone else, not me) is: moving most of the content to 'anti-Muslim bias', and having an article at 'Islamophobia' to evenhandedly explain the term and the controversy surrounding it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I have read the Quran, and wouldn't choose to follow it myself, but I've nothing against my neighbor choosing to follow it, and can certainly respect if they were brought up to follow the Quran, provided it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg as Jefferson put it. In fact, I don't mean this as a cliche, but quite literally, some of my most wonderful friends have been Muslims, both Sunni and Shi`a, at one point in the 90s I even had a Khuzestani Muslim for a flatmate. I am also very much against the persecution of Muslims, let alone any innocent people. So please do not insinuate again that I myself am Islamophobic by any definition. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in any more of your misrepresentations, spin and BS - you began this thread with a personal attack on multiple well-respected Wikipedia contributors (e.g. your entirely bogus ""massively-organized partisans and pushers of narrowminded POV" claim), and singled me out. I will ask you here to withdraw your attacks - and should you fail to do so, I may well ask for sanctions to be taken against you. It is one thing to argue with individuals, but groundless attacks on multiple contributors (who may as yet be unaware of the characterisations you have made) is entirely unacceptable. I'm not particularly bothered by what you said about me - I've heard worse, and from people who actually have a clue about what they are talking about - but you at minimum owe the Wikipedia community in general an apology for your obnoxious behaviour. 'Crying to Jimbo' because you are losing a debate, and then accusing contributors of some ridiculous sort of conspiracy, is well beyond what might be seen as reasonable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am strictly concerned about the neutrality of not moving it from a pov title to a more neutral title, and wanted to know what Jimbo thinks of the neutrality. You have associated me with a madman Breivik who took the lives of innocents who weren't even Muslim, because I want wikipedia to back off the subjective labelling with controversial namecalling words that you have already started to call me. If you want to press sanctions, go for it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What term is best referenced? This has nothing to do with shock value, it's the most common English usage. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
'anti-muslim sentiment' appears not to be referenced at all - it is an invention of Wikipedia contributors. 'Islamophobia' is everyday language in academia, in the media and elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I just fact-checked that claim on google books and see 8060 potential sources mentioning 'anti-muslim sentiment'. So, you are sying wikipedians coined the term? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, 'proof by Google' - as if Google search results were of any significance (they aren't - they are unverifiable, and Google don't disclose the algorithm by which they are obtained, though it is a mathematical certainty that they don't look through every potential source for every occurrence of such phrases). Did you 'fact-check 'Islamophobia' for comparison ('about 47,000', for what it is worth)? My 'claim' was that 'anti-muslim sentiment' appears not to be referenced at all - can you cite a reference that (a) defines it, and (b) suggests that it is the common term for prejudice against muslims - the subject of our article. And how many books can you cite with the phrase 'Islamophobia' in the title? How many academic journals? Can you provide evidence that the phrase is in common usage in the media? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. It appears quite likely that the vast majority of the sources found by a Google search for "anti muslim sentiment" don't even contain the phrase. If anyone doubts this they should do the search for themselves, and look at the results for finds after the first 15 or so pages: it lists The Paranoid Style in American Politics for instance, yet a Google search in the book finds no such phrase [7]. Google can't find what Google finds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles titles with pejorative terms should cover the term itself (when there's enough there to be encyclopedic), not the victim of the pejorative term as viewed through the POV eyes of the pejorative term. The common tactic is to claim that the pejorative term is more common. Guess what the an article on blacks 60 years ago would have been titled by that standard? Doubly so when a more neutral term is available and common. I tried a longer term lower key talk page effort to get one of those fixed and even that was enough to get set up on by the gang that was guarding it. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite policy for that? Can you cite evidence that 'Islamophobia' is a pejorative term. And why do you claim that 'gangs' are involved in determining Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
A rule of thumb is that 3-4 experienced zealous editors can gang up and get pretty much anything done in Wikipedia.....POV an article, get someone in trouble etc. And it does happen. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel that concern over adopting a clearly controversial and inflammatory term as our own, ought to override any appeal to islamophobia getting the most hits. I just bumped into this source which seems to be one of several, thoroughly detailing the amount of controversy this term has brought, there is loads of info here on just this one page: [8] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Notice it tells how anti-racism groups in France like LICRA and MRAP (French NGO) and others besides have denounced the word Islamophobia in arguing that they ought to call it by something less inflammatory, and many other arguments. Are they in the same boat with Breivik too? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The more I look into this, I see there are easily enough quality sources to reference an article about Opposition to the word "Islamophobe". Here's another particularly insightful commentary on how combatting prejudice against Islam can be undermined with terms like Islamophobia that seem calculated to be inflammatory. [9]Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You are grossly misrepresenting the source re France. No surprise there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Well that's real easy to say, especially if you don't back it up. And even the United States government: According to this paper, before the year 2006, the US "government's position was that while there have been increased episodes of anti-Muslim episodes in the country, the word Islamophobia deepens the divide between the two sides." Very sensible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You are grossly misrepresenting the source, as should be self-evident to anyone that actually reads it - the source uses the word 'Islamophobia' repeatedly. No surprise there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Did I say this source doesn't use the word islamophobia? No, Obviously I know it has the word in the title. I said this info could be used as a resource for an article Opposition to the word Islamophobia, which is a considerably well documented topic. Don't pretend you have a lack of reading comprehension just to be able to pretend the word is not at all controversial. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Put well sourced material with due weight in the appropriate section of the Islamophobia article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Can people cite evidence that it's a pejorative term? Really?
A problem encouraged by Wikipedia rules is the use of insincere requests for evidence as a form of filibuster. I believe this is one of them. I find this request for evidence to be highly disingenuous. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. saying that one has to cite evidence cite evidence that calling one's opinion a "phobia" is pejorative IMO is filibustering, to put it nicely. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)....

I find it beyond ironic that people fight like hell to get the pejorative word used because it is pejorative, and one of their main arguments in that quest is to claim that it isn't pejorative. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a tool to try to to help them establish or entrench those neologisms. And that is exactly what is happening. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When RS chronicles things, Wikipedia chronicles things. Be they new or old. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What the hell are you on about? 'Islamophobia' isn't remotely a neologism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as being a word that commonly refers to mere opposition rather than irrational fear, it certainly is a neologism that people are trying to use Wikipedia to establish/entrench. North8000 (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, the etymological fallacy, combined with 'pretending words mean something else entirely', and 'ignoring the evidence' tactics. Anyway, the decision regarding what we call our article on Islamophobia isn't going to be decided here. Jimbo isn't going to overturn the decision by fiat, that's for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy Reddit's idea of "rules"

While similar to "Dont be a dick" this rule from Reddit is something we should consider implementing- "Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?" While we have policy and guidelines that in essence say the same thing, perhaps we should actually enforce that standard from Reddit... if it seems that something someone said would get them disciplinary action with an HR department for saying in the workplace, or a child would get sent to the principal's office for, to put it in language for our younger editors. (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I'm not sure that Wikipedia, or anyone with a modicum of common sense, should use Reddit as a model. Unless they plan on starting a number of sub-wikis for jailbait, creepshots, etc. I would rather focus on remembering that the people who appear on Wikipedia are humans and let Wikipedia editors fend for themselves until that it done. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As an administrator, how am I to enforce a rule that says "Would I say it to the person's face?" What if they are a jerk in the real world and really would have said that same thing? Laws or rules that are unenforceable are always selectively enforced, which is just a fancy name for tyranny. Wikipedia isn't the workplace. For most, it is an enjoyable hobby, or a passion. If more rules are the answer, then you are asking the wrong questions. We should try to work towards simplicity and ease of use, not policies that require an admin do a Vulcan mind meld in order to determine a response to incivility. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with the IP that the phrase "Would I say it to the person's face?" is a useful device in some cases, as it might defuse a situation, without, dare I say, causing either side to lose face. However, in agreement with Mr. Brown, I wouldn't encourage codifying it into rules, partly because it is non-actionable, partly because the answer might be "yes". There are many things that are useful in disputes that, nevertheless, shouldn't be stuffed into the bureaucracy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In addition to the issues identified by Dennis Brown, there are also cultural differences around the globe that make applying such a rule problematic. What might be perfectly acceptable in one culture to say directly to a persons face (at work or at social gatherings) may not be the same in another culture. You then have the problem of cultural bias influencing where the threshold exists; it's just too vague of a criteria to list into a policy. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There are many excellent ideals that we should live by that would make terrible policy or law. Saying "yes maam" and "yes sir" to your elders, for instance. The same is true of civility. Once you set the bar higher than the the boundary of universally accepted minimum, it becomes exponentially harder and harder to enforce fairly and equitably. The more "civility" you demand, the more unfair the system will become, no matter how honorable the intentions are. I believe that civility is more than sweet words; it is a two sided coin. The other side requires we tolerate other's choice of words, even if they are slightly offensive, as long as their goals are the same as ours, to build an encyclopedia. "Civility" demands that we accept each other's differences to the degree that we can and still function as a community. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Laudable, even magnanimous, Dennis, but perhaps risky, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Driving is risky, this is much less so. Tolerance doesn't mean you agree with something, or even like it, only that you endure and overlook small things. And there are limits to tolerance as well. But just a little more tolerance of our differences goes a long way in being a more civil place. This is the side of civility that seldom gets discussed. "Dirty words" are much easier to point at, but much less offensive than intolerance. Wikipedia doesn't need child-proofing, it needs passionate, dedicated editors. Sometimes, they will bump heads, and sometimes the best solution is to just let them as long as it isn't dragged into the corredores. Insisting we block at the first dirty word is itself, uncivil. That is all I'm saying. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
As usual, Dennis, you the voice of reason. I have to agree with you. Dirty words are indeed the least of our worries. Although they do sometimes come in handy at ArbCom election time... haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I tend to be a bit more polite on Wikipedia and bite my tongue here a lot more than in real life. (not that I'm rude, just that I'm more likely to call someone out for bullshit to their face than I am here) Total agreement that this is an inherently flawed basis of measurement. EVula // talk // // 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

-- Laozi

I think that the OP's principle makes a great essay, but a bad policy. The opposite of incivility is civility, not civility enforcement. It is also useful here to borrow Christian social technology and appreciate that incivility has the attributes of a demon, which transfers from one angry person to the next in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Each individual who accepts incivility, but returns civility, cools the system and returns it to order; just so the faithful are believed to have the power to cast out demons from the global memome. Wnt (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just had to use the Wade-Giles, huh? The bane of my existence... In all seriousness, the chances of us getting anything done here are mathematically zero. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your quote about $50 smartphones in Africa

Hello Jimbo: I loved your quote about $50 Android smartphones causing disruption in African countries. [10]. I can relate myself to this quote as I'm also using a $90 Android smartphone in India and they are literally everywhere in my town. EngineerFromVega 04:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's coming faster than most people realize!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What is meant by "disrupting" in the title? Or is that some ENGVAR usage of disrupting? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive innovation, I would imagine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Kind of like creative destruction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Montgolfier style

Wikipedia Gangnam Montgolfier style
The sum of all knowledge arrives by many different means

According to a BBC News piece today, "one of the many innovative ways being used to get information into North Korea involves attaching USB memory sticks to balloons, and floating them across the border. These sticks often contain South Korean programming - such as soap operas - and also the Korean language version of Wikipedia."

The piece does not comment on whether replication lag is very high when transmitting Wikipedia via balloon, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sneakernet 2.0? Resolute 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is true, one might wonder what else might be on USB memory sticks being sent into North Korea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the percentage of North Koreans that have a computer capable of reading a USB memory stick be quite low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korean Balloon Monkey? .. bless. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In reply to the IP address... wouldn't the percentage of educated Westerners that really believe that North Koreans are subsisting on millet mash and UN handouts, be quite low? Through Wikipedia I first got involved in working with students from Communist China, where almost everyone is (we're told) very poor. One of the students I was working with, from a basic-level (not elite) university, wrote an article about her university. Tentatively, we asked if she could take a picture. Were they allowed such things as cameras? Sure, she said, and the photo came right back, taken by the very latest model of iPhone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I daresay my ex-aunt's relatives from Jiangxi would have a somewhat different reaction; things like this tend to meet somewhere in between the stereotype and the "no one fits the stereotype" response. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I went to China in the nineties, it was a very interesting trip. As expected I saw many people living with less affluence than in London, but some very wealthy people indeed. Things have changed since, and if you rely on the BBC etc for news you'll be aware that China has huge numbers of wealthy urban people and also vast numbers of people living in poverty who have benefited little from the boom, especially in the rural areas. There was a time when the press was telling us that almost everyone was poor in China, but that was a long time ago. By contrast even in the capital North Korea is a mess. ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There is almost no reliable information about conditions in North Korea. Tourists are greatly limited in what they can see, and if spy agencies have better information, they're not telling. From what I've been able to gather, if you're the elite of the elite, you can live essentially a Western lifestyle with all the luxuries. Outside of that, conditions are highly variable, ranging from areas that seem essentially unchanged since the 1700s, through areas of crumbling 1950s Communist projects, to isolated areas of nearly-modern conditions. --Carnildo (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

two versions of the same language

Hello. Intolerable that there are two versions of the same language: one eloquent language (such as Arabic Wikipedia), and one of the colloquial dialect Its dialects (such as Egyptian and Arabic Wikipedia)? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think this is intolerable? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

new idea

make liks to wikipedia to every page that want to copy and paste from this page. it will make wikipedia much more consulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian POV on wikipedia

What do you guys think about my essay on the Christian POV on Wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is biased against unbelievers like me and Jimbo, for a start ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this POV needs to be countered. The latest example is at religion where an editor thinks a 20 religion symbol image i created (diff) needs to be deleted because some religions don't have enough followers. This subequently forced me to start an rfc on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that attempting to 'counter POV' by promoting another one isn't necessarily the best approach. Why are symbols for 20 religions any better than 12? Where is the symbol for atheists? For agnostics? For people that don't think you can meaningfully reduce complex cultural constructs to abstract symbols... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The essay is inapt. Wikipedia covers a multitude of non-Abrahamic religions qute well -- vide Islam, Hinduism and its subgroups, Buddhism, and even your "Paganism and New Religious Movements" as a whole. I admit Wikipedia does not give huge theological detail on Aztec (32K) and Mayan religions (56K), perhaps, but that may be related to the lack of adherents to those theologies at this point, not due to an Abrahamic bias of any sort. And we do tend to refer to Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods as "myth" which I suppose is POV, but the place to object is on the article talk pages for those gods and religions, and I do not se any "Christian bias" involved. Collect (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Islam is an Abrahamic religion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy, i spent quite a while working on that image and downloaded software for it. So its quite annoying when someone single-handedly undoes your work. Pass a Method talk 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, putting effort on something is not a reason to keep it. I understand it's frustrating. --Cyclopiatalk 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the one with twelve symbols as of now looks better than the twenty and I don't see the twenty adds much worthwhile. At that rate we should be adding Pastafarianism and Jedi religion and people will be arguing that communism andatheism are religions, we'd soon be well over the thirty mark. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, as Kelapstick says. Islam is an Abrahamic religion. LadyofShalott 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I noted that to another person - the OP, however, appeared to refer to "Judeo-Christian" bias, thus my listing of a large group of non-"Judeo-Christian" articles. You might also note my opinion later given on the Religion talk page about the impossibility of having one image be of much use to readers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
First, I tend to agree that there is a bit of a Christian bias in wikipedia. Certainly, there is a tendency for the English-language wikipedia editors, many of whom are themselves Christians, to develop content related explicitly to Christianity or their own personal brand of it. However, the same could be said about the comparative lack of development related to towns of population of less than one thousand people relative to the level of development of content related to, say, London. The best way to attempt to counter such bias, probably, is not by basically non-productive essays, but making some effort to find sources to use to add or develop non-Christian content. Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion seems to have been basically created to help develop that content, although, admittedly, it still has a lot to do there. And I do think that maybe actually doing something which directly addresses the matter, a la WP:SOFIXIT, would probably be the much more effective, useful, and productive than simply starting opinion pages. There are a huge number of sources available on the subject of religion in general, with User:John Carter/Religion reference still listing only a small percentage (maybe around 10%?) of those reference books related to religion in general which can be found to have been reviewed in academic journals, with more being published almost monthly.
Regarding the implication that academic sources reflect a Christian basis, clearly, those published by Christian universities or publishers about Christian subjects almost certainly do. Any reasonable person would expect that to be the case there. The fact that there are more of them available in English than, say, journals about Shinto or Islam, is also rather transparently obviously true. That does not mean however that editors who might be interested in developing content related to those subjects would be inhibited from doing so. All they would have to do is find the sources. And, yes, that sort of action would be more useful than writing essays.
The other concern this editor has expressed before is regarding relative weight as per WP:WEIGHT regarding material relevant to multiple religions. Unfortunately, that page is one we are more or less obliged to follow. It makes no sense for the article on a Christian patriarch or pope who had antisemitic tendencies to give as much weight to his antisemitism as to the material related to the topic for which he is more notable. Certainly, there is no inhibition to developing that content in spinoff pages, if they are notable enough, or to have a summary section of that in the main article (or one of the main articles, for really broad subjects like Christianity), but that is another matter entirely, and also covered by existing policies and guidelines which have been found to be broadly appropriate for all content areas. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
John, you are not yourself free of this Christian bias, so the fact you are self-aware of "a bit of a Christian bias" makes it all the more appalling. Pass a Method talk 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How is 'narrative' more neutral than 'myth'?

I'm a bit tired of this claim. My OED says that narrative means "a spoken or written account of connected events." And it defines 'account' as "a report or description of an event or experience." Am I the only one that thinks this suggests that 'account' means an actual account of events? Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality (version of 06:17, 7 December 2012) begins with these statements.

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

Similarly, the question of naming narratives that some people believe to be myths provides opportunities for commonality in article titles and in article text. The titles "Genesis creation narrative" and "Genesis flood narrative" are neutral in regard to whether the narratives are true or false. The same naming convention can be applied to beliefs of followers of any religion, without any disadvantage to believers in those two narratives.
The categories Category:Creation myths and Category:Flood myths can be Category:Creation narratives and Category:Flood narratives, without any disadvantage to anyone, and readers can decide what to believe and what to disbelieve.
See Matthew 7:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21, 22, 23.
Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Creation Myth has a specific academic meaning. You essentially want to rename them to avoid offending readers sensibilities? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The phrases "creation myth" and "evolution myth" are not neutral. The phrases "creation narrative" and "evolution narrative" are neutral.
Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You've kind of dodged the issue where the academic sourcing says "creation myth" most of the time, not "creation narrative". I don't know what you are talking about mentioning evolution. Are you comparing science to "a symbolic narrative of how the world began"? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports creation. Some people (including some people in academic fields) believe that scientific evidence supports evolution. The category title "Category:Evolution myths" is not neutral. The category title "Category:Evolution narratives" is neutral. I am discussing a neutral presentation of views.
Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. 'Scientific' creationism is fringe pseudoscience, and WP:NPOV policy doesn't extend to pretending otherwise. 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As a Christian, I'll add a big Amen! to that, whoever you are. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Only me - messed up the signature... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As a pagan.....I'll does this improve Wikipedia?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What you reckon to be a fringe may be wider than what you reckon it to be.
Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Please take your soapbox/pulpit somewhere else - creationist 'science' is pseudoscientific bullshit, by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That a god-botherers-bullshit lobby promoting a particularly warped version of 'Christianity' has managed to fool so many rational US citizens is unfortunate, but of no relevance to its validity as 'science'. Anyway, Wikipedia is an international project, and cannot be driven by the misperceptions of a single nationality. If you wish to promote creationism, there is an alternative 'encyclopaedia' available, as I'm sure you are aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You probably meant this one didn't you? *cough* John lilburne (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that 46% of Americans believe in creationism has absolutely no bearing on what the scientific community thinks of it. It is a matter of fact that scientists of the relevant fields universally accept evolution. If anything, those stats are a rebuke to the US educational system. In short: Science is not a vote. Yazan (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Fifty scientists sounds like a lot (human beings are just bad at statistics) until one puts it up against things like Project Steve: 1200 scientists – and counting – who endorse the theory of evolution, and who are all named Steve. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', no matter how much one wishes it were. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Ihave to admit that Project Steve is pretty awesome. Writ Keeper 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The "creationism" side issue is pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion -- Wikipedia has no systemic "pro-Christian bias" as far as I can tell. By the way, two large blocs of creationists are Orthodox Jews and Muslims - the latter making up a very large number of people. Collect (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Creationism is just plain wrong, but I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the post where I started this sub-section (other than to repeat the mantra 'myth not neutral, narrative neutral'. I'll add that some people think 'story' is neutral, but I always think of stories as something someone made up. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the term myth is that it has two distinct meanings. The technical meaning is an explanatory tool for teaching about a culture or religion's practices, beliefs, and history. The common meaning is an imaginary tale. Unless you have a means of preventing a reader from using the common meaning, even when they are unaware of the technical meaning, then "myth" is a loaded term best avoided anywhere a full explanation of the intended meaning cannot also be conveniently given (such as article titles). --Allen3 talk 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
And the problem with the word narrative is that it implies that the account is of real events. How is that neutral? Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The word narrative applies as well to a series of fictional events as it does to a series of real events. Ignoring this fact just shows you are, as North8000 points out below, just playing word games. --Allen3 talk 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pro-religion scientific atheist so maybe I have a perspective. Billions of people in the world have deeply held views which conflict with scientifically determined fact. I don't see where it's in Wikipedia's mission statement that we have to actively target, assault and disparage the deeply held views of billions of people. Cover facts as science, and cover religions as beliefs without slamming their beliefs with commentary like using pejorative words like "myth" to refer to those beliefs. The common meaning of "myth" is "false", trying to avoid that is just playing word games. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think that "myth" necessarily means "false". I would take to mean something that many people believe in, but has no scientific proof. For example, the unicorn is described as a "mythical creature". There is no evidence that unicorns ever existed, but equally there is no proof that they didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The overwhelming common usage & meaning is "false" or "mis-conception". I Googled it for an example and came right back to a Wikipedia article. Tornado myths, where the first sentence of the lead starts with "Tornado myths are incorrect beliefs...." Here's an article that directly addresses the question and says so. [11] North8000 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that link is not useful either - it claims that a myth is "a statement that almost everyone thinks is true but really isn’t" which is clearly not the case because it's not "almost everyone" that believes in creation, Bible truth or for that matter unicorns. I actually wonder if the word has vaguely different connotations on either side of the Atlantic, as Allen3 suggested above. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be surprised. I've run across words that have completely different common meanings in Europe vs. USA where most believe otherwise. "Liberal" for one. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of the discussion above, I find it interesting that our article on Creation myth says in the first sentence that a creation myth "is a symbolic narrative...", while our article on Genesis creation narrative says in its first sentence that the "Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity." It looks to me like "we" (at least currently) are using them interchangeably. As for the meanings of "narrative" and "myth", I think that traditionally "narrative" has implied "truth", but it is increasingly being used in place of "story", meaning it could be either true or false. Academics and journalists will write about, for example, the differing "narratives" of nationalities fighting over the same piece of land, which implies that at least one of the "narratives" (and probably both) are not completely accurate, because they can't both be. On the other hand, there is a sentence in the Creation myth article that says that the word "myth" in that phrase does not imply falsehood, which obviously is contrary to how most people use and understand the word "myth". I was thinking of moving that sentence up to the intro, perhaps as the second sentence of the article, so people will understand that "myth" as used in the article does not necessarily mean what they think it means. I am hesitating because the sentence in question is not sourced. Neutron (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not speaking about any one instance in particular, (I see it again and again, e.g. the "phobia" articles) but I find it beyond ironic that people fight like hell to get the pejorative word used because it is pejorative, and one of their main arguments in that quest is to claim that it isn't pejorative. North8000 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
wikt:μῦθος is simply what is said, true or false. As "myth" carries a strong connotation of falsehood, I don't see an obvious reason not to change consistently to something with somewhat less or no such implication like "story" or "narrative". Myth is of little use for investigating the workings of natural law, just as experiment is generally useless in investigating past miraculous interventions made by omnipotent being(s). Wnt (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You mention what the academic sources use, they use "Creation myth" overwhelmingly in comparison to "Creation narrative". We have a situation where the standard name found in the sources is being rejected in case it offends the sensibilities of some people; and people are arguing based on their personal interpretation of creation myth, specifically the word myth. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
@Dougweller: You're waiting for someone to respond to this:
How is 'narrative' more neutral than 'myth'?
I'm a bit tired of this claim. My OED says that narrative means "a spoken or written account of connected events." And it defines 'account' as "a report or description of an event or experience." Am I the only one that thinks this suggests that 'account' means an actual account of events?'
I don't understand why you say you're tired of that claim and then substantiate it.
Anyway, lots of people have responded to the claim. Here's my 2¢--"Narrative" is more neutral than "myth" to the general public who has not been schooled in the academic meaning of "myth." Since we're writing for the general public, not exclusively for academics, we should use the term less likely to confuse. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see. Scientists say General relativity, but we should call it "stuff makes Bendy Space idea", in case people get confused? No, we are a serious encyclopaedia. We are expected to use the standard terminology of a field. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And while we are here: WP:RNPOV: "Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
But if we are going to do that, we need to explain to the reader that the word as used in the title (and the whole article) does not mean what they probably think it means. "Informal meaning" as used in the NPOV policy actually means "what most people think it means." We are not writing for academics, we are writing for regular people. We can use an academic term, in its "formal sense", but we need to explain to the 90 percent or more of readers who think that "myth" necessarily means "false" (which included me, until I read this thread), that that's not what the title or the article mean. Unfortunately, an explanation won't fit into an article title, but it will fit into an article, and it should be in a prominent place. Therefore, I have just edited the Creation myth article to put the "disclaimer" (a bad word on here, I know) in the second sentence. Maybe the NPOV policy also needs to be changed to make clear that if there is a risk that "readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings", an explanation must be prominently provided -- prominent meaning as close to the first use of the "confusing" term as possible. Surely the intent of the NPOV policy is not to leave readers confused. Neutron (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You can't try and add OR to provide some disclaimer for the ignorant if they are unwilling to click a link to find out what it means. (I see someone has added a reference to your OR that fails verification). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't, or am I misunderstanding what particular claim is being disputed? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add any OR there, IRWolfie, the sentence was already there halfway down the article (probably for a long time). I just moved it up - and the person who tagged it was me, too. Professor marginalia added a source which you then removed, but he/she has now added a different source that definitely supports the statement. And yes, I think that when words are being used contrary to their meaning to us common folk, we must provide an explanation, in that article, not just in a link. Neutron (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Neutron. IRWolfie, if you will look at the Gravitation article, you will see that general relativity is explained for the reader, but not as "stuff makes Bendy Space idea," which was uncalled-for exaggeration on your part. Yopienso (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
@Neutron-no, I didn't supply a "different" source, but provided quotations and an additional page ref from the same source. For what it's worth, I don't agree the claim should move up into the lead. It's clumsy up there, and heavy handed. To me it casts a patronizing "tone" that undermines the true NPOV we need to achieve with the article. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia-it should avoid getting sucked into any kind of "re-education" type pov. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
General relativity is a direct subtopic of Gravitation, i.e that is why there is a section on it. You aren't comparing like with like. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We are writing for readers. The meaning of word in that communication is the common meaning to readers. The common meaning of the "myth" is "mis-conception". North8000 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article bolstered the notion that "myth" in this context means "misconception". Why isn't it sufficient that wikipedia simply describes the topic accurately? Why is it necessary to grab readers by each ear and force their gaze to these supposedly critical "corrections" of all these "misconceptions" we project they suffer from? Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone who taught college courses in mythology for several years, I've been observing this discussion with interest and increasing dismay. (I also don't know why it's taking place here and not at Talk:Creation myth.) This has become one of the all-too-many Wikipedia battlegrounds where religionists and atheists fight a proxy war, to the detriment of the actual topic. At the risk of lapsing into a tirade, one problem is that both sides are confusing creation myth with creationism. Creationism has an argument with evolution and the scientific method. Creation myth has no more argument with science than poetry does, or cuisine. It's as if Wikipedia is turning into some kind of Dark Age scriptorium where fearful monks, some pious and some longing for apostasy, are producing garbled summaries of classical antiquity that they dare not represent with too much fidelity. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The "religionists" vs. "atheists" business is not only tedious, monotonous, etc it's beside the point of what the article should say. And please, people, when you continually find yourself prefacing your arguments with the "I am an atheist/a Christian/a Pastafarian", you need to stop right there and put your head on straight. It does not matter what beliefs you or any other editor hold. The articles are based on what the reliable sources say, and not on what you believe, what other editors believe, or what readers may or may not believe. None of that matters. The sources - they are what do matter. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is confusing creation myth with creationism. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, look back up towards the top of the thread. Creationism got drug into the middle of things pretty darn quick, further deteriorating what was already promising to become needlessly contentious discussion.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Your overgeneralization is wrong. I've been one of those saying to not use the word "myth". I'm an atheist, but am polite to deeply held beliefs that are opposite mine, and certainly see no need to use Wikipedia to bash deeply-held beliefs that are opposite to mine via unnecessary incendiary word choices. The more neutral word "narrative" should be used. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not an issue of neutrality. It's an issue of article scope. The article is about "creation myth". That is the topic, as the term is used in the interdisciplinary study of myth. If sufficient RS analyze a narrative as a creation myth, then what's non-neutral is for the feelings and opinions of Wikipedia editors to override the scholarship. Again, you're confusing creationism as a belief system, and creation myth as an analytical model of comparative mythology. But what I find, well, puzzling about this discussion is that the article doesn't even analyze specific narratives as creation myths; it describes what a "creation myth" is in the scholarly typology of myth. Look, I taught mythology courses at a Baptist college for a couple of years. I was a little uneasy about it the first time, but I was told to teach just as I would at a secular institution. My students were fairly unsophisticated, but they thought Greek mythology was really interesting, and they made their own comparisons to Biblical stories without my ever pointing them out. That's just one experience I've had that makes me characterize this discussion as a proxy war between atheists and religionists. The only people who get upset about this stuff are people who want to get upset about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


Another quarter another begging bowl from Wikipedia. I can't be the only one heartily sick of these appeals. They remind of the ever--unfilled 'Fighting Fund Appeals' in socialist papers that used to bore me shitless in my old Leninist days. Yet AT THE SAME time we allow FaceBerk to use our content for free??? I don't mind working for free for Wikipedia but I DO MIND working for free for Mark Zuckeberg! Surely an exception should be made to our 'free content' policy for a vastly wealthy organisation like FB? If you want meat to a butchers; if you want money ask the rich! SmokeyTheCat 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is allowed to use WP content for free just like any other organisation is. What are you suggesting, a wholesale change to a non-commercial license?
Incidentally, my experience is that Facebook's use of Wikipedia content (odd though it is) seems to drive Facebook's end users to contribute material to WP, on a very regular basis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I love the idea that "The Free Encyclopedia" shouldn't be free to someone. I think that's plusgood. EVula // talk // // 20:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If the ads drive you nuts, just go to Preferences -> Gadgets, and click on "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under the "Browser" heading. Here's a shortcut. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Before turning it off, make sure you donate a significant amount to make up for the lost donations in the future when you're no longer being reminded :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That said, if Jimbo haven´t already called Zuckerberg to ask for a yearly donation, maybe he should do so, since Zuckerberg uses Wikipedia to enhance his product.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hold on a second, are you saying that it is OK to use Wikipedia, which supposedly is an encyclopedia, to enhance somebody's product as long as that somebody donates money to WMF? (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It is fine for any company to use any of the fruits of our labor without donating as well. That is the whole point of a free encyclopedia. We hope that other companies that benefit from it will donate, as to help support the very thing that is supporting them, but it isn't required. That is makes it a symbiotic yet independent relationship. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I am saying that it´s ok for Facebook to use Wikipedia the way they do. It would also be ok if Jimbo asked them for a donation.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazon and the WMF/Wikia

Jimbo, if this story is true, you and the WMF might should reconsider your organizations' relationship with this company. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

does Wikia=WMF? I thought the answer was no. (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikia does not equal the Wikimedia Foundation; however, the early Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees consisted 60% of Wikia employees, and Amazon has invested two rounds of millions of dollars into Wikia, Inc., and Amazon enjoys over 92,000 external links from Wikipedia to its site and over 319,000 links to one of its main subsidiaries, and Amazon processes donation payments to the Wikimedia Foundation (taking its cut on every transaction), and the Wikimedia Foundation has rented office space from Wikia, even though Wikia wasn't the most cost-efficient option. So, no, Wikia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Amazon... they are not equal, but rather "interestingly" related. -- 2001:558:1400:10:BD98:82E2:4035:E90C (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedia articles link to Amazon or to IMDB does not imply that there is any connection between WMF and Amazon. Those links were added by individual editors who thought that they had some encyclopedic value. Also, I doubt IMDB is one of Amazon's "main subsidiaries". It can't possibly generate even a fraction of the revenue of, say, Zappos. As for this business of Amazon renting office space from Wikia - the email you linked seems to suggest that the space provided a good value for what Amazon was looking for even if it wasn't the lowest cost. I don't see much of a reason to infer any more than that based on that email. And Amazon is one of three payment options available. Don't like Amazon? Donate using Paypal. GabrielF (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes... "donate using Paypal". That would be lovely, since that means a cut of the donation will go to Ebay (which owns Paypal), and Ebay is chaired by Pierre Omidyar, and Omidyar Network gave the Wikimedia Foundation $2 million at the same time the Foundation appointed Omidyar partner Matt Halprin to the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. Basically, if you find the Wikimedia Foundation paying or advantaging a for-profit operation, they're going to be tied into the Wikimedia or Wikia gravy train somehow. I know, it's hard to believe, because it's taking place right before your eyes. As for IMDB's profitability, their site gets 37 million unique visitors per month. Assuming 2 page views per visitor, considering the pages are plastered with advertising, we can assume ad income of at least one cent per page view, that's $8.9 million in ad revenue per year, plus goodness knows how many movie DVDs are purchased from Amazon from inbound links generated by IMDB? Analysts have estimated that Zappos clears less than $100 million per year. So, maybe IMDB might not be a "main subsidiary" of Amazon's by your definition, but it's at least 10% as meaningful as Zappos to the Amazon bottom line, which is no small thing. If you look here, Amazon has had at least 30 different acquisitions, and I'll venture a guess that IMDB is among the top five or six of them in terms of free cash flow. So, by that definition, I think "main subsidiary" is a valid description. You might want to go back and look at that e-mail linked to above -- you didn't seem to comprehend that the tenant was the Wikimedia Foundation, not Amazon. I understand, with so many cross-deals going on, it might be difficult to keep up. -- 2001:558:1400:10:BD98:82E2:4035:E90C (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I used to work in a greenhouse in Alabama in the summer - temperatures were routinely higher than the ones reported in the article. Additionally, it sounds like Amazon has worked to correct the problem by installing more fans and cooling units. I don't see any evidence in the article of Amazon behaving in a malicious way at all.
My approach to such things is not to follow anecdotal evidence from inflammatory news articles, but to look at more systematic measures. I'd welcome more data, but here's a start from an employee satisfaction study:

"Among web-only retailers included in the study, Overstock held the lead with 3.2 points overall, while Inc. and eBay were tied for second with a 3.0 rating. Netflix Inc. scored 2.8 points. Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos held an 82% approval rating (down 2 points since last year) among employees, while eBay’s CEO John Donahoe held 64% (a 21-point jump) and Netflix’s CEO Reed Hasting stood at 63% (down five points)."

You can compare other companies ratings here.

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Every time I hear this story I am reminded of the years working for summer stock theatre in Sacramento under a circus tent during the unbearably hot summers with only swamp coolers. Hot glue would melt on the props. There are still many jobs that may put one in these conditions.....and oddly enough, warehouse work is one of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And it's a shame and should be solvable, as it sounds like Amazon is trying to do. But let's be clear that Cla68's concern for the workers of Amazon likely extends only so far as snarky remarks on my talk page, although I'm sure he'll explain further if he feels that remark is untrue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Jimmy, thanks for one of the best online laughs I have ever had. Cla68 is not exactly my favorite editor either. (...still laughing...) Jusdafax 13:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I like Cla68, but this doesn't ring true. Plus, have we really gotten this soft? I'm not saying I would look forward to working with a heat index of 114, but I worked in a factory with aluminum die casting smelters, and a bleachery with no air conditioning, and steam powered bleaching equipment where the numbers were well into the red zone of Heat_index. I don't want to belittle the conditions, but refusing to do business with a company where these conditions occasionally happen is an over-reaction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is lynching. This is not lynching. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Both are, only in the first situation the death comes quickly and in the second slowly, and I am not sure which one is worse. Of course I do not mean all discussions on WP:AN are lynchings, but some of them are, and even, if only one of them is, it is one too many. Of course I do not mean that banning from Wikipedia is a lynching on its own, not at all, but the way it is done here, the way, which involves denunciations, character assassination, excommunication of a person who is not even allowed to defend himself it is what makes it a lynching. (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
An important difference is that Jesse cannot tell us how it feels. Whereas you, you think, can? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think a better question to ask is why do you want to know how being lynched feels. Are you a sadist of some kind or what? But tell you what, if I were to choose between being lynched or being a lyncher, I would choose being lynched, and I'll let you to figure out why. (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that the WMF offices are in San Francisco, the argument is moot since it is colder there in the summer than in the winter. Now if you threatened to turn off the heat, you'd have a more threatening situation! Jusdafax 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
it is colder there in the summer than in the winter I'll assume this falsehood was meant in jest? If not, you weaken your arugument by presenting incorrect information. --Malerooster (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not exactly a falsehood. It's called Indian Summer. Jusdafax was referring to the fake quote attributed to Mark Twain (a quote he never said) about how winter (actually autumn) is warmer than summer in San Francisco, which is demonstrably true. In San Francisco, the traditional summer months of June, July, and August are cooler than the highest temps. in September when summer has already "ended". Hence, the observation. Try to not to read things so literally. The fake quote, "the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco", indirectly refers to this factual observation. Yes, autumn isn't winter, but when someone says "it is colder there in the summer than in the winter" what they really mean is that June, July, and August are cooler than September. Sometimes words aren't meant to be taken literally. This is one of those times (and this is why I only visit San Francisco in September). Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not exactly a falsehood., ok, fine, its sort of false, just like alot of the spin around here. --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
You're still not getting it. To further explain, "Autumn marks the transition from summer into winter". Reality isn't a series of discrete points but a continuous sequence of events. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I am getting it. You can "explain" all you want. Still false fact. Period. End of story. --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You didn't get it. The user means "Autumn" when he uses the word "Winter". You need to stop reading things literally and try to understand that there is much more at work than just mere definitions of words. What matters is how they are used and in what kind of combination. This particular usage implies the Twain aphorism which in turn implies Indian Summer. You would have to know these things in order to understand it. It's not an either/or, true/false choice. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You are sh*ting me, right? He never said "Autumn", and I don't give a sh*t about about Twain's falsely attributed quote or the the f*cking weather patterns in SF or reading things literally. I have lived on the STREETS of SF, and know ALL about the f*cking weather and seasons there, OK? IT IS NOT (F*CKING) COLDER THERE IN THE SUMMER THAN IN THE WINTER as stated above in the original thread, THATS ALL. Why the f*ck you would dig your heals in here about a FALSE statement and continue to "explain" and go blah, blah, blah is the problem around here.I will let you have the last word, go ahead.--Malerooster (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo, Amadscientist, and SPhilbrick: the problem is that modern whiners haven't experienced working in real heat. I once worked in a call center where the heat often exceeded 6,000 degrees Kelvin. We didn't complain, although it was a little difficult when the atomic structure of our equipment broke down into superheated plasma. Next thing you know, these whiners will be demanding bathroom breaks -- paid, on company time! Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure...I would love a pony.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Ponies poop almost as much as a full sized horse. Still smells better than some of the stuff in this thread though.--MONGO 02:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per xyz


I am a relatively new editor here and I have been terribly frustrated by people who make votes on proposals with statements like "Oppose per xyz". I totally understand how clumsy it were to be if everyone were to repeat the same arguments over and over again; but it is actually horrible to deal with when you have users who do not have the tiniest shred of idea over what the discussion is about, voting to Oppose a new proposal, "Per above arguments". What makes it worse is the fact that this tends to happen on nearly every single place that the editors have even the slightest tendency to dislike, like new proposal or requested changes in current policies. Such a system is not very conducive for newer editors, who have a tendency to bring with them fresh ideas and proposals (A problem of Wikipedia we have seen time and again).

I hope that this request might help in a rethink and change in WP:Policies that reduce such non-constructive discussions and votings drastically. [Maybe a rule that no place except RfA can have a vote without a rationale - As of now, I believe it is a guideline but not a rule] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think we need more "reducing", or restricting of the rules, for discussions, see WP:CREEP. Also, often it's not possible for every editor to formulate a unique argument to a simple problem, especially in cases where consensus happens to be right. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My concern is not that the editor formulates a unique argument, nor where the consensus is most certainly correct. The concern I have is regards the instances when there might be some doubt on where the consensus is and such discussions being swayed by trivial and non-useful votes like the one I mentioned. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
When there are multiple opinions on a topic, to gauge consensus, isn't it helpful to know the relative proportions of editors that support each position? If editors aren't permitted to state merely that they agree with a certain opinion, then each opinion could end up with only one supporter and minority opinions will be indistinguishable from majority opinions. Peacock (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
And what about those editors who just gauge in without knowing anything that has been said? I am pretty sure there must be some other way to stop them, if not this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be ridiculous to assume that if someone merely states that they agree with someone else that they don't know anything about what has been said. Peacock (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The struggle against people agreeing with things they are personally ignorant of is something humanity has been wrestling with for centuries, and isn't something Wikipedia is likely to find a solution to. ;) EVula // talk // // 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree per Til Eulenspiegel. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you just trolling around or was that an actual opinion TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It's called humour. Maybe they teach it at your school. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Naah. I'm Indian. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Its pretty irritating when then happens I must admit but unlikely anything that can be done about it. But sometimes if you get to an AFD or something and people have said it previously the valid reasons for deleting/keeping then it saves time for other users who have exactly the same thing to say...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with the others that this is a valid thing to say sometimes. We don't always need to reinvent the wheel when we comment on issues, and for the purposes of gauging consensus, it's a relatively easy method for ascertaining that. EVula // talk // // 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This just seems like a criticism of others for lacking an "original thought or opinion", which is simply an assumption of bad faith. I do agree with the statements of oppose here and while I am psoting an original comment....sometimes I just vote in a poll with no comment. I watch as people comments are sometimes dragged out by others attemtping to pick them apart.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
In often contentious votes, "per XXX" is a rare case where editors get approving feedback instead of criticism for their opinions. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Per xyz" form of adding support to this or that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes at Articles for Deletion, for example, someone will make a long and astute argument, or will provide a substantial number of links demonstrating that something qualifies as a pass under the General Notability Guideline. Use of "per xyz" avoids lengthy repetitions. I do agree that it can be overused and is often times a lazy phrasing. "Delete, per the argument made by xyz" or "Keep, per the sources provided by xyz" is a better phrasing, perhaps. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the lazy phrasing, but I agree with others who have said that it is useful for determining consensus. XfD and most other discussions may not be votes, but that doesn't mean that seeing support for a certain argument isn't useful for determining consensus. Shouldn't this discussion be on another page? --OnoremDil 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I generally try to avoid using the "per xyz" formulation myself (maybe just because I'm long-winded), but there are certain times when it can be quite useful - specifically, times where it's important to gauge participation. For instance, if I see an AfD nomination that has three "delete" !votes and has already been relisted once, and I give the article a once-over and see that the three !votes are spot-on in their assessment, then I might write "Delete per <so-and-so>" simply so that, if it gets no more !votes that week, at the end of the week a reviewing admin might decide to delete it as soft consensus or SNOW, instead of relisting it. It can likewise be useful at RfCs on topics of rather limited interest, proposals in fields few people care about, and disciplinary matters where one side might have lopsided support. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)