User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 205 Archive 208 Archive 209 Archive 210 Archive 211 Archive 212 Archive 215

WP has solutions for all business needs

Wikipedia has 72,000 "solutions" (without water) for all your business needs, but not the famous "EOQ equation" taught in business classes. There are far more articles about what businesses sell rather than what businesses are. Although it can be good to know "Motorola Solutions" (company), WP needs more about business concepts, such as the EOQ equation (for "economic order quantity"). Anyway, for all your business needs, search solutions (without water), search: solutions -water. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I've absolutely no idea what you're going on about, but Wikipedia actually has 72,000 articles that contain the word "solutions" and not the word "water", rather than 72,000 with titles that fit that criteria. Many of these are mathematical articles. Though that accuracy does depend on the competence of the Wikipedia search engine, which is frankly very poor. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
^You say "many" of the articles are about mathematics. Where is your evidence? How many? I ran the search Wikid77 suggested (search: solutions -water) and it was exactly as he said--the first 10 articles that came up were business "solutions". --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If you only look at the first few pages of that search then yes, most of the articles are about businesses, because the search engine lists those with "solutions" in the title first (most of which will indeed be businesses) but if you look further down the list, most of the articles are ones with the word "solutions" in the text only, and as such quite a few are mathematics and science based (Here's 2000-2500 in the list). I was pointing out to Wikid that he was claiming that there were 72,000 articles about business solutions, which is plainly nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That list wasn't much better. Note: It does change slightly every time I run it. Every time I ran it, >=50% were promotional. Of the 4 times I tried it, one was 50% and the others were about 70-90% promotional. I think it is safe to say that although not 100% of the 72,000 are promotional, the overwhelming majority (~2/3) are. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there are certainly a large number of promotional articles. Wikipedia is not good at weeding them out. But one mustn't confuse the simple existence of the word "solutions" in a business article with it being promotional; it is a pan-industrial buzzword that is used in many different contexts and thus tends to appear in even otherwise good articles. I have a catalogue on my desk for a company providing "traditional education solutions". They print school textbooks. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, especially with sentence #1. I think this is what Wikid77 successfully showed. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
And let's be clear, the text book industry is big business[1] (Tamim Ansary author of the ref. is an excellent author by the way). That they would even consider putting creation theory in science text books says quite a lot about their priorities [2]. (See also [3] about problems with textbooks.). I have been a teacher in secondary school. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I await Wikid77's and my punishment for "casting aspersions" for his providing evidence of pro-industry bias and my agreeing with him/her. As has been made clear--talking about such POV problems on Wikipedia is not acceptable, *especially* if you provide strong evidence. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You may well agree with Wikid77 (whatever his point is), but I'm pretty sure he doesn't need you hijacking his thread to show how bitter and disgruntled you are about something completely irrelevant to this topic.--Atlan (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. I am not "hijacking" his thread. What happened to assume good faith? He supported my comment above and directed me here, and I am supporting his comment here. I am sorry you are unable to see what the point of this thread is. It makes perfect sense to me and I agree it is problem similar to what I pointed out. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikid77, please see All pages with titles containing solutions.Wavelength (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, well if the EOQ Equation is that notable and has multiple secondary sources attest to its notability, then why don't you create the article about it? That is, if you're actually talking about that equation and not trying to make some other kind of point. LaughingVulcan 23:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
What could a new article about the equation say that Economic order quantity doesn't? I redirected the redlink. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that you have a topic ban from all Economics related material broadly construed, next time leave it for someone else to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very unclear as to what this section is about. I don't find it problematic that we have a fair number of articles about businesses with "solutions" in the title. Nor do I think it shows any general pro-business bias to have those entries. So I don't think the search shows anything particularly interesting. Now, if the individual entries themselves tend to be promotional in nature, that's obviously a bad thing, but in many cases products or companies aren't particularly controversial (nor, frankly, particularly interesting) so the fact that such articles don't report on critical commentary is that often there really isn't likely to be much that's particularly relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - we have had Economic order quantity since 2004. I'm sure it's true that "WP needs more about business concepts" but much stronger coverage of specific things (people, places, events, objects, companies) than of concepts and high-level topics is one of the leading characteristics of our encyclopedic coverage. Our coverage of business/industrial sectors is generally very weak indeed, and almost entirely US-centric. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Even in the US, our coverage is very weak. Here's a random example: AEP Industries makes plastic packaging film. 2,600 employees and over $1 billion in revenue. But there's also a challenge here to being encyclopedic - this company appears in a search of Google News to be pretty invisible. I mean, it's not a consumer product, so they probably don't do a lot of PR, and it doesn't seem to have much in the way of controversy. 5 pages into a Google News search even removing irrelevant terms shows only dividend announcements and the like. Still, it strikes me as unfortunate that we have so little on such organizations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
A side effect of WP:NOTDIR is that when readers and editors can't find the information that they most frequently are looking for, they (often rightly, but as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy) assume that it is less likely the encyclopedia will have more detailed information on the same topics. There is an analogous side effect from WP:NOTHOW which causes readers and editors to assume semantic and episodic information pertaining to processes is less likely to be included or appropriate, respectively, even when it clearly should be. EllenCT (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Duckduckgo has search results for business to business directory, and such companies might be visible within such a directory.Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Masterseek is a business-to-business search engine.Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jimmy to the extent that we don't have *good* coverage of companies. About 5% of our articles are about "business" in general, or about 250,000 articles. See File:Size of English Wikipedia (1000 vol).svg. But articles about "companies" would be less than that, I'd guess no more than 3% or 150,000 articles. Even given that usually 50% of our articles are stubs or worse, 75,000 articles about major companies would go a long way toward explaining where, say, GDP or sales, comes from, for the world as a whole. Just 5,000 articles on major companies would go a long way for that in the US.
The problem is that we've got lots of articles on really minor companies, quite often written by PR people, that don't add much to an overall understanding of how economics works in the real world. Instead we get the menu of a single-store 15 seat coffee shop in Pasadena. I'm very tempted to do another random selection of articles , this time on companies, to see what our companies articles actually accomplish - but that would take lots of time. Pure guess - we've only got a few thousand articles on companies throughout the entire world that actually accomplish anything besides marketing the company. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting that only the small companies (such as a 15-seat coffee house) have enough money to do PR on Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that large companies don't have PR people operating on Wikipedia. But putting PR on Wikipedia is not expensive. Probably the coffee shop owner just did it all by her/himself. It would be a lot easier to police PR if there wasn't so much of it. For large firms, where there are usually independent sources, it's a lot easier than for small companies, where almost every piece of information can be traced back to the company itself. Of course WP:NOADS, WP:GNG, WP:Organizations prohibit this type of article, or make it clear that this type of company is not notable, but we have to apply these rules consistently. We could use a revamping of WP:Organizations, but it won't help unless admins and arbs enforce the rules.
One of the things I most dislike about PR on Wikipedia is when it is *not* in company articles. For example I've seen a finance company PR guy change a math article to suit his company's rather strange interpretation of a mathematical concept. It's even more serious when company PR folks edit on their products, e.g. those covered by WP:Medicine and, of course, in the recent GMO controversy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Small companies like that are the ones that get occasional coverage in news sources--often instigated by PR, but sometimes by fashion. As long as we keep using the GNG, we're stuck with the results. I've suggested elsewhere an alternative criterion for size. somewhere in the range of $100-$500 million for US companies, lower depending on the country. that would deal with the worst failures to include. As for getting rid of the oddities the GNG produces, I guess we'll always be stuck with them. But they are not as much a problem as the omissions. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Revamping WP:Organizations would help, but Arbs and admins have to enforce it. The biggest problem, IMHO, with PR editors is that they will argue forever no matter how ridiculous their case, e.g. I remember an article at AfD about a book publishing company that actually had never published a book, but planned to publish 4 or 5 reprints in the next year. The main source was a very PRish couple of paragraphs in Playbill (not your usual publishing industry source). Folks argued about deletion (and the deletion of an end-run article) for 3 weeks before I just got disgusted and left the discussion. We've got to get rid of that type of nonsense quickly and easily. How else are we going to have time for the really nasty stuff? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's important to remember that the biggest paid editing scandal Wikipedia actually had was focused on companies paying shakedowns to keep their articles. While glowing articles written by owners or hired hands are an easily visible problem, the deletion of good content is more disruptive, and apparently more lucrative also. I think Wikipedia is better off even with bad, biased pro-company articles than with these deliberate omissions. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Having an easily understood size cutoff would prevent the type of protection racket you are describing. If we had a cutoff of $750 million in sales, it would eliminate all but approx. 6,000 companies in the US, those companies that account for more than half of production and non-goverment employment in the US. A company approached by a racketeer (who may have created the article originally) would easily understand that his/her company with only $5 million in sales just doesn't belong here in the first place. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
So lemme get this straight — throwing out our notability guidelines and deleting tens of thousands of articles on small companies, most of which can not afford full-time paid PR people to manicure WP articles, is somehow going to solve the problem of the manipulation of content by the 6,000 enormous firms that can afford to treat articles in this way? And this massive deletion of content serves our readers, how exactly? Carrite (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually the problem, as described by Jimmy, is that the articles on the important companies ("the 6,000") don't get written. We've got lots of policies against promotion, e.g. WP:NOADS, sections in GNG and WP:Organizations. Stopping the proliferation of small-time companies trying to put in PR gives us time to write or otherwise deal with important articles. BTW, I don't advocate mass deletion of the current nickel-and-dime company articles. This will take at least 5 years to wade thru it all. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we probably need an edit-list to continually review or expand the "6,000" major, $750M revenue companies for each nation, and remember the 50,000 wp:AfDs to delete 50,000 small companies would distract from expanding each 6,000 major businesses. Also, note below, B2B versus B2C likelihood to use WP pages for PR promotion or adverts. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Compare B2B vs B2C corporations

We should compare B2B versus B2C text, in corporate write-ups, for the likelihood to use WP pages for PR promotion or adverts where individual consumers, not major wholesaler buyers, are the primary markets. The companies like Boeing or Airbus or Lockheed Martin, with major airlines or national governments as buyers, would seem less prone to promotion on WP, or not? -Wikid77 (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Strategy recommendations

The long-awaited critical question synthesis for the Strategy process was just released, and I excerpted the recommendations at meta:2016 Strategy/Recommendations. Discussion is probably more appropriate on the talk page there, but this seems like a reasonable place to share the news. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

Assault on the very principle of US Government works being in the public domain

With no legitimate evidence presented that the file was not in the public domain just like every other US Federal Government work - just a lot of base speculation about how in unlikely circumstances it might not be, despite being offered as public domain on the site - Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 July 27 deleted File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogg.

The underlying musical work is definitely in the public domain int he US - {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. We cannot, cannot have a policy of deleting files based on speculation as to how it might not really be public domain despite reliable sources stating it is, and no actual evidence to show otherwise

This is a travesty, and goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole discussion, but some valid points were being made. Just because some Federal employee had some role in the production does not automatically mean the work is PD. A number of legitimate questions were asked. Despite your insistence, the default assumption is not that any work is pd, and those disagreeing must prove otherwise, the default assumption is that the work is copyrighted, and someone must provide evidence that the work does qualify as pd.
In any event, this is the wrong forum. Jimbo is free to add his two cents to a discussion, but doesn't have the authority to overturn a valid consensus. If you can demonstrate that editors are blithely ignoring the law and/or Wikipedia policy, you are likely to get Jimbos attention, but doesn't appear the be the case here - reasonable editors have reached a different conclusion than you would like.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Many U.S. Federal works not PD but licensed

It is false to assume, "in the public domain just like every other US Federal Government work" (not true), because many photos shown in U.S. Govt pages have been licensed for limited display (or copies), while the document text might be public-domain. Call it "U.S. Govt outsourcing" or whatever, but photos or recordings (or software) might be included as licensed products from contractors, for limited publication or use, no longer always public-domain. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, we have a problem

The bias that i see within Wikipedia, in arbitration cases, in article talk pages, and in the banter of admins and arbitrators, is astounding and so blatant.

There is a continuing polarization that is causing content to be more and more polarized. It's akin to a takeover, and it is in part intentional. There is indeed a "Skeptic" movement to cause Wikipedia to move more in line with the ideology of the "Skeptic" movement, and they engage in meat-puppeting, in the form of recruiting people of their ideology to take up Wikipedia editing in order to change and maintain the changed content to move it more in line with their ideological beliefs.

It is insidious in that they pretend to be one with science -- they claim that what they believe is "science" and that it's neutral and unbiased. But that is a huge misrepresentation, because they actually take a single approach to science on certain topics and exclude other science that is not in line with their beliefs. They generally have a simplistic and reductionist view of science, not seeing the ecological and sociological dimensions of many subjects.

They also have a heavy-handed way of bullying and speaking with condescension and dripping with a nasty slimy toxicity that is holographic with the fact that they generally defend the products of the chemical industry, including chemicals which are toxic to living things. They move in groups and support one another, and having the numbers, they can knock others out, one by one, in topic bans and various other mechanisms, as well as just making editing so unpleasant that people who have other points of view simply drop out in frustration and futility. People who really want to improve articles and restore some balance and NPOV.

They pretend to be "neutral" and they pretend that they are defending "science" and that they are NPOV but they are astoundingly blind of self-deluding or lying about this, because they push a particularly biased interpretation of science and exclude other good solid science that is not in line with their general agenda.

Others have written about them in blogs like "The Ethical Skeptic" and "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" much more lucidly and in more detail than i have. It's seriously affecting Wikipedia very badly, and therefore it's affecting the world badly, as our default knowledge base is biased and getting worse daily. SageRad (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all the arbs, admins and editors are in on the grand conspiracy to sing the praises of big industry, toxic chemicals and the general destruction of the earth while suppressing the world-saving bloggers and authors out there that know the "true" science and impact of these things. We get it. It's probably not necessary to keep posting similar polemics all over WP. Capeo (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC is technically a guideline that explains what happens when you post polemical material, however WP:NPA is policy. Accusing editors/admins/arbitors of bias without evidence is a personal attack and subject to removal. So, either present evidence, retract statement, or comment removal Sagerad, what would you prefer? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
What a load of stuff and nonsense. Please justify your statement "Accusing editors/admins/arbitors of bias without evidence is a personal attack and subject to removal" by pointing to relevant PAGs. How many times have I seen accusations on ANI made with no evidence whatsoever. There is an atmosphere over there of being able to accuse good editors of being "Anti-industry X", "Pro-fringe Y, "Pro-alternative Z" without any evidence or apparent fear of action being taken against them. This leads to accused editors becoming extremely frustrated and simply turning their back on the project. SageRad is making a valid and truthful comment. We should listen. I for one am very glad to see that Jimbo does appear to be listening here. For those who do not believe this, I have evidence of an extremely well known editor administrator (you will all know them) deliberately changing an edit of mine to lie about me and portray me in a very bad light. When I complained, the thread was closed by a non-admin. Of course, I would not be saying this without being able to provide the evidence. DrChrissy (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks here, just a discussion about a potential form of bias in Wikipedia. Better if we engage and chew on the topic thoughtfully than be too quick to push for removal. Even if the Sagerad is wrong (and I think he largely, although not completely, is wrong) it is important to reflect on how answers like this will not tend to resolve the issue but rather serve sadly as a potential example of the kind of behavior he's complaining about.
We the Wikipedia community tend to be geeky folks who are into technology and hard science. That may make it difficult to write neutrally about ideas that are different. If I believe (and I do) that much of what "world-saving bloggers and authors out there" write about science is badly mistaken and not always written in good faith, then I might tend to be too harsh in evaluating their perspective to the point that I find it hard to write about it appropriately. This is always worth reflection.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree but there's history and context behind the messenger here. Sage is another of the GMO topic banned editors. They went on a hiatus but returned recently after David got TBed as well to post similar style rants all over WP claiming McCarthyism and all sorts of similar aspersions. It gets tiring. Good luck trying to have an honest conversation with them that doesn't quickly devolve to the same being claimed of you. Capeo (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that many editors are far too rude and caustic for Wikipedia's good, and some Admins and even higher are nearly as bad. WP:CIVIL is a laughing-stock and the constant disregard for it (except of course for when your opponent holds up a mirror) is so very counter-productive. "Let's all be nice and politically correct and avoid swear words but join in the bitch fight with relish" is all too common. I am less sure about the conspiracy theories, I think it's just a reflection of today's Internet culture. But with all the poison constantly flying around, it's hard to tell and even harder to fix. WP:CIVIL should be either respected or abandoned. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, let me assure you that administrators don't have the ability to change an edit. They can, of course, change the text you edited (it's a wiki, after all), but the diffs would always show who made what changes, so all you'd have to do is present the diffs showing the tampering (and deliberately doing that to try to frame another editor would be taken very seriously, I assure you). Admins (and functionaries, and anyone) cannot alter those diffs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Apologies that my language might have been a bit casual. The admin edited my edit to change the meaning. This is not permitted as I think we all know. Certainly admins should know this, which is why this particular case was so appalling. I indicated the edit they made to my text and the thread was shut down, as I said, by a non-admin. I have simply not dared to raise this case again because a boomerang (almost certainly successful because of the identity of this admin) would certainly be coming my way, and in the midst of that the perpetrator would get away scot-free again. DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In an attempt to actually have this conversation I'll note that a big point of contention arises from the fact that, by its very nature, WP is generally not on the bleeding edge of scientific topics. We reflect the established consensus. We may mention the outliers if they get sufficient attention within the scientific community, or even simply the media depending on the circumstances, but we report what the preproderance of the scientific community concludes. That means WP, like the sciences in general, is going to be slow to overturn consensus. We don't give undue weight to every anomalous paper that comes out. That's why we prefer reviews. Despite what many seem to think I'd say almost all the regulars in scientific topics acknowledge there's industry influences in scientific fields. The essential issue is that's not our battle to fight. We go with what's published and accepted or else we're injecting speculation and our own bias into articles. Capeo (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Our editing model tends to struggle on topics where there is a significant divide between popular belief and scientific understanding. GMOs are one such area; other examples include vaccine safety (less of an issue recently, as the literature and people backing the anti-vaccine movement have increasingly been exposed as frauds), climate change, various forms of alternative medicine, evolution, and abortion (where the medical literature is clear about its safety, but there is a political motivation to exaggerate the procedure's risks). It doesn't help that we have never developed a mechanism to resolve content disputes expeditiously, and in fact our existing mechanisms favor pathological obsessives over sane, reasonable, policy-literate editors. Our system basically provides veto power in a content discussion to anyone with an Internet connection and a personality disorder. When one has dealt with this landscape for awhile, one tends to become a bit jaded; I've probably encountered hundreds of SageRads over my years here, and it's hard to be as patient with the 100th as you were with the first. MastCell Talk 17:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
^^^ This. According to homeopaths, reiki practitioners, climate change deniers, creationists, anti-vaccinationists and many others, Wikipedia is irreperably broken because it gives more weight to the scientific mainstream than to their beliefs. According to Wikipedia consensus, the exact opposite is true. Wikipedia is trusted precisely bevause it is unafraid to identify bullshit for what it is. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You say "That's why we prefer reviews". But when the review of a high caliber expert (with extensive publication history) doesn't agree with the reviews that share the opinion you favor, then all of a sudden it can't be used. [4]. It becomes "fringe" [5], as if it was a "flat earth theory". I'd like to see any review article in any major journal from an expert in physics proving a "flat earth theory". The comparison is ludicruous. Other editors argued that review was somehow trumped by a writer of far lesser stature who had not even commented on the review. [6]. Double-standards. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure which "high caliber expert" you refer to? Certainly not Krimsky, so I assume you mean Domingo. As I said above when a paper disagrees with the current scientific consensus it's generally not give much, if any, weight. When that same review is also criticized by later reviews it's given even less weight. I don't know why you still harp on this as Domingo's latest review has actually come around to the scientific consensus. So there's literally nobody of note at this point who disagrees in any substantial way as to the current safety consensus. This horse has been tenderized beyond recognition. Capeo (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm striking the above. Just realized that was all a violation of his topic ban and I shouldn't have replied asking further questions. Capeo (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this considered to be a topic ban violation because of the diffs that DH provided, not the actual content of the post? DrChrissy (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Both. It references the GMO topic area directly plus links to GMO pages. Capeo (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
To Capeo: Domingo's latest review states again: there is no scientific consensus, "substantial equivalence" concept is non-scientific and long-term studies are few and uncertain. As I cited early here many other scientist are not convinced in safety Cathry (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"With only a few exceptions, the reported studies during the last six years show rather similar conclusions; that is to say, the assessed GM soybeans, rice, corn/maize and wheat would be as safe as the parental species of these plants. Therefore, based on the conclusions of the authors of these recent investigations, the use of the assessed GM plants for feed or human food should be as safe as that of their parental species. All the studies here reviewed were published in international peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, I do not question at all the results and conclusions of these investigations. However, in the same line that the authors of various recent reviews above commented, I feel that long-term studies are still clearly necessary in order to guarantee that the consumption of GM plants does not mean any health risk for the consumers. It must be noted that most recent investigations, for which no adverse/toxic effects were observed, were subchronic (90 days) studies. Notwithstanding, when long-term studies were conducted (i.e., Séralini et al., 2014b), the results were tremendously controversial. (Domingo 2016)"
That is exactly in line with results of the RFC: current consensus is that GMOs are safe to eat according to the existing science. A recommendation for further study has no bearing on the current state of the science and is typical of most reviews anyway. We don't crystal ball here. We go with the preponderance of current scientific evidence. If something new and substantial comes down the pipeline that effects the current scientific view then it will be changed but it requires a lot, multiple studies showing consistent results, to get the majority of scientists to change their minds.
Domingo's (or anyone's for that matter) views on substantial equivalence are neither here nor there though that straw man was brought up repeatedly during the RFC. It's a regulatory concept. The RFC wasn't about how governmental regulatory bodies assess safety. It varies widely from country to country. It was about if the current body of published scientific research supported that GMOs were safe to eat and if that could be characterized as a scientific consensus. Capeo (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You show that you don't understand (or pretend you don't) this. Some studies mentioned by Domingo used substantial equivalence concept, not all crop varieties were assesed. So Domingo writes "based on the conclusions of the authors of these recent investigations, the use of the assessed GM plants should be". But Domingo'opinion is "I feel that long-term studies are still clearly necessary in order to guarantee that the consumption of GM plants does not mean any health risk for the consumers" and "I disagree with the use of the “substantial equivalence” concept as a guarantee of the safety of GM plants." And it is only one from many other non-convinced in safety reviews. Cathry (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, please, please can you keep paying attention to this thread. Two very productive editors have been blocked in the last 24hrs as a result of their posts in this thread. Your own post above indicated (I think) that such action should not happen and that open discussion should be encouraged. It is really feeling now that free-speech is not welcome on this project - I am sure you never intended that. DrChrissy (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I think you'll find that the claims of anti-science activists that Wikipedia is "biased" towards the scientific mainstream is considered a feature, not a bug.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They were topic banned. They blatantly disregarded that topic ban. They were blocked. Seems like a completely logical end to that line of actions. Jimbo's talk page is not a place where TBANs suddenly stop existing. --Majora (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure topic bans apply everywhere, even here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's homepage is supposed to be a safe area where anyone can raise any issue regardless of any bans, provided they behave themselves (i.e. they don't cause a problem here, and they have not been declared to be persona non grata by Jimbo for crimes against Wikipedia or for personal disputes with Jimbo). This way a problem that cannot be addressed due to a ban can still be discussed by the wider community and acted on, take e.g. the Chelsea Manning ArbCom case, which was kicked of when a topic banned transgender editor came here to complain about the way the Chelsea Manning page was edited. Such cases are the exception, most complaints don't have merit but that doesn't mean should assume that no cases have merit and stop listening to any complaints by (topic) banned editors. Count Iblis (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Jimbo talk is not a "rule free zone", and you do a disservice to topic banned editors by muddying that issue, since they most certainly can be sanctioned for behavior here. There is an exception to topic bans when one is appealing them, and there is at least the historical practice of an "appeal to Jimbo" (though I don't think he's acted on one in many years), but that would mean saying "I'm appealing my ban, and here's why", not just engaging in general grumbling about the subject you're banned from discussing. A topic ban is a prohibition against discussing the subject anywhere on Wikipedia, not "anywhere but Jimbo's talk page." Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to clarify I was not claiming Jimbo's Talk page to be TB free-zone. I am a rare(ish) visitor to this page so I am a little surprised to see the interpretation of Count Iblis above. I had it explained to me once that TB's apply to every page in which the url contains "en.wikipedia" and that includes your own sandbox. Jimbo may wish to clarify if his talk page is an exemption to this, but I rather doubt it is. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thing is that Jimbo is in principle open to the possibility, however remote, that doing things by the book here, which includes imposing bans and the entire appeals process, leads to a result that isn't good and which the community including ArbCom cannot resolve. We're then typically talking about problems that do not have a good visibility to the larger community, e.g. the problems on the Chelsea Manning case or the fact that IPs were getting unfairly blocked by Admins patrolling the Amanda Knox page. In principle, it's possible to have a problem somewhere that is fixed in a wrong way by Admin action and then remains invisible to the wider community precisely due to such Admin actions. You then need a whistle blower to come here to notify the community of a problem, but that very act may be a violation of a (topic) ban or a block evasion. It's similar to Edward Snowden violating a lot of US laws to make clear that there are problems with the way the NSA goes about collecting data. Count Iblis (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Policy needs to be clarified. See Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Violation of topic ban. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, clarification is needed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy states Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions. DrChrissy (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    • "may be appealed to" is not an invitation to continue the same type of editing that got you sanctioned in the first place. Appeals should be clearly marked, and the sanction linked to, along with a short, clear explanation of why it is being appealed. --NeilN talk to me 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Could you please clarify whether your use of "you" means your edit is aimed at me directly. Perhaps you meant to use use the word "editors"? DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I was always under the impression, and I could have sworn it was told to me by an admin, that Jimbo's page is out of bounds of any topic bans and you can feel free to post "in violation" of the ban on this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I don't see anything in WP:BANEX or any other policy about topic bans not applying here (outside of appeals, which didn't happen) and I can recall no divine edict creating such an exception. The Arbitration Committee has certainly long held the view that topic bans apply everywhere in Wikipedia, outside of the examples specifically listed in WP:BANEX and any exceptions listed in the sanction itself. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
            • It hasnt, it never has been, and even in the unlikely event Jimbo would like to fill up his talk page with posting by topic-banned editors with agendas to push, he has no authority to exclude any page (including his own talkpage) from community, administrator or Arbcom sanctions. So this is a dead end. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
        • "you" = "editors". --NeilN talk to me 18:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
To The Wordsmith You gave link WP:BANEX where expetions include "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". So if there is "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales" in the rules, this page is one of appropriate forums. Also it is interesting, why do you choose one month, not shorter period? Cathry (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You've missed the posts right above this one. I'll repeat mine. "may be appealed to" is not an invitation to continue the same type of editing that got an editor sanctioned in the first place. Appeals should be clearly marked and the sanction linked to, along with a short, clear explanation of why it is being appealed. --NeilN talk to me 08:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Too many demands for those who edit for free. Cathry (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Spammers, POV-pushers, COI editors, etc., are all definitely willing to "edit for free". --NeilN talk to me 08:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard being used to canvass

This concern is related to some of SageRad's comments, so I am raising it as a sub-thread here. There is an increasing trend for editors not to discuss, or discuss very superficially, concerns at an article talk page, but rather, raise the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It is transparent that this is being done by editors to contact other like-minded editors to pay attention to edits/articles they disagree with (search for the term "eyes" on the page). The proper approach is to discuss this at the Talk page of the article concerned where ALL those with an interest in the page would be watching and consensus can be achieved. This appears to be a form of "under the radar" canvassing. DrChrissy (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SEEKHELP and WP:APPNOTE. Noticeboard postings are a great early step in dispute resolution (in this case for fringe topics). But I'm curious about these "like-minded editors" you're complaining about. FT/N has over 700 watching editors, of which over 200 are currently actively watching (including you it seems). What is it that makes these editors (including you?) "like-minded" exactly? If the like-mindedness is in correctly applying our policy and guidance on fringe and pseudoscience topics then that's a very good thing surely? Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The fringe noticeboards goal is neutrality, and posts there don't meet WP:CANVAS. This is just another WP:PROFRINGE editor complaining about neutrality on WP:FRINGE articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: And here we go again...please provide evidence that I am a WP:PROFRINGE editor. This is exactly what SageRad was talking about. Please provide the evidence that I am pro-fringe or you are guilty of casting aspersions. Please look at this diff[7] - we can't have it both ways! DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Well you did receive a community topic ban[8] on human medical topics for your fringe rampage on our acupuncture article (exacerbated by some off-colour behaviour - see here for the details). Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Your topic ban was extended due (in part) to your use of fringe material and 3 arbitors commented on your lack of ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Put it this way, SR and Tornheim are reaching the end of a process and you are following in their tracks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because I, and other editors, edit on a page, does not mean we necessarily support it. For example, I edit the foie gras article but that does not mean I support production of this. Again, please povide evidence to support your casting aspersions that I am WP:PROFRINGE - you have not done this yet. DrChrissy (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Your topic ban was extended due (in part) to your use of fringe material and 3 arbitors commented on your lack of ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Put it this way, SR and Tornheim are reaching the end of a process and you are following in their tracks. I have said this twice now, since you failed to listen the first time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Rather than trying to scare me into not making posts, please will you address my direct question. What evidence do you have to support you accusation that I am WP:PROFRINGE. I have asked this twice now and you still have not provided this evidence. This is casting aspersions which I believe is covered by discretionary sanctions. DrChrissy (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Your (lack of) competence and ability to understand was why you were banned from medical articles. I have answered you twice now. I suggest you go read your own banning discussions and learn from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Stating an author lacks competence is a personal attack. Please retract this. DrChrissy (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
You know I am just linking sanctions you have received for the exact issues you claim are personal attacks right? When you get topic-banned for competence issues after numerous people have provided evidence of you not being competent in an area, asking for evidence just makes you look..well..even less competent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy: Please provide proof that I'm pro-fringe.
Only in death: Well, you were sanctioned for being pro-fringe.
DrChrissy: That's an insult! Stop avoiding the question!
I think it's telling that you've continued to argue with Only well after I posted something that should have been of great interest to you, were your concerns really legitimate. But you'd rather argue with someone who's directly disagreeing with you than notice the attempt I made to bridge the gap a bit. I'll admit I didn't go all that far, but if you'd tried to do the same, we might have met in the middle. After reading this exchange though, I get the feeling you're just complaining and venting, which lets me know I'm wasting my time by trying to be considerate of your views. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants, I was grateful to see your measured and neutral post which was directly related to the subject of the thread. What is happening now from Only is going beyond the subject of this thread. They have decided to cast aspersions without providing any evidence whatsoever. I think my fault here is that I should take it to a noticeboard or ARBCOM rather than here on Jimbo's Talk Page. DrChrissy (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Quick follow up, could you please provide a diff that says I was sanctioned for being "Pro-fringe". DrChrissy (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

this link right here shows that you were placed under a topic ban for adding bad content. That content was pro-fringe as can be seen in that link and in links contained therein. If you don't consider that evidence, then I can only point out that you are (as would be anyone in your position) extremely biased about what counts as evidence of your past wrongdoings and might want to stop arguing about it and take the word of other editors that yes, you have been sanctioned for pro-fringe edits. I also noticed that while you have now (after being directly prodded) acknowledged my post, you haven't engaged me on the contents of it. This is what I was saying: You seem much more interested in venting than in solving a problem. A genuine interest in solving a problem should have left you minimizing the issue of whether or not you're pro-fringe, as it detracts from what you would have been truly trying to accomplish, here. Hell, had our positions been reversed, I'd have responded with "Well, that may be, but my own biases don't mean my complaints are invalid. Now, regarding what that oh-so-handsome-and-intelligent scandinavian fellow said..." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You have said it yourself. The topic ban was for adding "bad content" - whatever the hell that means - but there has been no finding against me of being "pro-fringe". DrChrissy (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess that makes it clear that you're here to talk about yourself, and not to fix a problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of the bad content was decidedly fringe. An article from Dean Radin's "journal"? Mercola? That's the fringiest of the fringe. To be fair though I'd say your sanctions mostly arose from garden variety POV pushing. A POV I respect, by the way, in that it's clear a huge focus of your editing is on the topic of animal rights welfare. At times, such as the AE that arose from your editing of GM fish, it seems your POV overrides neutrality. Understandable when you're editing something you care deeply about but you must understand how other people see that as problematic. On that particular article you added nothing but negative material. Some from decidedly fringe sources and some that cherry picked quotes from half decent sources that cast the subject in a bad light when the ultimate conclusion of the papers were contrary to the selected quote. Then if we look at your editing in the animal intelligence topic area everything you add or expand on is extremely positive in its view. You don't pick quotes from the studies that show certain animals incapable of certain cognitive tasks but only those aspects that cast animal intelligence in the best possible light. Hell, we share that POV but you've got to be cognizant of it and temper it or else you fall into the realm of POV pushing and end up running into trouble. Capeo (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Capeo - A huge focus of my editing is animal welfare, not animal rights. The difference between these is fundamental. Please try to understand the difference. And yes, I tried to add an article from Mercola before I understood the WP view of the suitability of this journal - my apologies for making a mistake. DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Corrected. There is a distinction. No offense intended. Capeo (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
And then there are the concerns at CCI[9]. I do worry that when this editor is eventually banned, the legacy is going to be a big dumpster fire of copyvios for the community to deal with. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Alexbrn, it is patently transparent that you have followed me to Talk:Goat to harass and hound me. Stop this right now. DrChrissy (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, as I said there, being reminded of your past WP:COMPETENCE issues I checked out your recent edits and lo and behold you're doing exactly one of the things that was complained about when you were sanctioned at WP:AN/I: needlessly duplicated large chunks of content across articles. This just further convinces me you are a net negative to the Project and it would be better off without you. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
If you had bothered to research this before you stalked and harassed me, you would have seen the following:
1) An article called Goat Farming was started by another editor by copying large parts of the Goat article without attribution. The Talk page shows there were concerns about this and the general standard of editing on the page at that time.
2) There were motions to delete the page partly because of the copyvio problems - my agreement with this can be seen on the Talk page.
3) I stated that if the article was deleted, I was prepared to re-write it with suitable attribution.
4) The original Goat Farming article was deleted, and I rewrote it as Goat farming, copying some parts from the Goat article - with suitable attribution in the edit summary of the article creation which is perfectly visible on the history of the page.
5) I did not remove the parts I copied from Goat in case Goat farming was for some reason not accepted as an article. It was always my intention to remove/summarise the material I copied.
6) The article was accepted just 5 hours ago - I have not had time to start removing/summarising the copied material - partly because I am having to address harassing posts such as yours.
Please can someone stop Alexbrn from harassing me - it is clear they are trying to get me to launch something on a noticeboard. DrChrissy (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you solve the problem of an article that was deleted because it copied from another article by ... re-creating it with content copied from another article. That's ... intriguing. And look, if you come here to Jimbo's page complaining about the behaviour of others you should expect to have your own behaviour scrutinized too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is called WP:Content forking. If you read that article then you will see that this method of editing is actually encouraged - but then you do not do all that much content editing, so you might be unaware of this. DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I give up. I just hope it gets fixed. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well if you were really here to build an encyclopaedia, you would help rather than spending your time harassing and bullying content editors. DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I fear your definition of content creator meaning 'copy mostly from another article' is a bit different to Alexbrn's... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The expression I used was "content editor" not "content creator". Please read more carefully. DrChrissy (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
... says the user whose most edited page outside their own userspace is ... WP:AN/I, with 448 edits. Alexbrn (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, with my total of 19,498 edits to-date, and having created almost 60 articles, I don't think that really says much. How many articles have you created Alexbrn? DrChrissy (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I have redirect Goat farming to Goat as it was a content fork of that article and Goat meat. Hint, forking an article and then removing the material from the original article is not a good idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo I hope you have had the patience to stick with this thread. What Only has just done to the Goat farming content article is ....well....actually I am speechless. DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You could have said it really got your goat. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You have goat to be kid-ding me... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree in principle and in detail with Alex and Platypus. They have correctly described the purpose of the FT/N and, given that purpose, I find it ridiculous the way people whose edits have been brought up there react to this. That being said, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
is the FT/N really a neutral place, intentions aside? Its nature as a forum for discussion of a variety issues surrounding fringe topics all but guarantees that the most frequent visitors to it will be those who are by default, skeptical. That is as it should be, but the problem arises in that there is no mechanism to separate pseudo-skepticism from legitimate skepticism. I have personally more than once seen well-meaning but over-zealous skeptical editors responding to FT/N discussions by going to a fringe article and removing well-sourced, accurate information, inserting poorly-sourced or undue information, or re-wording neutral statements to make them sound more skeptical. It's worth pointing out that these cases are in the extreme minority; most of the responses from FT/N discussions are quite good, IMHO. However, they do still happen, and in every case I've seen, the only solution has been for me to 'switch sides' and support those with a pro-fringe POV far enough to balance things. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done this, either.
So I would agree that there is a problem, if a relatively minor one. At this point, I must digress from my luciferian consulting role and speak wholly from my own instincts. The real question is not what we should do about it, but if we can do anything about it that won't make everything worse. Sure, there's a bias against fringe subjects there. But is there anything we can do that won't undermine the very purpose of the FT/N, and the principles of WP it directly supports? Sorry for the long post. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There are occasions when editors raise things at WP:FT/N and the noticeboard consensus is that that issue-at-hand is out of scope - which tends to suggest FT/N has some good sense. But as anywhere in WP there can be no guarantee of perfection: we all need to be vigilant in application of the appropriate policies. From my perpective, WP:FT/N and WT:MED (both noticeboards disliked by the WP:Lunatic charlatans) are two of the great engines of Wikipedia and have given us some of our best content. Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I understand the basis of the complaints because occasionally things go wrong. But I cannot for the life of me think of a way to fix that minor problem that won't create a much bigger one. It's an imperfect system, but such is life. And for the record, I'm not waxing philosophical just because I'm okay with this particular issue. The page Argument from authority is one which is broken (it disagrees in the opening with literally every single reliable source on the subject), but as I can't think of a way of fixing it, I've given up on trying. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to stop FT/N. Jimbo, please archive this, as it is clear that FT/N is here to stay, and helps the encyclopedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I just clarify here, DrChrissy, are you looking to be martyred, or are you genuinely unable to accept that your agenda is not in line with policy? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Guy, I would like clarification from you whether you feel it is acceptable to edit another editor's posts to change their meaning. DrChrissy (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is a systemic problem then that means that there should be articles that do not represent the facts according to reliable sources well, and there should be cases among them where this problem is worse than average where even people with a "sceptical bias" would agree that there is a problem. So, why not post some examples of such articles? Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: That article is indeed much more accurate than ours. I don't think our article should look like that (for example, I don't recall seeing the phrase "statistical syllogism" anywhere in that article, even though that's the kind of argument it is), but I certainly wish ours clung as closely to the source material. I worked on that page for months, but eventually gave up when it became clear that there are just too many people who are too attached to the belief that appealing to authorities is always a fallacy (despite their habit of 'citing reputable sources' which supposedly agree with them).
@Count Iblis: Not sure if you were responding to me or DrChrissy, but as for myself, every example I know of has been corrected already. I'm sure there are still plenty of articles with pseudo-skeptical claims in them, but for the life of me, I don't know what they are. Nor can I think of any method of tracking them all down, correcting them, and preventing such occurrences in the future. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Fringe scapegoats

I wrote the fringe scapegoats essay after witnessing similar instances of Wikipedia policies being misunderstood in the way that is it has been misunderstood by some in this thread. In short, when an article discusses a fringe theory, we are required to include its reception by experts in the relevant field -- that's the NPOV policy (specifically WP:PSCI). Unfortunately, the editors adding this information are often maligned by proponents of fringe theories. By labeling editors "biased" or whatnot, proponents effectively create scapegoats to cover for the hard reality that their favorite hypothesis has not made an impression upon mainstream thought, or worse, considered pseudoscience. The more drama that can be drummed up about biased and conniving "skeptic" editors, the less one has to address the reasons for the fringe theory being poorly received, such as lack of evidence.

The top-level title of this thread is the name of an off-wiki harassment site that falsely defames many Wikipedia admins and editors using claims that are provably untrue. For instance the blocked editor running the site claims that these are not his socks, but any competent reader can see that they clearly are. For example he claims is not his sock, but that is the IP of a sock that the banned editor himself admits to. The narrative being propagated by the blocked editor is that innocent users who happened to share a POV were accused of being socks as a means of removing that POV from Wikipedia. The evidence proves that to be a false narrative.

Another contributor to that off-wiki harassment site had also been socking in an astonishing case of that I would call "extreme trolling": he had harassed editors using a sock, then cited the evidence of his own socking as a pretext for submitting an arbcom request about harassment. And that was just the first deception he concocted (AE request).

In summary, don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Manul ~ talk 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait..what? You mean that someone put something on the Internet that isn't true? [ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Happy birthday Jimmy, have a superb day. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Happy birthday dear Jimmy! Thank you for your kind voice message on the FaWiki 500k ceremony! — Best regards, Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday co-founder of Wikipedia. It is a honor to speed to you. Thank you for founding this great site Wikipedia. Wikipedia has helped me so much finding info. So thank you for creating this wonderful site. This site has helped me so much over my childhood in school and even currently in college. I can't express how much I love Wikipedia and it is great to be able to help out Wikipedia now. Thank you very much and Happy Birthday! Charlie Jeff (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The fallback language problem

Hi. I'd like to ask you for an advice. Ukrainian community has been struggling for years to force developers to remove Russian fallback for Ukrainian wikis (at least those under the scope of WMF). But the developers keep ignoring both the community consensus (this and this) and the arguments that prove the existence of this fallback wrong. Besides, they don't provide any relevant reasoning to keep that fallback except for the status quo. And now that the Russian fallback has been enabled on Wikidata for Ukrainian language, it became a real problem for us, since it's confusing and misleading (please read the last few messages on the Phabricator task - there are some examples and even more arguments). So now, that Ukrainian language is among the top four languages with 99–100% interface messages translated (link), and that the use of that fallback on Wikidata is higly problematic, there is no valid reasoning to keep any additional fallback language except the defaul one (English). The developers should respect the community consensus and take into account all the provided arguments. But I doubt they will.

So what should we do if they keep pursuing the status quo? How should we act? And how does their position comply with the WMF policies? General comment on the situation would be much appreciated too, thanks in advance.

P.S.: Happy birthday to you! Face-smile.svg--Piramidion 08:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you gotten any response from the developers or is it just that no one has paid proper attention to the request? I can help raise awareness of the issue, but the more I know about the discussion the better placed I will be to help. But I was just thinking... a better route might be to engage with Natalia Tymkiv, since she can read the discussion in the original language.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well if you read the Phabricator task you'll see that they keep pursuing their point of view without really considering our arguments: they simply close that task as "declined" without any reasonable argumentation from their side, and without any relevant comment regarding the arguments. For instance, the question

"Well whose the decision is it then to leave the Russian fallback? Can you please show who decided it, where and why? Or it is just your own decision against the decision of the largest Ukrainian MediaWiki user community?"

has been left unanswered. Another question was - what is the rule that defines who does have the fallback language, and who doesn't. And Nemo_bis provided a link to a section translatewiki:Translatewiki.net_languages#Fallback_language_(MediaWiki) which isn't a rule but something like a help page that gives a post factum information. We still don't know who decided to set Russian fallback for Ukrainian wikis and why. (One of the first ukwiki administrators asked for it years ago, and when he asked again to remove it, the developers didn't want to.) And if we talk about the language similarity (that was Siebrand's point) then there are some other languages much more similar to Ukrainian than Russian is (in this thread there are some academic sources listed which prove that). As for Natalia Tymkiv, she (under the username Antanana) was the initiator of the second community discussion and voting, and I don't think she can really influence the developers. WMUA should have sent an official letter to Lila Tretikov regarding this issue, but I'm not sure if they did. Nevertheless, the problem is not solved. The phab task still has a status of "closed, declined". The last arguments seem to be quite convincing, but I'm not sure if they're convincing enough for the developers to provide an adequate response. If you could somehow help raise awarenes of the issue it would be surely much appreciated by all our community. Otherwise I don't know what to do - perhaps start a RFC on Meta-wiki?--Piramidion 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Piramidion, please see this latest update on the ticket. TL;DR -- WMF Language Engineering's Runa Bhatacharjee has confirmed it's going to be removed per community wishes; just a little more patience, as they figure out the (not frequently attempted, I understand) technical process. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday Mr.Wales , and thanks for making the best encyclopedia ever. Mohammad from Fa wiki. MohammadtheEditor (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, quite.
I'd be interested in knowing why you live in London. "Birthday question!" *Less painful than the bumps* None of my business, I know, but I've lived here all my life, and it's a shite-hole.* Have a good 'un. Muffled Pocketed 08:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
My wife is British!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I do apologise. Happy days! Muffled Pocketed 15:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, that's completely WP:POV...
And this year we can publish the following without invoking fair use, since the copyright has been lifted after a court ruling in the USA:
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday dear Jimbo
Happy birthday to you.© Warner/Chappell Music

Set to music (sort of) here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Dear Jimbo , From Fa.wikivoyage --Florence (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hope you are having a great birthday.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know Jimbo and I share the same birthday! Happy Birthday Jimbo! Class455fan1 (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Happy birthday Mr. Wales. Hope you've had a good day! Zerotalk 19:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Advanced Wikipedian tutorials brainstorming

Jimbo, for your birthday I am brainstorming on meta instead of your talk page: meta:Talk:2016 Strategy/Recommendations#Advanced tutorials brainstorming.

Also, you didn't take the chance to offer your opinion on whether the Copyright Office should spend fees they might be required to collect on rewarding the most prolific Wikipedians by bandwidth to readers. Are there any reasons not to distribute fees for orphan works to Wikipedians in proportion to the number of bytes served per day that they each have added? EllenCT (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Book creator

This is getting embarrassing:

Status last updated 19 August 2019.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if we shouldn't just remove those pages. Or are you arguing that the Wikimedia Foundation should invest resources in fixing the problem? I'm not opposed to that in principle, but I don't believe the tool was ever used much. I might be wrong about that, though, so if I am, then let me know!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd really, really appreciate if Wikipedia's standard PDF export function (the clickable link in the left margin on each page – is that the same software as Book Creator?) would render tables. Only today I added this to the WP:CONTENTFORK guidance, partially based on the fact that tables are not exported. I'd rather not need a bypass for that guidance for such reason (a kind of guidance that is prone to inadvertent shadyness). Also it's quite frustrating, e.g. I've been putting some energy in List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni lately: click on the PDF export function and *poof* almost nothing remains apart from four pages of references referencing something that isn't there. Yeah, imho, would be money well spent to get that sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope someone has some usage statistics. I know I field a number of questions at OTRS about the tool (mostly bug reports, but they do substantiate some level of usage), so I know there is interest, but I don't have a clue about whether the usage is high enough to justify expense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Usage statistics OK, but that cuts both ways (talking about the PDF export function, still not sure whether that's the same as Book Creator): I don't use it any more while it doesn't do what it should do, i.e. not maim an article when converting it to PDF. How can one extract insightful usage statistics from something that is avoided for its cumbersome MO? Use PDFcreator or some similar tool on the weblayout is what everyone says when I bring up the issue of the discarded tables, so I assume that's what most people do when they want to create PDFs – but the result is considerably different from what one gets with the built-in PDF export function (which has a better readability afaics). Current usage as such doesn't learn much... how many Wikipedia pages are sent to local software PDF generators? Wouldn't people prefer prints in "PDF export function" layout over "weblayout" generated by local software? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Meaningful usage statistics would have to predate the 2014 "update", I wouldn't know where or how to look. All I can say is that there is still a fair trickle of complaints at Help:Books/Feedback and it pretty much borks most new submissions to pediapress. For any one editor making their presence felt there, a standard rule of thumb is that there are 100 to 1,000 silent editors who just walked, and ten times as many visitors left with the impression that the whole business sucks. If nobody's gonna fix it, then I think it needs to be killed. OTOH if the copyrighting battle against rip-off artists is worth the fight, then book creation needs fixing up properly so pediapress and the rest of us can leverage it again. Either way, doing nothing is bad. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How much does donate for the premium service of [10]? This press release from 2007 explains what happened. The reason is when people started selling PDFs on Amazon. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a nice conclusion you've jumped to. From what I see, and I could be wrong, there are the following problems with your theory: 1) PediaPress seems to be focused on creation of physical paper books, not just files of Wikipedia content as anyone (should) be able to generate. 2) PediaPress seems to depend upon the same book creator that creation of files do. I don't know, but I wonder if that service now suffers from the same rendering problems that Book Creator does. And I wonder if you know by experience, or are you just speculating? But I actually am writing to say that I'm one of the silent masses who would really like the book creator to be fixed; it would be nice to have the ability to port collections of astronomy articles to a document file and be able to read them offline at our observatory. LaughingVulcan 17:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm completely sure I remember when Wikipedia articles and collections started showing up on Amazon. I recommend simply asking PediaPress if they can make the nice PDFs you want, but don't be suprised if they charge you a token amount and add certain strings. @CAnanian (WMF): do you know the answers? You seem to be the only staff assigned to [11]. EllenCT (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, but my question to you was if you actually have knowledge and/or proof that the reason for Book Creator not working properly is that people started selling PDFs on Amazon (and implying PediaPress in the process)? It appears to me that you do not, and are merely speculating / fishing in the dark. Especially since the PediaPress thing apparently began in 2007 and apparently the breaking of Book Creator occurred after that. As mentioned above by Steelpillow and as I speculated, the breaking of Book Creator ALSO breaks PediaPress as well, as Book Creator is HOW one submits files to PediaPress in addition to creating PDF files for download. But you didn't know that, did you? Anyway, it's clear to me that you do not seem to know what you're talking about, as fixing it so PediaPress would work would also fix it so I can just download a PDF. But you don't seem to get that. Anyway, as I said, mark me down as one who sees Book Creator as important and would like it to be fixed so that tables, etc. render properly. Whether for personal use, or to submit to PediaPress. LaughingVulcan 19:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hold on there chaps, I get a sense of talking at cross-purposes. The reason for *what* is because books started appearing on Amazon? We are effectively trying to create Print on demand books and Amazon is a popular sales outlet for the printed volumes, whether published by PediaPress or anybody else. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
All I remember from the time is that the works were poor quality (tables would render, but type would break across page breaks) and there was a substantial outcry that they would tend to bring the project into disrepute. The problem became substantially worse in the years following 2007. See e.g. OmniScriptum#Wikipedia content duplication, [12] and [13]. EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There are two obvious questions here. First, why did WMF make a bad update that broke features, then refuse to fix it? And how did we go from "This technology is of key strategic importance to the cause of free education world-wide," said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. (2007) to saying that it was not worth having a management process and intentionally breaking the feature seven years later? I mean, if strategic means "totally unwanted in seven years" then there is no strategy at all and donors shouldn't be paying for overpaid Brahmins to work it out. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
As a relative outsider I looked into this a little. It seems that the old, relatively functional code was Wikipedia-specific, in an unfashionable programming language and (ironically) not easily maintainable. A more maintainable core engine was pulled in from somewhere and what I can only describe as alpha software wrapped around it and gifted to us in place of the "unmaintainable" that had basically worked. The idea was to iron out the bugs and add the missing features from here on in. But that never happened because at that point the developer walked. Maybe it had all been done for free up until then, I don't know, but the folks at WMF apparently decided to spend their money and effort elsewhere and just leave the mess hanging. Quite why they trashed Sue's strategic vision is unclear to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you've got it right as to what happened. I'm willing to advocate for investing in fixing it but only if we have some indication that it was actually being used by many people. It is entirely possible that upon release Sue thought it was going to be "of key strategic importance" but within a few months time it may have become apparent that it wasn't important at all. These things happen, and no one can really be blamed for it. But if a decision was made to deprioritize it to the point that broken software has been left in place for years, well, that's not good - better to just remove it completely I would imagine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Books page was created at the tail end of 2008 and Help:Books in 2009 around the time of Sue's vision statement. Browsing Category:Wikipedia books gives some idea of how much Book Creator had been used up until 2014. Another way is to browse the PediaPress website, although I don't know if any download/purchase stats exist. I can't imagine the usage stats could have been all that bad after say 2012, or a long-term maintainable rewrite would never have been kicked off in 2014. To me, the key question is whether WMF should care about the likes and ambitions of PediaPress any more, and if the answer is "yes" then the management process needs resurrecting if nothing else. Let that process decide whether to share or to shaft. Or, if "no", then can the whole thing. For my part, some of the moans on the feedback page give me the feeling that that the 'press momentum was beginning to create a self-perpetuating marketplace in which academics were improving articles to publishable quality so they could provide better books in class. Is there a critical mass there to be sought for? As I say, does the WMF care? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I almost agree with that, except that I'd make the case the likes and ambitions of companies that monetize the use of it should take a distant second place behind those of us who would use it without commercial ambitions but rather for continuing learning for when we don't have internet connections. But the other thing I'd note is that I was frightened away from the warning above, only to find that while parts of it are broken, parts aren't as well. It still put a decent book together for me of Messier Objects, even as it borked the "List of Messier Objects" article/chapter because it is one big table. I think the creators of that announcement went a tiny amount Chicken Little - then again maybe it does just accurately describe the problem. The other question is, if the Foundation doesn't have the resources to create and maintain it, is it possible to crowdsource development of it? (Just whistling in the dark there.) LaughingVulcan 01:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the WMDE's software development team is also currently looking into that issue, since adding tables to pdfs was one of the wishes of the German Community Wishlist. So far, our investigations have shown that it would take an enormous engineering effort (comparable to software companies that produce layout software) to add tables to the current latex layout in a way that 80%-90% of the tables display correctly. 10%-20% would always be off due to the different capabilities of the two media (printed, layouted page versus HTML). Therefore we will probably add another option to the page that appears when you click on "download as pdf", which allows you to download a pdf that looks more or less like the web page you see. On the plus side, it will contain all tables, images etc. that are present in the article, on the down side, it will not be as concise and nicely layouted as the latex version. Therefore we would add this as a new option that you can choose depending on what you want. Wikibooks however would probably need a "print page" which includes all chapters for the new rendering service to work, which is not included in our initial plans. In general, the hope is that by moving towards a browser based rendering service (which takes the web page as its basis) we will get more people to join in in improving the layout that comes out of there, making it a more maintainable solution to the pdf creation problem. --Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Offline Content Generator (OCG)

As the current default maintainer of the Collection extension, PDF export, plaintext export, and (soon) ePub and ZIM export, let me give a (short version of a) longish history. The Book Creator/Collection extension was originally created by Pediapress in 2008. Part of the service was hosted on WMF servers in our data center in Tampa, but if you actually ordered a printed book the request got bundled up and passed over to Pediapress' servers, which ran a similar version of the code but interfaced with their print-on-demand service. Pediapress made enough money from the print-on-demand service (apparently) to fund continued development of the service, which benefited all those who generated PDFs but did the printing themselves, and this mutually-beneficial arrangement persisted for a number of pleasant years.

However, the buglist grew over time. Pediapress did not invest much effort in internationalization, and support for non-roman-script languages was poor-to-nonexistent. Pediapress maintained their own bug tracking system, which grew to contain thousands of bugs. It *appears* that Pediapress was no longer making enough money from print-on-demand to fund their continued development and maintenance of the code base, and development stalled. No effort was made on the code base for a number of years, but the system "worked enough" (for European languages, at least) that things muddled on.

Unfortunately, the day came when WMF had to move out of its Tampa datacenter. The Pediapress code was literally the last thing running in Tampa, and it was costing the Foundation $1,000/day to keep that one server running ($30K/month). Worse, no one had written down how that server had been installed and there was no one who could recreate its configuration in our new datacenter. It looked like we were going to have to turn off Book Creator.

Matt Walker was passionate about Book Creator, however, and pulled in a skunkworks group of WMF folks to save the service, rewriting it in what was a state-of-the-art architecture at the time. We rebuilt it from scratch, documenting the process and installing it on modern server infrastructure, and were able to keep things going. The project had the support of Erik Moeller, and I was pulled in to provide support from the Parsoid side, eventually writing the PDF backend and a plaintext backend. As these things go, however, the new project had a different feature set -- it was much better at Indic and non-latin languages (thanks to XeLaTeX), had clickable hyperlinks, included enough license information to actually comply with our Creative Commons attribution requirements, etc -- but was missing some features. Tables and infoboxes are particularly hard, and those aren't particularly strong points for LaTeX either.

I don't need to recap the organizational struggles at the foundation in the following years. Suffice it to say that all the original participants in the skunkworks project, including Erik who had provided C-level support, have since left the foundation, leaving me as the last member of the original skunkworks. Further, the engineering reorganization which occurred toward the end of the Lila era left OCG homeless. OCG should rightly be part of the "reading" team, but it's only remaining developer (me) is on the "editing" team. La la la. We don't generally let these sorts of things get in the way of actually doing good work, but they are relevant when deciding who to petition for additional resources...

We actually had a great Wikimania this year, with a lot of focus on the "Offline Content Generator" (as the architecture behind Book Creator, PDF export, the Collection extension, etc, is formally named). In fact, we had ZIM export and ePub export capabilities developed during the hackathon. Unfortunately, the code hasn't actually been submitted yet to me/the WMF, so we can't deploy it. :( But it exists, I've seen it running, and for the first time we had more-than-just-me working on OCG.

In addition, as the WMDE team above explained, the German Wikimedia chapter has adopted "tables in PDFs" as one of their feature development goals. The first part of this is . And I wrote basic support for tables a few years ago; see -- the problem is that my patch doesn't *always* work, and can in some cases cause the entire page to fail to render. At this level of support I judged it best to keep suppressing tables and get *some* output, rather than risk getting *no* output for many pages. (This is really a fault of LaTeX's limited table support, which prefers to fail when it sees something unexpected or unexpectedly wide, and requires semi-heroic measures to work around.) There are ways around the problem we can discuss. (Gabriel posted some phabricator links below.)

One final wrinkle is that the architecture which was state-of-the-art in 2014 is already looking a little dated in 2016. The "services" team here at WMF has standardized on a services architecture and the use of cassandra for storage, and in general we would like to use browser technologies to render the page more directly from the HTML DOM rather than use a LaTeX intermediary. In addition, we made some architecture compromises to maintain compatibility with the pediapress POD service, which are looking less wise (we still support the pediapress POD but we send a high-level description of the page to them now, so we don't need to maintain compatibility at lower levels in the stack). We could really use some help (a) modernizing the backend, and (b) working with modern CSS technologies to make browser output on par with the LaTeX output, so we can eventually remove the LaTeX backend. Sometimes discussions of OCG spiral off into tangents along these lines; some even suggesting that further investment in features on the LaTeX backend is a waste of time.

So. Yes, OCG is starved for resources. It is also sitting at an awkward place both in the org chart and in the overall services architecture of the foundation. As long as I am the only one working on OCG, it will continue to make slow progress, but there are in fact several useful improvements on the immediate horizon. The usage statistics are also available; the short version is that we generate about 10 PDFs a second currently. That's an order of magnitude less than the number of pageviews/second of our article web pages, but still quite a large number of users. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Links to related tasks @Cscott: mentioned: Table support in PDFs, Options for browser-based PDF rendering. To gauge quality of browser-based rendering, we have set up an instance of a Chrome based third party render service (Electron) in labs. Example URL:
Wikimedia Germany is considering to use this for improving table & other complex content support for the "This page as PDF" feature. -- GWicke (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cscott for the update (not to mention for hanging in there). Chicken Little has now updated the warning template accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in hearing more about "missing math support"--OCG should actually be on par or better than the previous service on this regard, as they both use the native math support of LaTeX. If someone could chase down more details on this I'd appreciate it. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's more to do with sensible layout. Some longer equations do not fit in a two-column layout. For example try downloading the Grassmannian article as pdf and check out section 6 on the Plücker embedding - one equation runs right across both columns. Worse, a long equation in the second column has nowhere to run off to. The no-brainer answer is to allow selection of single-column, full-width layout. More sophisticated solutions might be to split the equation across multiple lines or to shrink the font size to fit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This already exists if you use the Book Creator. Single-column layout is one of the options available. What's needed is some way for an article to embed a hint that it looks better in a single-column layout, via a category or some such. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How come Lea Voget (WMDE)'s prognoses seem bleaker than Cscott's? Or am I missing something? Lea's seem like "forget it", something that looks like steering for just taking the service off-line, while Cscott's rather looks like, "baby steps, but we're progressing and have prospects", and at least shows someone kinda managing the process (even from a somewhat awkward position that doesn't leave too much wiggle room). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in my own mediawiki2latex compiler linked in the above template I can handle tables correctly, as you can easily check by just running the exe file on the examples of your choice. Still I must agree it was extremely hard for me to write that software and I was driven by an extremely passionate hate on the economic system I happen to live in. If you want to pay someone to do it, it will be quite expensive I think, since people working for money never reach such a level passion. I personally can not help you with the development, since I got a permanent position at university now. Still I will try to keep my software available so that anyone in need of the LaTeX source of wikipedia articles or their respective PDF version will have access to them. Also I must say the the process I developed needs lots of computational resources, so that the above mentioned cost of 10000$/day might be realistic if you wanted to use my software as default renderer on wikipedia. Its quite simple you create 10 pdf a second. My software needs 300s per PDF on a current i3 desktop. So thats 3000 i3s you need to run the software wikipedia wide, which is not affordable. And of course I will get myself a t-shirt: "Semi-Hero of LaTeX OCG table rendering" Yours --Dirk Hünniger (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Tx. Is there a place to continue this conversation somewhere centralized? Wikipedia:Offline Content Generator (WP:OCG)? Or some place at meta? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, is there a compelling reason why the computing power should be server-side? Can't the conversion to PDF be done client-side with a script? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want to stick with LaTeX you need a quite exhaustive LaTeX installation which needs several gigabytes, which you can not easily transfer to the client, just to create a PDF. I tried hard to reduce the amount of software that needs to be installed, but was not successful. Furthermore the LaTeX compiler and some other auxiliary tools are binaries compiled to run on a PC, and cannot easily be turned into java script. I in deed offer binary releases of mediawiki2latex for download on sourceforge which can run stand alone on a client PC, but the are just standard binary executables and have nothing to do which scripts running in a web browser. Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Buying accounts

I have found an account apparently run by two different people. One editor performs trivial edits every now and then. Moves some text around in a random article, adds articles to trivial categories, that sort of thing. The usual pattern is nothing for months and then a lot of edits in a short time. The sort of thing you'd do if you were keeping a sleeper account and wanted it to look reasonably active.

The other editor began a series of quite different edits on the day an IBAN came into play. This editor attacks one of the parties to the IBAN, reverts his edits, makes reports to admin boards, !votes the other way in RfCs and does his best to be annoying by doing all the things an IBAN disallows.

A silly, petty game to avoid a ban.

There are some similarities in behaviour between the IBAN editor and the "active" editor in this account. However, checkuser doesn't pick up any IP similarity, because care is taken to use IP addresses in China.

My question is twofold:

  1. How widespread is this sort of thing?
  2. What can be done to prevent this behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:fd:3::40 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Why not give us the username, so that various people can look into your allegations? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No, let's not give a name without any shred of evidence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons may be broken

Jimbo, what do you think of this photo that's been on Commons for years? For (removed link to copyvio), too. - (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The one you saw was vandalism. But the image itself was a copyright violation. Now deleted. It happens. We miss a lot of images on Commons that shouldn't be there. Since it was a copyvio I have also removed the archive link from your post. --Majora (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Who owned the legitimate copyright on the image? - (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
A few people. It was a composite image. The background was owned by a news agency and the person was something else. --Majora (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support these conclusions? Was the image of "the person" a single image, or was it a composite (face, plus body)? - (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course I had evidence. To delete something as a copyvio without evidence would be stupid. The background was taken from (photoshopped to remove the logo and everything). As to the person it doesn't matter. One copyrighted piece equals copyvio equals delete. --Majora (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so the person doesn't matter. So, if I have a non-copyvio background, and I want to photoshop a known woman's head onto a half-nude body of some other unknown woman, slowly spreading open her jacket to reveal a goodly portion of her breasts, and then publish the image to Commons with a file name that is exactly the known woman's real name, it will be okay for that file to sit on Commons for a few years, because the person doesn't matter. Got it. - (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not what I meant, that is not what I said, and you know that. So right now you seem like you are trolling. I said I didn't check where the woman came from since the background was copyvio and the rest didn't matter. One copyvio piece means delete. As for your ludicrous hypothetical that would be out of commons scope and a vandalism image and would be deleted on sight. Just like this one was deleted on sight. Just because it took a few years to "see" it doesn't mean it won't be deleted on sight. --Majora (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It was brought up several days ago on a website frequented by several Wikipedia admins, and after 40 hours of inaction, a reminder was posted again. Still nothing. So after a couple more days, I decided to post it here to Jimbo's Talk page, because I know that he shares my belief that much of what goes on over at Wikimedia Commons is downright disgraceful. I think your dismissive response here is also somewhat disgraceful. The biggest problem here isn't that Modular Broadcast Design's copyrighted photo of a newsroom set was wrongfully copied; the biggest problem is that for TWO FLIPPING YEARS, Wikimedia Commons hosted a file with the name of a real newscaster, presenting her face on some stranger's body, showing off her tits in a come-hither pose, and thanks to Google, this became a high-ranking result in Image searches for the newscaster's name. This should not ever, ever happen on a publicly-funded charitable site that is exempt from taxation because of its supposed "educational" mission. It's a disgrace, and the fact that this hasn't been fixed after over a decade's worth of time to implement some restraints, it's grossly negligent. So, I don't give a flying fig if you want to call this "trolling". It's what you need to hear. - (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Please feel free to watch the feeds and tag whatever copyvios come up as copyvios. Complaining about it to Jimbo is not going to do anything about it. If you want to clean up Commons, go help clean up Commons. There are millions of images there and very few people who feel the need to mark copyvios. It was brought up you say? Why wasn't it tagged for deletion by the person who brought it up? Commons needs more people to help them tag images for removal. Everything on here is done by volunteers. So volunteer. --Majora (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Complaining about it to Jimbo is not going to do anything about it." You say that without any hint of self-awareness. After that file sat for years, something was finally done about 20 minutes after complaining about it to Jimbo. Amusing. - (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Touché. --Majora (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a major lapse on the part of Commons. A picture as described above is bad whether it violates any copyrights or not; it at least violates . Saying "fine, it violates copyright, so we've deleted it" gives the impression that Commons is trying to find an excuse to delete this particular image without having to admit the seriousness of the lapse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not the complaint to Jimbo that did something about it - any way you might have reported it would have had the same effect. Commons deletes a lot of files, too many I'd say, and from the description above this one certainly wouldn't have survived a call for deletion.
The real question is whether you want to allow users to upload content or not. If they do, inevitably there is abuse; this is true for any site with user generated content on the Internet. You can say that someone ought to review it, but that only works if someone does - and if the person who uploads it can't arrange for a sock to do the review. You can say that someone must review it, but then the content becomes backlogged, and when people realize it's a waste of time to upload images because they won't get passed, they'll stop contributing, and stop reviewing, and the whole process will grind to a halt and we'll end up using links to external image servers for any new illustration in a Wikipedia article. You can propose having professionals do it, but then images become expensive, so there's a submission process and again people don't bother. No, the fact is, you either make a decision that freedom is really awful and it is worth paying any price, including giving up on illustrating Wikipedia, in order to avoid an occasional naughty parody being seen by a few hundred people before somebody complains -- or you don't. Which is it? Wnt (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
So many false premises in your argument, it's not worth responding. - (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't an "occasional naughty parody," that was a sexually harassing image of a living person that was seemingly intentionally dropped as a google-bomb, using Commons as the witting or unwitting but certainly no more than semi-competently operated vehicle. Carrite (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You can "Google-bomb" with any image anywhere, 8chan or what have you. That doesn't change the fact that every person who saw the image had a chance to report it to a deletion discussion that would have done something about it, which is more than you can say for some of the other upload alternatives. No, Commons is not as robustly protected against photo pranks as, say, a paper copy of a hardcover book from a publisher on Printer's Row licensed by the Crown Censor and locked firmly under the glass cover of a coffee table behind velvet ropes in the Royal Museum. But Commons does what it's for, and despite what some people seem to imagine, preventing mischief before anybody much sees it is not what it's for. It matters more to have an archive that gets stuff out for our articles than to run around tearing your hair out because 50 people saw an apparently pretty obvious fake of the kind that come up when you do any image search for any celebrity. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, while things can always be improved by correcting problems sooner so that you won't even get the one in a million case where a problem has persisted for a few years in some dark corner, you cannot have a system that is guaranteed to never ever have problems without restricting freedom. And why would we care more about a remote probability of encountering an offending picture than e.g. becoming a victim of a crime? We accept that living in a free society carries with it small risks, we don't think it's worth living in a less free society even if crime could be totally eliminated. Count Iblis (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What about these Users?

Jimbo, would you take a look at User:Sippublicity and User: Seems quite clearly the accounts of a paid advocate for the subject -- a subject you recently took an editorial interest in. Since you are always willing to admonish paid advocacy editing, might you comment here publicly, to admonish Ms. Rafati for ever using such an unethical PR firm? Or does this one get a pass, since it was way back in 2012? - (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Ah, the old mysterious IP posting on Jimbo's talk page trick. Thanks for the pointer, though yes, a fish was wrapped in that newspaper four years ago, and there is of course no evidence of payment. Still, as a Protector Of The Wiki I'll jump at your suggestion. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Check the "Contact", Drmies. - (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ha, why didn't you say so immediately? At any rate, I already blocked the account. Now, why do you want old Jimbo to respond to some four-year old matter? Is he dating this person? Is BroadbandTV taking over Wikipedia? (All these things may well be possible--I'm out of touch.) Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm, the way you say my name, that tone of voice...has a familiar ring to it. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you implying, Drmies, that the IP editor is not an innocent newcomer who has decided out of the blue to offer Jimbo some exceptionally good advice? I'm shocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
What's better, a familiar ring, or an unfamiliar ring? North America1000 12:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this and I'm not very inclined to care. The person behind this ip address is well known for stalking my every edit and commenting on it. It's a very sad life he lives, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I should have earned one of these by now. Rhoark (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there's plenty of those, Jimbo. But imagine what those poor people would be doing if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet... Drmies (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Drmies please don't joke about it or otherwise encourage this person in any way. If you recognize the usual banned editor, please just delete all of his comments, or just stay out of the way and let other people do it. He's been banned about 10 years now, so what's the point in giving him a voice here?Jimmy's been very clear multiple times that he is not welcome on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Smallbones, I don't live on this talk page. I didn't give anyone a voice, BTW; maybe you should have deleted that message much earlier. "If you recognize..."--yeah, I obviously didn't. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Drmies, let me help you catch up with this page. If you see "the old mysterious IP posting on Jimbo's talk page trick" criticizing Jimmy, especially if it has anything to do with paid editing, then it is probably the usual banned editor, or perhaps somebody intentionally imitating him. All those edits can be (and should be IMHO) deleted per WP:BANREVERT. If you joke with him, or otherwise respond to him, you are helping to give him a voice. RE: "you should have deleted that message much earlier", you responding to him within 3 minutes makes that a lot more difficult. So please be aware that there is an easily identifiable banned editor who has been hassling Jimmy on this page for almost 10 years and respect Jimmy's wishes to keep him off this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Smallbones, I don't really subscribe to that tactic, but you can't fault me for jumping at the bit when I'm doing customer service--and if it's such a big deal, just delete the whole damn thread: I'm not going to complain about it. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Offline Content Generator

Following archiving of the recent Book creator discussion here, I have created a stub page for the Wikipedia:Offline Content Generator and copied the discussion to its talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

One more on the fallback problem

Hi. Please see what Nemo_bis has answered to me: mw:User_talk:Nemo_bis#Russian_fallback_language It feels like they're playing God. This is not normal, this is completely wrong. Can this be considered a status abuse? And what can be done if so?--Piramidion 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Piramidion, please see this latest update on the ticket. TL;DR -- WMF Language Engineering's Runa Bhatacharjee has confirmed it's going to be removed per community wishes; just a little more patience, as they figure out the (not frequently attempted, I understand) technical process. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, seen this, thanks! Hope it won't take too long. But in the meanwhile I can finally calm down and keep translating stuff. It's such a relief to know the process has already started Face-smile.svg--Piramidion 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Asaf, for the update!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia is a new WikiProject.Wavelength (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please step up

The latest arbitration committee case seems to be little more than a dressing down of a contributor who has been here since long before it was cool (2002), and stayed after it stopped being cool (now); by people who want it to be cool (and safe and friendly and such). He's also an actual expert (in advanced math(s)), which we were supposed to have more of by now.

If you're ever going to step in and correct the course a little bit, this is a splendid opportunity to do so. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we do away with WP:ADMINCOND? --NeilN talk to me 05:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Sir is there a particular reason your account User: Jimmy Wales which redirects here is blocked. Thanks VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 07:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For the reason clearly specified in the block log perhaps? We always block accounts which are set up to impersonate either other users or named high-profile individuals; the policy is at WP:IMPERSONATE if you want the exact wording. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: No but wasn't that account created and manged by Jimbo only to redirect here? VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 13:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It was created to get a blovk lifted. When you look at User:Jimbo Wales ` you start to see a pattern. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with Google?

Hello Jimbo, in regards to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Google_returning_outdated_text_snippet_for_Gender_page - we have been attempting for most of the week to get Google to remove a vandalism "text snippet" and are at a bit of a loss. We have attempted to use Google's content removal tool ask them to update their information, however the latest request was "Denied". Can you recommend a better method that our two top-10 websites can cooperate better? Thank you for your consideration. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This issue appears to be resolved - we are not sure if one of our many requests was processed or if Google updated their results by algorithm. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016

I suggest that we keep the edit notice consistent with the one on the user page:

Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so. Make an edit – or even several! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about!

I like to keep it a certain way (simple and free from anything that requires a div tag, style, or template), but the thing is, I trust you. Yes, really, I do! I trust that you will add something here that makes me really smile or that informs me or many others. But please, do not vandalize because it won't make the world any better, and you know that too, so please don't. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia clean.

Over 3,400 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. This is a wiki, so (apart from bad faith alterations and vandalism) anyone is welcome to edit! Wikipedia can always use more help; it is, after all, a permanent work in progress.

Comments or questions about how this page currently looks should be kept on my talk page, rather than on this page. -- (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be willing to make modifications, but I would only be willing to make the modifications which best support the policy implications of the secondary peer reviewed literature. Can you explain, please, how your proposed modifications would improve the encyclopedia? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongest/weakest subjects

I know this page is watched by quite a few statistics oriented people. I was wondering if it would be possible to somehow do some sort of study into what our strongest and weakest subjects are on here by subject, as well as distribution globally. An idea of article count by subject and quality and then an overall analysis of what needs the most work on here. If we officially know what fields need the most work something could be planned to do something about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea but very difficult in practice. As a first step we might want to think about various possible definitions of "strong" and "weak". For example, do we weight by popularity with readers or not? I can see good reasons for both, but also complications with both. For example, popularity statistics may not help us understand our weaknesses in those areas where we don't get much traffic because we are weak. At the same time any serious systematic approach to identifying areas where we should plan to do something about it surely must include an analysis of reader desires.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My categorization of 1000 randomly selected Wikipedia articles
I know Dr Blofeld knows about my fairly informal stats work (see e.g. User:Smallbones/1000 random results) and the graph shown here, but I have to say that there are some very big obstacles in the way of doing this right. I'd love to see what he proposes done well, but all I can really add is a few related items that might be done and describing what might be needed to do a good analysis that we don't have in place.
The first problem that I have is that we really don't have a good categorization of articles. Sure we have multiple categories at the bottom of almost every article, but these are not mutually exclusive (I'd really like to know whether an article is about history or geography before I say whether history or geography is our stronger subject, but we just don't have that). Perhaps we could attempt to get some sort of mutually exclusive categories put into our cats. Maybe a keywords system would help. But my feeling is that anything like that would be viewed as the end of the world by the folks who spend so much time on cats, so a second (outside) system is needed. Probably this could be done using some artificial intelligence combined with a dozen folks doing the "training". But 1st a general division should be set up, say 20 or 30 mutually exclusive categories, probably organized into a hierarchy, where each of the categories could be expected to have at least 1% of all articles, and no more than 10%. That way everybody will have a good idea what our "subjects" are.
I'd think Halfak (WMF) might be in a position to help out here. more later Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Strongest and weakest subjects" needs some definition - is it quantity or quality we're looking for. Ultimately stats only deals with quantities, but there are some quantitative measures of quality that we could use. The ORES measure of article quality is one of these and I'd think it would be much better than "good enough" to take a first looks at this type of study. But if we just look at the number of articles in a certain area as a sign of strength, we can get some idea but not as good as Dr B would like. e.g. our weakest subject of the ones in the graph above is biographies of deceased sportswomen. Not 1 such article showed up in the sample of 1000 articles! One of our strongest subjects would be bios of living sportsmen. Also popular cultures since 1991 (aka Culture & Art 1991+) would have to be one of our strongest areas.
If you get into "traditional" subjects for encyclopedia articles, anything in the sciences, or anything like philosophy is very weak just in terms of number of articles.
So we need categories, and internal measures of quality (like ORES). Another way of assessing quality would be to have outsiders do it, e.g. readers as suggested by Jimmy, or outside experts, e.g. academics or journalists. Most outside experts aren't going to want to assess across categories however, e.g. scientists aren't going to want to assess geography articles. I'm sorry but this is such a big topic, I sould get better organized before continuing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Library based classification system

(this is very, very important. I've taken the liberty of making it a sub-section)) Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To respond to "I'd really like to know whether an article is about history or geography before I say whether history or geography is our stronger subject, but we just don't have that" I'd say call on ye Librarians! (There's plenty of us around). Whether Library of Congress or Dewey classification system all items end up with a call number. So geography is split from history, European history from English, English from 'Home Counties' or 'Midlands', 'Midlands' from 'Norfolk' and 'Lincolnshire', 'Lincolnshire' into regions/towns/villages depending on the degree of focus of said item. If Wikipedia wants that level of classification it can be done. The questions are 'do they?', 'which system?' (or a new one) and how to implement. AnonNep (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
AnonNep, Thanks for this - it's good to know that people have thought through these problems before and that there is a resource out there. My first question is "what do people want to use the categorization system for?" I just need broad categories of subjects that have between 1%-10% of Wikipedia articles in them (so I can compare coverage and quality), but I'm not against breaking it down some more in a hierarchical system. BTW, what do people use the current categorization system for? I've been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and really can't remember more than a few times I've used it to find anything. The search box at the top serves most of my searching needs, and Google seems almost as good for finding WP articles.
What I'd really like to see is a broad classification system that can be applied purely mechanically. Just have a program read the text and spit out a category. I'm sure an artificial intelligence program could do something like that. Would it work for the LOC or Dewey Decimal systems? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This is where there would need to be WMF involvement. As to "what do people want to use the categorization system for?" I'd suggest that a Dewey system (arguably the most used) would allow linked searches ie. look up something on the Library catalogue & you can drill down on that topic hierarchy to a Wikipedia article even if your library doesn't have a book. A recognised classification scheme integrated with the present system could also allow for much more transparent statistics on usage. Given that this hasn't been done - despite it fitting so well with those variously rumoured (and denied) secret search project plans I'm equally curious why its never been put forward publicly. I'm sure WMF must have considered it but found problems. Once again, if so, transparency would be useful. (NB. I have little use categories as they stand or remember to add to them. I usually only notice when they're obvious & deleted.) AnonNep (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@AnonNep: This is a great idea, but there is an unjust obstacle: apparently the Dewey Decimal Classification is proprietary, and hence very much not an option for us, both in terms of legal restrictions and overall attitude. I looked up about the Universal Decimal Classification and it's nonprofit but a similar story. [14] I think we could use Library of Congress Classification but it is not very systematic and the national tie might be viewed unfavorably. But I'm not a real librarian; maybe someone can suggest something. I found a site here with a notion for trying to do to Dewey what Wikipedia did to Britannica - if WMF took them on board and gave them legal cover while inviting them to put numbers on all the articles, no doubt they would prosper, whereas otherwise, I don't know what to expect. But I don't know they're the most worthy effort that's been made so far! In any case, that is the Wikipedia spirit. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Library of Congress/Dewey are generally the 'big two' but, as I added, "'which system?' (or a new one)". I'd also be for something sympatico with Wikipedia's spirit. Not-for-profit and non-proprietary would be the way to go, if possible. Interested to hear from the tech-side boffins in regards to any ideas on how any Library style cataloguing system might add functionality/user benefits. And any stumbling blocks it might face. AnonNep (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@AnonNep, JohnMarkOckerbloom, and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: and calling all librarians and OCLC folks I'll jump in here to say that AnonNep has hit on something that could be incredibly important to Wikipedia (and beyond). I've pinged John Mark Ockerbloom because I know he is an editor here and he is the guy who did [this. OCLC is hugely important in all of this, among other things they own the remaining copyrights on the Dewey Decimal System and seem to administer the Library of Congress Classification (LCC). They have their own template on Wikipedia "OCLC|xxxxx". And have or have had Wikipedians-in-Residence @Ocaasi, Merrilee, and Maximilianklein: OCLC is clearly not the enemy here.

Just to briefly state why I've pinged so many folks: AnonNep has suggested that using a Library categoriztion system Like Dewey or LCC would be a good idea for Wikipedia. There are lots of potential uses for it. I'm very much over my head here. Can somebody outline the basic issues? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll outline what I see as the possible uses and issues.
  • In classifying Wikipedia articles according to a hierarchal system so that each category will be mutually exclusive and analysis of content quality, quantity of articles, page views, etc. can easily be done with meaningful categories.
  • Readers and editors would be able to drill down and find actual books in actual libraries (and even online) to cover any topic in much greater detail (i.e. book vs. article) than we can do
    • Something like the OCLC's World Cat is needed here, to search books in librarys, which World Cat does very well.
  • Using DDS or LLC to classify every article would take some time, but likely could be done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried posting the following but am having local firewall problems. Can someone add it to the discussion please.
Smallbones pinged me about this discussion. I suggested something related a while back. My thinking was that it would be useful to direct users to appropriate classification numbers. I mocked up a page here (with the actual template here). I haven't done anything about it for a while though. I'm currently on holiday and have limited access, so will review this topic and add more at the weekend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
See Free Decimal Correspondence – Everybody's Libraries by John Mark Ockerbloom. Wavelength (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Your concerns over DDC's proprietary status has been discussed at length here and a follow up here. I didn't chase this up further but User:Ocaasi or User:Merrilee might be able to give you definitive information. Apparently the oft-quoted Library Hotel law suite was about trademark, not copyright issues, see this (thanks to Merrilee and User:LaMona).

@Smallbones: This is very much what I was suggesting. A user could research a subject using categories and hyperlinks which are much more appropriate for an online encyclopedia. Having arrived at a page which describes a particular topic the user could be redirected by a hat note to the various "dead tree" library classifications where they may find full length books on the subject. Not every user will find this useful, but if some will it could be a significant advantage. I would suggest just making the template available and encouraging editors to use it, an attempt to go through all of Wiki classifying articles would be a complete waste of time, far better to let the change spread organically. See User:Martin of Sheffield/sandbox for a set of examples to illustrate my thinking. They allow for Dewey (default), UDC and LCC but could be expanded to accommodate any further schemes.

I don't want to pour too much cold water on the Free Decimal Correspondence which several editors have linked to above, but I doubt is usefulness in this context. Unless Wiki is going to embark on reinventing DDC/LCC/UDC why should we need a call number for a hyperlinked searchable wiki? The aim must surely be to bridge the gap between online information and specialist, more detailed, books. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Well, that's the thing. Wikipedia can popularize a free classification system if it wants, and this is a legitimate part of the educational mission. The initial uses are a little frivolous - for example, you could use a system like this to put articles onto a "virtual library shelf" so that you could browse Wikipedia by looking at a shelf with article titles arranged in a decimal system like at a library. And/or you could have a next article/previous article interface on a box with the call number. As silly as this is, I think that increasing the reader processivity is actually one of WMF's goals. But if libraries adopt the free system, at least at a virtual level in an extra index online, then it is possible to put Wikipedia articles side by side with library books in such an interface, which adds a level of relevance. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Literature review

See "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia (December 2, 2014)—Journal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologyWiley Online Library.
Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) and 23:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles.Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Short popular vital articles.Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See User:Emijrp/All human knowledge.Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC) and 23:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-20/Wikipedia by numbers.Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTHOWTO. EllenCT (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
How is your post of 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC) related to my post of 00:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)? Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I was responding to your literature review, and pointing out that procedural knowledge is knowledge, too. You can't have "the sum of all human knowledge" without procedural knowledge any more than you can have the primary colors without blue. EllenCT (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:ExpertIdeasBot and [15] for one onwiki approach to this problem. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Template:Library resources box {{Library resources box |onlinebooks=yes}} does a lot of the drill down suggested above. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Need more practical, general knowledge topics

Tangent from: "#Strongest/weakest subjects". moved for further discussion

Wikipedia needs more coverage of practical topics, or general knowledge, which has been limited by the avoidance of wp:HOW-TO text. For example, many air-conditioning (A/C) units depend on so-called "motor capacitors" to start or run the heavy-duty motors of the fan unit or compressor motor inside an A/C unit. However, when I created the page "Motor capacitor" on 24 September 2008‎, then within hours it was soon met a wp:PROD speedy followed by wp:AfD deletion debate, which I interpreted as the frustrating, uphill struggle to create pages about practical topics in engineering or home appliances.

Meanwhile, Google needs WP to better explain such practical, general knowledge. Recently, Google has been drowning in information overload from zillions of adverts or gossip hunches. In a reader-focused subject such as "home appliances", the vast ocean of website pages with adverts or hunches about the topic has tended to overwhelm Google searches with too many rambling pages of partial, limited information. Although there are millions of related subtopics, perhaps 5,000 pages about home applicances could cover the basic technology and operation of recent devices. Similarly, in the field of mechanical construction, the article "set screw" needs revision to better explain (to clarify) using an adjustable screw to hold a handle or rail in position on mechanical devices, such as water faucets/spigots or rake handles. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:07/16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

See 10 Skills You Need to Succeed at Almost Anything - Stepcase Lifehack (archived): public speaking, writing, self-management, networking, critical thinking, decision-making, mathematics, research, relaxation, basic accounting.
Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikibooks has b:Subject:Books by subject, and Wikiversity has v:Wikiversity:Browse.
Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Similar 10 basic concepts of a topic: In line with a view such as "10 Skills You Need to Succeed" perhaps WP could have similar long-term lists as recommended by reliable sources. For example, the "12-step program" covers a well-known process for addiction recovery. In criminal law, the 3-aspect rule "Means, motive, and opportunity" helps to determine guilt or innocence of the accused, and could be used to help editors write about crimes in a focused, concise manner, rather than dwell on rambling opinions (or gossip) about an alleged crime. WP has a good start on coverage of general knowledge, but more is needed (and note how a general topic, now, might have only 9 footnote sources, while a footballer or battle in 1917 might list 49 or 250 or 560 sources, as broader coverage). -Wikid77 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the whole WP:NOT is a wastebasket (or "coatrack") policy that encourages unhelpful actions. The unspoken rule is that one uses one of the dozens of all capital letters shortcuts and never reads the policy to which it is attached. This means at once that people use it to get rid of good content that they have some kind of prejudice (or is it vested interest?) against, even as the policy itself as written is ignored. So for example "NOTNEWS" is taken to mean that Wikipedia can't be up to date, but apart from such deletions it isn't particularly reliable at preventing special language used for recent developments in a topic. And "NOTMEMORIAL" is used by almost half the RFC voters to mean that if an article is about a recent set of murders, it shouldn't say who was murdered if there were more than a dozen or two. (Just try finding that in the policy) But it never applies to the killer - he gets to have his own article and thorough detailed coverage of everything he thought about, because he is important and cool and everybody wants to know what he thinks, whereas including a well-sourced sentence or two about what the victims did would be pure schmaltzy sentimentalism. Well, "NOTHOWTO" is one of those - it isn't actually written to say our articles are supposed to be uninformative, only that they're supposed to be be encyclopedia articles rather than "1) prepare your work area, 2) read through this guide carefully before beginning..." The same with dictionary terms (which doesn't mean we can't have an article about a word) etc. And the reason for all this is that we have a "core policy" which is written like a grab bag of stuff not to include when what was really intended or wanted when people thought about any of those items is that we had a sensible style guideline on the topic. We ought to split the whole thing up, farm it off to various guidelines, and reconsider whether many of the items in it really should be excluded at all. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. If the WP:NOT series were moved out into guidelines, I would be so happy. But I also think that organizational phone numbers are a good thing, and Disinfecting should not be a redirect to Disinfectant. EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrapping up the side issue of categorization

Given the that the Template:Library resources box (immediately above) seems to already do the "drill down" that could be an additional benefit from the library classification system, I'm no longer so excited about such a system. If others want to go ahead with it, I have no objection, but it could be a lot of work.

I do see a large benefit to tracking quality and quantity across mutually exclusive categories, from having a set of at least 20 mutually exclusive categories. If such categories can be done mechanically it would be great. AI is likely the best way to go, but method discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-20/Wikipedia by numbers could also be modified (it's didn't actually give mutually exclusive categories, but it looks like a simple adjustment - just take the highest rated category for each article). Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to the original question

@Dr. Blofeld: We haven't given you any practical answers yet to the original question of whether we can get a reading on quality and quantity across subject areas. Very briefly and ignoring some of the possible weaknesses.

  • A survey of readers (need to be done by the WMF)
    • Just plop down 20 categories and ask readers to identify the top 5 for articles they read. Also the top 5 for where they'd like to see improvement. Maybe add 5 very short questions on their age, gender, education, location, and frequency of use.
    • Please, please don't try to get every Wikipedia reader to fill this out. A couple thousand responses would be *better* than a million!
  • A survey of experts in their fields.
    • likely expensive and wouldn't go across categories very well, e.g. philosophers might rate differently than sports biographers.
  • Get an ORES rating for each of the 1,000 articles in the sample I looked at above.
    • It would be pretty limited, but if you want a very general indication, I could do it.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think this would be worth putting time and effort into as it's something potentially we could do something about but I understand that it would be very difficult to do fully. Didn't Dirty Harry once say "An encyclopedia has got to know its weaknesses and limitations" haha ;-) Something which also looks at length of articles for subjects and quality. I'd imagine wildlife is overall one of the weakest with a huge number of undeveloped stubs. Perhaps something to start with which identifies the highest number of stubs by field. Then at a later date something which gives an educated guess on what the biggest hole in knowledge is in notable subjects. I'd imagine Science and Technology in Africa or pre 20th century African history is pretty weak for instance. The latter though might be more difficult to assess as we've not identified a lot of misisng subjects yet. I do think though that we need some sort of movement to improve our weakest areas, and a stub count indicator by field might be a good way to start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Smallbones and Dr. Blofeld. I think this is a very interesting direction of work. I'd like to see progress made here, but I've only so many hours of the day. There's two fronts on which I'd like to contribute. (1) ORES scores for all articles at regular intervals and (2) building a research project around "importance" and measurements we can use to identify it. For (1), I'm planning to release a dataset that has an ORES score prediction for every article as of it's most recent revision by the end of next month. It will possibly also include scores for articles in monthly intervals so that we can track quality changes over time. For (2), I'm looking for collaborators to engage in a measurement and modeling project where we'd take link graph and pageview characteristics of articles and use that to build a model to predict the importance assessments per-WikiProject. E.g. Waffle is top importance to WP:WikiProject Breakfast but only high importance to WP:WikiProject Food and Drink. If we could find someone with a basic engineering, analytics or modeling background to collaborate with me (read: do all the hard work), I'd be very happy to advise. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo and @Katherine (WMF): please give Halfak (WMF) the funding and authority to hire Nettrom, Quang Vinh Dang, Claudia-Lavinia Ignat, Susan Biancani,Yu Suzuki, Masatoshi Yoshikawa, and/or their referral(s) for this task. Would you please also get Legoktm help for mw:User talk:Legoktm#FRSbot questions so our nascent jury system can pass audit? I also want to know how much it would cost to implement searching recent changes. EllenCT (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes if a consistent system was devised for measuring article quality, quantity and importance you could make progress with this. Jimbo also mentioned the importance of what people want to read, article popularity, which should also be a factor on this, what articles are most in demand too and how does quality fare in relation to page views etc. Overall, some way that we can really analyse the content we currently have and what subjects really need the most work in terms of quality and indeed quantity of coverage. I definitely think it's worth investing something into as we're ultimately trying to produce an encyclopedia of the highest quality and depth, so we need to identify the biggest holes we have on the road towards achieving that. I think for starters a stub count of all stubs we current have, and figures by field of knowledge would be a good start on this. Obviously it's going to become out of date, but a lot of stubs remain for a long time, sometimes a decade untouched, so overall it would remain pretty accurate I think. Once we have that I can then start to organize some destubbing drives/contests aimed at reducing them. If a few of you think setting up a research project on this would be worth it I'd be happy to help. I'm not very good with statistics and compiling data but I could certainly help with developing a project framework. What I'd like the see I think is a research project which provides a "score" for articles and devises a way of measuring what areas need the most work and analysing by field with graphs/tables etc. And then within the same project something which unites WP:Missing encyclopedia articles and User:Emijrp/All human knowledge with it and works towards identifying our weakest missing areas in terms of quantity of coverage. This way you can organize drives geared at both current article improvement and missing content in certain fields, and directly make an impact and reinforce the encyclopedia where it needs it the most. Without anything like this it's difficult to really know what area we need to focus on the most, so as a result it remains weak. Invent a way of measuring it, and then we can begin launching improvement drives in key areas I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments.Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That would certainly make a good starting point towards organizing this I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

See WikiProject Cleanup Listings.Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

One last look at Involuntary celibacy what are the steps going forward?

I last spoke with you regarding this subject here, here is a copy of the final article just to update the extensive history:

The fourth discussion had been plague by controversy, DGG among others had strong reason for article retention, however the strongest argument came from Cunard who arguments for inclusion include:

Rationale for keeping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep.

    "Involuntary celibacy" passes Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:

    For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

    Several "delete" editors have written that Denise Donnelly's articles about "involuntary celibacy" should be considered primary sources. I will assume here that they are correct and that the term as it is used today originated from Denise Donnelly.

    A review of the literature indicates that the term "involuntary celibacy" has been used before Denise Donnelly was born, but as the "delete" voters correctly point out, pre-Donnelly sources define the term differently. For such pre-Donnelly sources, as one "delete" editor wrote about the sources, "this [is a] rather transparent bundling together of a bunch of vague and unrelated mentions of the two words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together as if it were a cohesive and genuine topic".

    I will show below that "involuntary celibacy" has been treated as a "cohesive and genuine topic" by reliable sources that explicitly discuss Denise Donnelly's definition of the concept and research about it.

    To begin, I found that Denise Donnelly coauthored an article about "involuntary celibacy" in the Journal of Sex Research in 2001:

    • Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally; Davis, Regina; Dillard, Joy (May 2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". Journal of Sex Research. Routledge. 38 (2): 159–169. doi:10.1080/00224490109552083. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

      The article is also reprinted in a book available on Google Books. Author Denise Donnelly is a professor of sociology.

      The journal notes in its introduction:

      Certainly, some people are celibate because they have chosen this lifestyle for religious or personal reasons. Others, however, would like to have sex but lack a willing sexual partner. For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology, and consequences of this phenomenon.

      In this research, we define the involuntary celibate as one who desires to have sex, but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least 6 months prior to being surveyed. The 6-month mark reflects the reality that people often go without sex for weeks of months (Laumann et al., 1994), but after a certain length of time, begin to worry. We realize, however, the arbitrariness of choosing a specific length of time, and suggest that what is really important is whether or not persons define themselves as involuntarily celibate. As Thomas (1966) pointed out, "situations we defined as real become real in their consequences" (p. 301). Thus, for our purposes, length of time without sex is less important than self-defining as involuntarily celibate. Involuntary celibates may be married or partnered persons whose partners no longer desire to have sex with them, unpartnered singles who have never had sex, or unpartnered singles who have had sexual relationships in the past, but are unable to currently find partners. Involuntary celibates include heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals.

      We used a life course perspective to understand the process by which persons become and remain involuntarily celibate. In doing so, we compared and contrasted three groups of involuntarily celibates, exploring the transitions and trajectories by which involuntary celibacy developed and was maintained.

    Here are sources (ordered chronologically) that discuss Donnelly's definition and research about "involuntary celibacy":
    1. Blalock, Kay J. (2001). "Celibacy". In Hawes, Joseph M.; Shores, Elizabeth F. (eds.). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. The Family in America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 1576072320. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

      The encyclopedia entry for "Celibate" notes:

      Involuntary celibacy also has attracted the attention of the media and scholars recently. Using the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves, involuntary celibates find themselves both inside and outside of marriage. Involuntary celibacy within marriage, or a sexually inactive marriage, occurs when one partner but not both makes the decision to end sexual relations and, at the same time, decides not to end the marriage. This could occur for a number of reasons: health issues, emotional turmoil, or lack of interest, for example. Unfortunately, according to Prof. Denise A. Donnelly, attempts to understand the magnitude of involuntary celibacy within marriage remain difficult because people tend to underreport such nonactivity and the stigma attached to a sexually inactive marriage remains strong (Donnelly 1993). Professor Donnelly and her colleague, Elisabeth O. Burgess, both at Georgia States University have been funded to conduct further studies on involuntary celibacy during the 2001–2002 academic year.

      Involuntary celibacy outside marriage also occurs for various reasons. Divorce or death of one's partner may force an individual into involuntary celibacy. In our youth-oriented culture, women, more so than men, often find themselves in this position in the later years of their lives. Anyone who has not dated in a long time, or has never dated, could classify himself or herself an involuntary celibate if attempts to form sexual relationships have failed. Health or emotional issues could lead someone into a condition of involuntary celibacy if such conditions are beyond the individual's control. Involuntary celibacy for the layperson in many ways parallels mandatory celibacy for the clergy; both affect the future of American families.

    2. Bouchez, Colette. (2003-03-10). Smith, Michael W., ed. "Sexless in The City: In a world of couples, being without a sex partner can be disheartening. You may be an involuntary celibate. But don't give up hope" (pages 1, 2, and 3). WebMD. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2015-12-30. Retrieved 2015-12-30.

      The article notes:

      If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.

      "These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.


      Indeed, in a small but significant study published in 2001 in the Journal of Sex Research, doctors from Georgia State University found that folks who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with feelings of anger, frustration, self-doubt and even depression -- all invariably linked to living without sex.

      The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#WebMD is that WebMD is considered a reliable source. As one editor noted, "WebMD is a respected online resource. It is an accredited member of several organizations concerned with the quality of health-related information and its articles are clearly identified as to authorship, quality reviewer(s), and date. It's a reliable source."
    3. Harvey, John H.; Wenzel, Amy; Sprecher, Susan, eds. (2004). The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. Mahwah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. p. 900. ISBN 9781135624699. Retrieved 2015-12-30.

      Coauthor John Harvey is a social psychologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology.

      The book notes:

      ... sex researchers rarely examine whether this celibacy is by choice. Although lack of a partner may be the most common reason for celibacy, married men and women may also experience stages of sexual inactivity. If one partner is dissatisfied with a lack of sexual activity, he or she is experiencing involuntary celibacy—desire for sexual activity but absence of a willing partner (Donnelly, Burgess, Anderson, Davis & Dillard, 2001). Not only do involuntary celibates' partners stop engaging in sex with them, they often withdraw all forms of sexual affection. As a result, involuntary celibates often face period of depression and feelings of frustration. For the majority of partnered involuntary celibates, sexual activity declines gradually (Donnelly, Burgess, & Anderson, 2001). Despite the lack of sexual activity, the majority of respondents reported loving their partners and being happy in the relationship in areas other than sex.

    4. Carpenter, Laura M. (2010). "Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework". Sociological Perspectives. University of California Press. 53 (2): 155–178. doi:10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. JSTOR 10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. |access-date= requires |url= (help)

      The article notes:

      Donnelly, Burgess, Anderson, Davis, and Dillard (2001) focused on the timing of sexual and romantic transitions (e.g., dating, sexual initiation), showing how delays in “expected” transitions accumulate to produce involuntary celibacy.

      To illustrate the potential of my proposed framework, I present three case studies drawn from empirical research conducted by myself and other scholars. ... The three cases appear in a rough approximation of life course chronology, beginning in adolescence with virginity loss and involuntary celibacy, proceeding to adulthood with gay and heterosexual perspectives on marriage and decoupling, and concluding in later life (by extension) with adult-onset chronic illness.


      The journal article has a section titled "Virginity Loss and Involuntary Celibacy". Here is an excerpt from the section:

      Drawing on a survey of 60 men and 22 women, all unwillingly chaste, Donnelly et al. (2001) showed how “off-time” transitions intoand out of sexual activity can accumulate to produce involuntary celibacy. Prevailing norms in the U.S. posit a “typical” sexual trajectory (i.e., cultural scenario)that proceeds from dating and experimenting with kissing and foreplay to sexual initiation to establishing a long-term committed relationship that includes sexual activity until the partners decouple or become “too old.” Given widespread expectations that men and women will complete this “date, sex, mate” sequence at least once by their late 20s (barring some culturally intelligible reason, such as strong religious convictions), the young adults in Donnelly et al.’s study who had never had sex—or a serious relationship—began to feel, and to be seen by others as, “off time.” Consequently, they found it increasingly difficult to achieve the transitions expected of them, such that a chain of delayed sexual and romantic transitions accumulated to produce involuntary celibacy. (Feelings of “timeliness” may be closely related to metaphorical virginity loss scripts; Carpenter 2005.)

    5. Paris, Jenell Williams (2011). The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. pp. 132–133. ISBN 083086850X. Retrieved 2015-12-30.

      Author Jenell Williams Paris is a professor of anthropology.

      The book notes:

      Celibacy Gone Wrong

      It shouldn't be surprising that, with such an unsupportive context, celibacy can actually be very damaging. Sociologist Denise Donnelly and her research team interviewed people who were involuntarily celibate. Some had never had sex, others had had past relationships but were currently not in a relationship, and others were in sexless relationships. These people weren't choosing celibacy for religious reasons; sex just wasn't happening for them. Virgins described themselves as "off time," as though opportunities had passed them by and they were stalled in an earlier stage. One woman said, "It makes me feel like everyone else is going through some mythical gates into 'grownup land' while I sit out in the courtyard with the children." Those who had had sex in the past but were either currently unpartnered or in a sexless relationship described problems with loneliness, depression, poor body image and hopelessness. A married woman in a sexless relationship described her life as "[lots of] hurt, tears. Knowing it will always be this way and missing intimacy. Forever." For many of these people, celibacy led to depression, loneliness, and regret."

    6. Strong, Bryan; Cohen, Theodore (2013). The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. p. 50. ISBN 1133597467. Retrieved 2015-12-30.

      Bryan Strong and Theodore Cohen are sociologists.

      The book notes on page 50:

      Two recent applications exchange theory applied it to examine whether and when the frequency of sexual relations affects marital and/or cohabiting relationships. Interested in long-term marital or cohabiting relationships where couples engage in little to no sexual activity, sociologists Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess (2008) studied 352 people who were involuntarily celibate (i.e., having desired but not having had sex for at least six months prior to being interviewed). The social exchange perspective was applied specifically to a subset of 77 people (51 percent males) who were either married or partners in cohabiting relationships of one year or more. Although they asked other questions as well (e.g., How do relationships become involuntarily celibate?), here we consider their analysis regarding why partners in involuntarily celibate relationships stay in their relationships:

      [quote from Donnelly and Burgess 2008]

      [a summary of the authors' consideration of Donnelly and Burgess' analysis]

      Page 213 of the book notes:

      Celibate Marriages

      The discussion of social exchange theory in Chapter 2 used the example of involuntarily celibate couples to illustrate how such couples make the decision to remain together (Donnelly and Burgess 2008). Such relationships, which may amount to around 14 percent to 15 percent of marriages, can also be instructive illustrations of the role that sex plays in marriage, and the causes and consequences of celibacy.

      Using six months of desiring but not having an form of sexual contact as their measure of involuntary celibacy, sociologists Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess identified a number of factors that contribute to declines in sexual relations. In addition to the impact of the passage of time and the disappearance of novelty, they point to the following stressors that affect sexual activity:

      [four bullet-point reasons follow]

    7. Dewey, Caitlin (2014-10-17). "Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet's most-reviled subcultures". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-12-29. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

      The Washington Post's description of the author, "Caitlin Dewey is The Post's digital culture critic."

      The article notes:

      We still know very little about the 26-year-old man who killed nine people and injured seven more in an Oregon community college classroom last week. Even before the fatalities had officially been totaled, there were whispers that Chris Harper-Mercer might have belonged to a fringe group that is much-reviled on the Internet: men calling themselves “incels,” for “involuntary celibates.”

      But it has certainly drawn attention to the Internet cult of the “involuntary celibate”: people — almost always straight men — who have either never had sex or haven’t found a willing partner for an extended period.

      On forums like 4chan’s /r9k/, Reddit’s r/ForeverAlone, and the old-timer, incels gather to swap stories and debate the causes of their situations. Some have physical handicaps or psychological disorders that have prevented them from meeting women; some just have bad luck; some are cripplingly introverted — hence “love shy” — or anxious.


      Both Gilmartin and the Georgia State researchers suggest that involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. Those problems prevent incels from forming relationships — which in turn makes their depression and anxiety more extreme.

      The Washington Post links the term "incels" with "involuntary celibacy":

      In 2001, two researchers at Georgia State University surveyed 82 self-identified incels they found through an online forum. Some were, as the stereotypes suggest, adult virgins who suffered from autism or another mental or physical illness. Some were just singles who couldn’t meet people because of how often they worked or where they lived. Others were actually married, but not sexually active — either their partner was no longer interested, or something prevented them from being intimate. Frequently, they felt they had missed key sexual milestones in their adolescence and couldn’t catch up from there.

      The external link for "surveyed 82 self-identified incels" is to a university release for Denise Donnelly's 2001 Journal of Sex Research article about involuntary celibacy. This linkage between "incel" and "involuntary celibacy" is consistent with The Family in America: An Encyclopedia entry (source #2), which says that "involuntary celibates" use "the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves".

    Should "incel" be discussed in "involuntary celibacy"?

    My answer to the question posed by Sandstein in the nomination: "Incel" should be discussed in "involuntary celibacy" if and only if the sources link "incel" and "involuntary celibacy". An encyclopedia entry and an article in The Washington Post clearly link "incel" and "involuntary celibacy", so Wikipedia should follow the sources and mention "incel" in the "involuntary celibacy" article. A paragraph of information probably would suffice.

    WP:NEO and involuntary celibacy

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neologisms and new compounds says that neologisms "should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last". "Involuntary celibacy" was used by Denise Donnelly in 2001. Sources have discussed "involuntary celibacy" in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014.

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms (WP:NEO) says:

    To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.

    The seven sources quoted here clearly are about the concept. They do not merely use the term.

    WP:MEDRS and involuntary celibacy

    The sources treat involuntary celibacy as a social concept. Like Valoem (talk · contribs) wrote below, "it is like saying we require medical sourcing for the term friend zone or clerical celibacy".

    I agree with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)'s comment on his talk page:

    ... there appear to be a great many sources. You seem to be making the error of assuming that there need to be academic sources, but this is a social movement / social phenomenon sufficiently covered in mainstream high quality magazines and newspapers, not a scientific concept. A good article would note exactly what you've said above - that this is a concept that has not been taken up by professional medical researchers in any serious way. Compare: homeopathy and other such pseudo-science - we don't say "this subject matter is enmeshed in medical and psychological topics" and refuse to have an article if those don't support the concept. Instead, we provide a public service by explaining to people that a term they heard about in the media or floating around on the web is not a scientific term.

    Only the WebMD article (source 2) can remotely be considered to be "medical sourcing". The other sources come from primarily sociologists, supporting the position that this is a social concept, not a medical concept.
    1. Denise Donnelly, who popularized the term, is a professor of sociology.
    2. A second source is an encyclopedia about family life, not medical concepts.
    3. A third source is from a peer-reviewed sociology journal.
    4. A fourth source is a book written by a social psychologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology.
    5. A fifth source is from a professor of anthropology.
    6. A sixth source is from sociologists.
    7. A seventh source is from The Washington Post's digital culture critic.
    The sources clearly treat this as a social concept, not a medical concept. Therefore, WP:MEDRS is inapplicable if we follow the sources in describing this as a social concept.

    WP:POVFORK and involuntary celibacy

    Wikipedia:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK) says:

    POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

    Involuntary celibacy is not a "POV fork" of another article because it not "another version of the article" or "another article on the same subject" as an article where "contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". Involuntary celibacy has been treated as a distinct social concept by the seven sources I listed above.

    Summary of the sources

    The concept "involuntary celibacy" has received substantial coverage in:

    1. the peer-reviewed journal Sociological Perspectives published by the University of California Press (source 4)
    2. the encyclopedia The Family in America: An Encyclopedia published by ABC-CLIO (source 1)
    3. books published by Taylor & Francis (source 3), InterVarsity Press (source 5), and Cengage Learning (source 6)
    4. the national newspaper The Washington Post (source 7)
    Cunard (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Edited. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This argument was never discussed by the closing administrators their reasonings can be found here and appears to be based on voting. Every argument for deletion had been countered by Cunard. Google Trends show this topic had been among the most searched terms in 2004-2005 hitting 100 and currently maintains a 15 to 25% interest level. Furthermore, bad faith attacks were rampant throughout the discussion by an anonymous editor who accused me of canvassing random inactive editors (found here). I only publicly ask involved editors for assistance and ArbCom confirmed by email that the evidence was fabricated and no further action was needed. Prior to the allegation, consensus was in favor of retention, a wave of deletes followed and skewed the discussion. Regardless, I still believe that policy based arguments strongly favored keeping. Part of me wants to drop this issue, the other half can't help but fear the dangerous precedence this sets, which articles can be deleted for political instead of encyclopedic reasons. I think the only way to overturn this is with your direct participation, perhaps opening a DRV or AfD. Are you interested or is it best to let this topic die? Valoem talk contrib 06:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is "forget it and move on" never an option? Guy (Help!) 08:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Because drama god must be fed. I will say that an article that gets nominated for deletion 3 times and then gets relisted as a result of a DRV, probably has some decent arguments keeping it around. Cunard's post quoted above certainly has a much higher 'weight' in the discussion that was accounted for by the closer. Backed by both sources (reliable) and policy (correct interpretation of POV-fork). Sadly its the nature of closers in most venues of WP that they rarely have the balls to go with a better argued minority view over majority. Despite what the policies and guidelines say. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I can only second the advice to "forget it and move on". I tend to agree that we could have an article on this topic, but I don't see how it is productive to keep arguing about it - whether we do or do not have this particular entry is relatively unimportant. I recommend waiting a year or (even better) two and then seeing if there is a material change in the kind and quantity of reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course, the answer here is that as soon as there is academic work on "involuntary celibacy" as a topic of study, using this exact phrase, the article will be restarted and the road to deletion rightfully closed. As of now this topic is viewed as a non-notable neologism and a magnet for disruptive editing. In the long run, I expect there will be coverage of the topic. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
While I find "non-notable neologism and a magnet for disruptive editing" to both be potentially valid factors, I don't see much reason to require that there be "academic work on 'involuntary celibacy' as a topic of study". We don't require that, nor should we. We'd have to delete huge portions of the encyclopedia if that were the rule.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been seeing this trend at DRV recently where several editors have argued that concepts were notable, but was best to let subject die due to the recency of prior AfDs and DRVs. I tend to disagree with this, both yourself and Carrite had pointed out that this was indeed notable, Cunard's arguments also show there is already a large body of academic work on the subject and is therefore not WP:NEO. I view this entire discussion as historic on Wikipedia, because it shows a weakness in how we operate when mobbing occurs. There is a belief that when discussions are repeated they are disruptive. I do want to point out that due to the multiple admin closures, this topic will not resurface in the long run without your direct input, I also believe that if you were open a DRV with overturn to keep, mobbing would again occur, but this time in favor of whatever stance you favor, because what I've come to realize is that discussion often do not operate on policy, but on popularity. I would like to point out this this topic is receiving continual coverage here are three new sources [16], [17], and [18]. In the future if this topic is going to find a home you would have to be involved, at this point I would be tremendously interested to see how the community would react if you opened a discussion instead of me. Valoem talk contrib 19:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If you remind me, I'll be happy to open a discussion of the question 2 years from now, particularly if new sources of high quality have emerged.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Not only do high quality sources already exist, but are continually emerging as this is a trending topic, this should have never been deleted, do you think it is necessary to wait two years instead of one? Valoem talk contrib 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's discuss it a year from now. The existing sources aren't really enough, as has been determined through a long series of events. I know you don't agree with that, and I might vote differently myself, if I were voting. But for me to get involved directly is potentially a big deal especially if done right now, and that's just not the sort of thing that I do. I can participate a bit when an appropriate amount of time and an appropriate level of change in circumstances has taken place - if there is a change, that is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, but just curious you said "sources aren't really enough", what type of sources are we looking for? I've presented an overabundance of sources which I feel are reliable, those in the discussion never stated what was wrong with the sources, I was hoping you could expand on some undisputed sources I could add. I am just confused as to what we are looking for. Valoem talk contrib 20:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the entire discussion and so I am not in a position to speak with any authority on that point. The general principles that apply everywhere would apply here, though - references in top academic journals that are specifically about the topic (as opposed to having the two words together somewhat incidentally) would be good. Regarding the social movement/meme several more detailed articles from top newspapers or magazines would be useful. Carrite, above, suggests that he thinks such sources will emerge in due course - so perhaps he can speak more about what types of sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Those sources have been provided in Cunard's "Rationale of keeping" response which I posted above, if those sources do not qualify then I am not sure what to look for they all use the term together and specifically referring to the concept in my sandbox. Valoem talk contrib 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I expect that this is going to be a matter of sociological study, moving forward. I was checking JSTOR a couple days ago and couldn't even draw a hit on the phrase, however, so I might be wrong about that or there might be another term for the same phenomenon used in the literature. The topic is already keepable, in my opinion (as I stated at the 2nd AfD), but it is also pretty clear that there are battle lines drawn over the phrase and there will need to be some really firm scholarly literature or book length coverage to really keep the topic from being attacked on notability grounds. It is a matter of finding sources, sources, and more sources to document that this exact phrase is used by serious people, just not as a snarky slur. 16:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrite (talkcontribs)
  • Well, I still do not get why it needs its own article - part of what we do is organize information, every different phrase does not need its own article, as if there is something new under the sun. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This subject does not have any acceptable merge target. It is certainly not celibacy and is a unique subject. We need stand alone articles for subjects which clearly pass GNG. It is a pillar of this encyclopedia. Valoem talk contrib 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, the first sentence of the deleted article said it was "a form of sexual abstinence". It's not by any stretch unrelated to other things. There are articles dealing with that subject, and no we don't need a separate article (obviously), and no, what you said is not a pillar of the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I was just going to run up a redirect per the above but the phrase is salted. Would some administrator please do this? Carrite (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I also note this is not the first time that specific instances of the general topic have appeared for discussion here. (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
BING! BING! BING! BING!!! We have a winner... JSTOR lights up on a phrase search for "sexual frustration." So here's what to do: build out that article to include, among other things, so-called "involuntary celibacy." Carrite (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Carrite can you show me your search method? I found plenty of sources on JSTOR [19]. Here is a source cited by 49 peer reviewed papers [20]. Valoem talk contrib 05:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe I spelled something wrong... Carrite (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A cheezburger for you!

Cheeseburger.png CAN YOU HAZ CHEEZBURGER? YES U CAN HAZ CHEEZBURGER, MR. WALES! - Vargskelethor (talk) (sandbox) (userboxes) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What the heck? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

75 million and no site update?

Sir, your organization took in $75 million last year, yet the site has the look and features of a website from over a decade ago. Where is this money going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The wp:VE VisualEditor has been a major enhancement (option "?veaction=edit") but had massive problems with nested templates (removes indentation spaces) for multiple alphabets; the wp:wikisearch was changed to use CirrusSearch so searches find new text within minutes (formerly overnight re-index); and edit-save can show an updated page in 2 seconds due to pre-cache while user enters edit-summary. All such changes have been very complex to implement (and approve), but even Google Search learned to keep the entry page stable (except Google Doodles, after trying horrific weekly changes, such as the slow fade-in Google menu disaster some years ago). They learned (the hard way), "Less is more" and beware changes tend to promote "form over substance" (fashion over function) with unneeded page clutter and slower results. Many people who try "changed" cause "deranged". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. Wavelength (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Old things are not all bad, and newer things are not necessarily better. I am content with the present basic design of, and I can hardly imagine it being improved. (Past versions can be examined via*/
Sunrises have the same basic design, day after day after day after day, but the content varies from day to day. Are you tired of the same old sunrise design? Sunsets have the same basic design, day after day after day after day, but the content varies from day to day. Do you have ideas for "improving" the basic design of sunsets?
Wavelength (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Sir? Please attend a basic, introductory art or photography class. You will learn quickly that no two sunsets are ever the same. The main page design is dated, does not impart information easily, and turns off younger visitors. There is no top site whose design ever stays the same. I ask, where is this $75 million going, because it does not appear to be going to improve the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Fundraising.Wavelength (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the site had a radical redesign, some people would hate it and want to go back to the old version. Wikipedia is based on the open source and widely used software MediaWiki. It has a simple no-nonsense interface and I don't think that it looks old fashioned.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir. Change is the only constant. When something doesn't change, we say it is dead. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The "web 2.0" dreck is a high crime that makes the old blink tag look like a summary offense by comparison. I mean, we've literally gotten to the point where you have to go into developer tools in a web browser to write a Python script to compile an index of a modern publishing outfit that uses "infinite scrolling" to make its older articles well nigh inaccessible to browsing. ([21]) Literally, you'd be better off with a Gopher client than that - might not look as pretty, but you can read the full index without resorting to hacking. Oh, Wikipedia can put effort into development - serve pages faster, be more reliable, offer more tools for editors and readers alike. But definitely do not take away good interfaces in favor of some junta of web fashionistas. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This is why books are terrible and no one reads them anymore. I can't post a tweet while reading Shakespeare! (The joke is, of course, there are, depressingly, probably people who actually think that way.) You can find the Foundation's financial reports here. It turns out that hosting a top-ten website is a little more involved than running Apache on a spare computer you have lying around. And beyond that, there's a social dynamic that the projects are intended to be community-run. What the English Wikipedia Main Page looks like is up to the English Wikipedia community, not the Foundation. There has been substantial discussion over whether the main page should be changed, and to what, and you can read all about it in the Main Page talk page archives, but there doesn't appear to be any widespread agreement. You are welcome to add your suggestion (preferably after spending some time reading prior discussions), or start your own copy of Wikipedia and put whatever you like on the Main Page (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking). -- (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice reply. Any spare machines I have will be devoted to running VR environments. I suggest Wikipedia get involved soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, please don't listen to the people who hold style over substance, form over function, and design over utility. I enjoy the web without Javascript and Flash much of the time. It is faster, has fewer bugs, has fewer unpleasant surprises, and isn't constantly breaking. No, I can't use the visual editor, but it doesn't work on my mobile devices anyway, and that is a feature for me. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, would you prefer the site to look like this:
Text-based web browsing on Lynx
A good design does not imply style over substance, form over function, and design over utility. It implies a marriage and interrelationship between them, all working together in harmony. Where did you get this strange idea otherwise? People here appear stubborn, inflexible to change, and unwilling to move forward. What does this say about Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the current design works. And I agree with those above who are of the "If it ain't broke" school of thought. I've seen several sites I use get a "redesign", either all at once or bit by bit, and often, it makes them significantly less usable (even if a bit prettier). Wikipedia doesn't need to be a Javaflashnodequery abomination, and I sure hope it never is. That being said, there's always room for improvement, so if you do have some ideas, by all means propose them. But it doesn't need to be made new and shiny for the sake of saying it's new and shiny. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
For those who want to try out some ideas Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (editable). (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Form follows function. The function of wikipedia is to impart information to the reader. There have been massive strides in the last 10 years in managing this. The WMF (and by extension wikipedia) has not really taken advantage of them in its software development plans. VE and media viewer being highly public failures (VE is not even an enhancement to the prime function of wikipedia). Most of the useful article-viewing enhancements in that period are down to either individual (or small groups) of editors making incremental changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Whoa, how can you claim, "VE is not even an enhancement to the prime function of wikipedia" (huh?), when wp:VE allows a casual user to click on footnote link "[27]" and update a source reference, page number, author name, italics (etc.) for users who do not know how wp:reftags work. Instead, I think allowing anyone to directly update a footnote, in context (esp. in large pages), is a major action within the "prime function of Wikipedia" as allowing anyone to edit the information for the readers. Of course, the ongoing problem(s) in VE are still a nightmare, such as VE failing to refresh the footnote display on-page (after showing the close-up of a modified footnote); however VE is definitely a help to casual users, for actions as tedious as pinpointing a footnote during update. VE has just been extremely expensive, and loaded with software bugs for years, but for whatever $millions spent, VE is definitely a type of enhancement for WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
VE is a massive development sink that should have been dumped the second it was realised it was not fit for purpose. Repeatedly wasting resources on it just reinforces the evidence (at the WMF) of a lack of competent technical leadership, as well as a lack of effective communication with the end users of the product. It is a waste of time, money and not an enhancement over the current situation. It is at best, an expensive different bug-filled alternative. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello. You often refer to 'gotcha' moments. What is the precise meaning of this term? Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

removed edit by banned editor. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • In case Jimbo doesn't answer: see gotcha journalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • So it means asking embarrassing questions which were not agreed with the subject beforehand, and which might cause the subject to make embarrassing admissions? Wouldn't the best way to stop this be to remove all such questions from Jimmy's page? Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not the meaning that I intend. What I generally mean by it is a *dishonest* line of questioning designed to generate a false appearance of self-contradiction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Puzzled how a question (which has no truth value by definition) can be dishonest (which signifies falsity), but thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, Peter, you are a professionally trained philosopher. I think you know,or should know, very well how a question or line of questions can be dishonest. There are many ways. One very basic example is for the question to assume a false premise, particularly when the questioner knows the premise is false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
There's always the classic "When did you stop beating your spouse?" - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Loaded questions are not new. Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Loaded question#Historical examples has a poor example. The first example is a question to Madeleine Albright, "a half million children have died [in the Iraq War] ... that is more children than died in Hiroshima.... is the price worth it?" Albright answered, "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it." But later wrote, "I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it." Whether the actual number was approximately equal to a half million or actually greater than in Hiroshima, it's not at all clear that the question's premise is in fact flawed in any meaningful sense. (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I think Albright's point is that she believes the number is wrong, and that it was therefore a loaded question. She's right, either way, to regret simply answering the question the way she did, rather than challenging the premise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that less than 5,000 children were killed in Hiroshima, I suggest the premise isn't primarily quantitive. Might it have had more to do with ethics in general, and blowback in particular? (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Outstanding questions

Jimbo, did you ever decide whether in your view, my restrictions on talking about economics and using the COIN process should be appealed? I don't think the topic bans have resulted in substantial improvements, and the fact that I have been censored in part because of my trying to persuade you that the problems exist in the first place doesn't seem right to me (frankly, the topic bans were both unjust in most all respects, but since nobody showed up in my defense, I decided to try to abide by them for a while before appealing them.) Now I am sure I will try to appeal them, but I want to know your opinion first because even if you think so, it's not exactly my top priority.

I am also interested in your opinion of whether we should ask the copyright office to share royalties collected for orphan works with editors in proportion to the popularity of the work they've done. Could doing so entrench a culture of celebrity, so we should wait until there are valid importance models to use instead of pageviews as a coefficient for bytes appearing in articles due to specific editors? EllenCT (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

Wikipedia servers and Trump threat against NYT

Does the WMF have a fail-over plan to run all Wikipedia file servers outside the U.S.? I have been hearing more troublesome comments to suppress freedom of the press, in "Trump Threatens to Pull Credentials of New York Times" ( So, I wonder, if the U.S. were overrun by a fascist dictatorship, does the WMF have a viable "Plan B" to run enough Wikipedia file servers from nations other than the U.S.? Historically, nations have turned to fascist controls when job unemployment seemed to reach high levels, or a foreign nation was claimed to have "Weapons of mass destruction" and enough zealots organized to take control of the government, while the broader populace "forgot to vote" to stop the takeover. I don't think WP would be safe, for long, in such circumstances, and should be prepared to re-host servers elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If the US were ever to be overrun by a fascist dictatorship (not even a remote possibility), then Wikipedia would probably be the least important concern on peoples' minds. A political candidate threatening to kick people out of his private press corps has nothing to do with a fascist dictatorship or anybody's servers. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I recall people thinking the Brexit vote "Leave" was "not even a remote possibility". I recall people thinking popular U.S. Vice President Al Gore losing the 2000 election was "not even a remote possibility" or Florida election officials thinking Gore losing the Florida recount (with a 1,000 extra write-in votes) was "not even a remote possibility". When the vote of the people is trumped by the U.S. Supreme Court denying a computerized recount, there is fascism afoot. Don't imagine it's "not even a remote possibility" when it already happened. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The odds of a vote or a Supreme Court decision going the wrong way are incredibly different from a hostile dictatorship managing to topple the United States government. That's not even in the same neighborhood as fascism. You're being silly, and this doesn't really belong here. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, a "dictatorship" can function secretly, for unseen financial $billions; in fact there's even a common Google Search phrase "Halliburton income from Iraq war" (search: [22], $39.5 billion). That was almost 15 years ago, but some people knew what was happening. Did you drive past the vast Halliburton megaplex under construction in Texas? As of July 2016, we didn't even have an article on the "ClassNet" DoD/DoS network. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You know what page you're on, right? "You're being silly" and "this doesn't really belong here" are mutually exclusive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh, fair point. I'm not usually orbiting Jimbo's talkpage, but I guess this is par for the course. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's called "Make all the content free, as in speech and beer". People all over the world have mirrors, copies, and DB dumps of Wikipedia. If it were to go down in the US for whatever reason, many of those people outside the US have the data and technical skill to get it back up and running again, and have the data (or at least the bulk of it, it might be a few days or weeks old). That being said, Trump can say things like that all day long, but whether he in fact could do them is quite another matter. So I wouldn't worry a great deal about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
... and yet the most senior politician in government actually in the UK right now, is Boris Johnson -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
For some very strange value of "senior". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC).
So, you know, I tend to agree with those who are arguing that the American system of checks and balances is strong enough to prevent any serious incursions on freedom of expression anytime soon. As others have pointed out, threatening the NYT with a lack of access is obnoxious and wrong, but it isn't the same as a systematic attempt to undermine the First Amendment in a way that would affect us directly. And the Supreme Court as currently constituted isn't really something like 5-4 in favor of freedom of expression, it's like 9-0. So even if Trump got to name a Supreme Court justice or two (a prospect that does frighten me a great deal) the odds of that turning into a situation where legal suppression of Wikipedia could happen is quite hard to imagine.
Even so, let's contemplate the hypothetical. Wikipedia could be moved to servers in Europe in very very short order. These days, hosting companies are able to spin up servers on demand in very very short order. I don't think a huge amount of contingency planning is necessary. It isn't like we have to physically order servers and install them like in the olden days when I personally did precisely all that. We also own hundreds of domain names so even if .org got compromised somehow, we could very quickly move.
And finally remember that we are powerful. The public loves us. They admire that we are a charitable community just seeking to share knowledge. Any attempt to shut us down would lead to big political repercussions - remember how quickly Congress reversed when we protested against SOPA/PIPA. This would be much bigger. I'll personally lead a march on the White House if necessary. But this is fantasy land - not going to happen.
Here's what I think we should worry about: the more subtle problem. There is a longstanding problem with mainstream journalism which is neither fatal nor even super duper serious, but a problem nonetheless. Governments can influence coverage by limiting (or threatening to limit) access. As we recently discussed on this page with respect to the situation in Russia (which isn't just about limiting access, but about more direct control over the press) the best way to vaguely "control" Wikipedia is not to interfere with us directly (that's quite hard to do) but to control reliable sources. My concern is not about Trump trying to shut down Wikipedia - my concern is if the major newspapers and networks cave into his bullying leading to a failure of reliable sources. Even that seems rather far fetched, by the way. The US press is not particularly docile, although often not as feisty as I would like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the re-hosting of servers. As for risk, if anyone had said pre-2000, "The votes of Americans will not be counted for President" (because it will "take too long") or predicted the U.S. will spend $2 trillion [23] to invade a nation which had no WMDs and further de-stabilize the Middle East... Like it can't happen here. But imagine what else could be done with $2 trillion. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
A note that as currently constituted the Supreme Court is at most 8-0 in favour of freedom of expression! Just to add to the mulling over Trump nominations. CMD (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course you are right, my mistake.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Ben Shahn, Register to Vote, Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) poster, 1946

The proper response to all of this, at least for US Wikipedians, is just to register and vote. I'm against political campaigning (on non-Wikipedia issues) in almost all cases on Wikipedia, but folks should be free to express their general political beliefs on user pages and user talk pages if it doesn't amount to campaigning. Certainly, expressing the idea "Register and Vote" is something I'd like to encourage. Ben Shahn was fairly left-wing and if you read the fine print on the poster it's also a bit left-wing, but I very much like his expression of the main idea. Anybody should feel free to borrow the poster. @Jimbo Wales:, may I put this on your user page? BTW, the WMF should not move to Europe, but to Canada, preferably Vancouver, if things get too hot. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that people should vote. I am with you in terms of being against political campaigning (on non-Wikipedia/Wikimedia issues) in almost all cases on Wikipedia - that's a can of worms that could be very destructive to the community. We have enough political battleground mentality around here as it is. But it's pretty non-partisan to say we depend on strong protections for freedom of expression, and that as individual community members it's a good thing to vote.
In terms of where we should move in a real existential emergency: I hope we never have to actually contemplate that. I actually think that a far more likely scenario would not be attempts to legally censor Wikipedia in the US - that's pretty impossible given the strength of the First Amendment jurisprudence in question - but attempts to force us to get rid of encryption or otherwise give the US a backdoor to spy on what users are reading. For me personally, that would be enough to trigger a massive publicity campaign followed by an exit if necessary. I suspect, although I can't be sure, and it wouldn't be unanimous of course, that the vast majority of our community would agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll remove it on Nov. 9. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd love the optimists to be right, but we need only look at what is happening to Gawker - not just the magazine but a whole slew of other publications like Kotaku owned by the same person. The U.S. is not a safe place to cross an oligarch who owns a chunk of the spy-industrial complex. Just ask Barrett Brown while you're at it, who also crossed paths with Palantir. We should be glad for our power, such as it is, and we must not be intimidated, but we should not let ourselves imagine that things will not come to open war ... and sooner rather than later. We will need to actually use those backups. Wnt (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
And I would advise editors to keep offline copies of articles they develop, in case a "virus" starts slanting more pages, in unusual ways. It seems some people think all fascists say, "Hello, everyone, I am a fascist dictator here to topple your government" rather than, "There's been a merger, and now we pay volunteers $big at Wikislantia, and so Wikipedia, you're fired". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
CC-by-SA and the ability to fork the 'pedia protect us here. If Wikipedia was taken over by WikiSlantia, then I'm sure somebody (probably in Canada) would start WikiFreedonia or WikiClassic and most readers would move to to the the truly free version. That's just one of our trump cards. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, and the word would spread quickly to know where most editors had gone. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump won't be able to cause problems for Wikipedia, the only possible realistic threat can come from disasters like this or this. To guard against such threats, we need to save copies, also hard copies of Wikipedia, and also consider the problem of how we can efficiently rebuild our technological infrastructure from scratch. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It would require repeal or at least massive changes to the First Amendment. That chances of that happening are pretty remote. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article on Wikipedia as not-therapy

Food for thought in there. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good page to download, to re-read for a few days or weeks, and contemplate the various events noted in the report. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Still #1 After 15 Years

While I personally would like to have a Wikipedian shown in the lead graphic that is more reflective of our diverse world and its many cultures than the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young European-American editor shown in front of the screen, it is nevertheless good to know that the work of him and tens of thousands of others is appreciated around the globe and that the encyclopedia continues to grow and improve each and every day. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the person in this photo Gregory Kohs? If not, it sure looks like him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I had that thought too. That would be wonderfully ironic if it was. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Confirmed, Greg Kohs is indeed the public face of Wikipedia *snicker* The WordsmithTalk to me 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This is what comes of using file photos. The journalist went off to the library and found a nice smiling person looking at Wikipedia on a computer monitor.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the fact that an image in an article has a white person in it. Wikipedia's "diverse" nature includes people from just about every culture, including a wide variety of white people. Choosing someone of a different race just for the sake of being inclusive would smack of tokenism. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you are right. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What is that huge box-like screen thing? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The "huge box-like screen thing" is a very old monitor with a cathode ray tube. Mr Kohs is probably in front of a 1280 x 1024 monitor.[24] None of the monitors is widescreen. This dates the photo to around ten years old. File photo indeed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It could also be a Russavia-class™ troll of some sort, I suppose, but the lazy journalist theory is probably right. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Gawd, Wikipedia is old! Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure it says "1,5??,000 articles", so that makes it about 2007. (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pre-internet era = prebiotic chemistry; Internet ---> exponential growth of self replicating cycles; Google = Transcription (genetics); Wikipedia = mRNA; reliable sources = DNA. A lot may change in the future, but these fundamental structures will likely remain forever locked into the system. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with Google?

(Resurrected from archive) Hello Jimbo, in regards to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Google_returning_outdated_text_snippet_for_Gender_page - we have been attempting for most of the week to get Google to remove a vandalism "text snippet" and are at a bit of a loss. We have attempted to use Google's content removal tool ask them to update their information, however the latest request was "Denied". Can you recommend a better method that our two top-10 websites can cooperate better? Thank you for your consideration. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This issue appears to be resolved - we are not sure if one of our many requests was processed or if Google updated their results by algorithm. — xaosflux Talk 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The exact problem has re-presented - how can we get some "management grease" to help assist partnering with Google support? — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, why not just wait a day or so. What other websites do is no concern of ours. (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Pending-changes mode will deter hack-edit text in search engines: For over 10 years, these major search engines, such as Google Search or Yahoo, have seemed to alternate between massive mirror copies of the search index, at times instantly updating the search-results snippet for a change made minutes prior, but then weeks later showing old snippets from revisions several weeks prior. It has been a frustrating problem for years, especially for vandalism quips removed weeks prior, but overall remember how the readership is beginning to understand how Wikipedia can have vandalism one minute but not the next, and to them, they might well imagine people are hourly inserting vandalism which is then removed soon after. Hence, in the mix, an outdated search-results snippet could be interpreted by the readership (from their perspective) as the temporary, but recurrent, nature of occasional vandalism. However, long term, the use of pending-changes mode, to prevent display of hack edits in major pages, will prevent such hack-edit text from getting indexed into the major search-engines. So there is a very long-term solution, by preventing hack-edits from gaining pending approval in the live versions of major pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's an extremely weak argument for Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch. Locking the database would also prevent hack-edits from showing up. (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed 'Gender' snippet in Google: I triggered a re-index of the lede paragraph of page "Gender" and Google updated within a few minutes (for the current mirror of Google's vast search-index database). The update might not last, if Google Search switches to another mirror of its search-index within the next week(s), but meanwhile we can rely on Google to show current contents in search-results snippets, as a means to undo hack-edit text (to last for a week or so). -Wikid77 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for the fix, even if it is temporary. FWIW, the page has been under semi-protection since June 23 (with a one-year expiration). Funcrunch (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    I just Googled gender and got (as the description for our article gender): "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." So this seems to have been resolved, even if only temporarily. Everymorning (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    So far, the fix has held for 2 days, and if the problem reappears (perhaps from a mirror copy of Google's search-index), then update the lede of page "Gender" again, to trigger a re-index in Google. In general, it is beneficial to think of future improvements to pages, and when a page gets hacked, I try to always improve another part of the page, rather than "waste" an edit to only revert a hack or vandalized text. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    The interesting thing is that the current snippet appears to be from this revision created by Xaosflux in an attempt to force an update, which contains nothing but the sentence in the snippet (similar to the vandalized revision which also consisted of just a short passage). In any case, I'll keep an eye on it, and the Village Pump thread is still open as of now. Funcrunch (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    Actually looking again I see that the current snippet is indeed Wikid77's revision, which is slightly different from that of Xaosflux, so nevermind on that. I'll still be keeping an eye on the search... Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your first name

Recently, someone added James as one of your two first names (in addition to Jimmy), citing this as a source. In addition, I was able to find this story from the Washington Post which refers to you as "James Wales". Can you confirm whether or not your first name is James, so we can determine whether we should list it as such in the page about you? Everymorning (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed James from the biography and opened a chat on the talkpage there. You only have to look on Jimmys userpage here User:Jimbo_Wales - to quote his own statement there - Hello! My name is Jimmy Wales, and this is my user page. I go by "Jimmy" in real life, but often by "Jimbo" online. People sometimes assume that "Jimmy" is only a nickname for "James", but it's actually my full first name. - Govindaharihari (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct - Jimmy is his real first name, even though many do think it is short for James. :-) Zerotalk 09:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
And as an example of why we should not rely on primary sources, on my birth certificate it says "Jimmie".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Definitely a good example sir! It is quite concerning that an error like that was made on your birth certificate, of all documents. Zerotalk 15:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Errors in documents were not just limited to birth certificates, or court records. In the 1970s, many U.S. textbooks contained various typos or math errors, and the problems were not reduced until broader use of computerized typesetting (or wordprocessing), in books such as Fortran IV with Watfor and Watfiv (April 1970, link: [25]). Perhaps the cost of fixing typos in printed textbooks was just too expensive in those years, so even math errors were left uncorrected in physics textbooks. It really gave the false impression that the academic world was filled with erroneous people, rather than minor errors were just too expensive to fix prior to the spread of low-cost, computerized typesetting. Anyway, the minds of the world were not "warped" by those typos, just as people today tolerate occasional hack-edits to WP pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems someone was just taking the Jimmy. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is "fuck off" the new normal for Wikipedia behaviour?

"Fuck off" is not the new norm for Wikipedia behavior. It's an old norm for offensive behavior and juvenile nonconformity. Like spitballs and pencil fights, this too will pass; somewhere betwixt first kiss and first beer, and first piece of cash. It will never rise above cool eye-candy for eyes youthful in gaze. The matter has been fully vetted and no amount of further commentary can alter the factual correctness of this close. It is now time to move on.--John Cline (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is "fuck off" the new normal for Wikipedia civility? Are we going down the Roger Ailes route where we tolerate it because everyone does it. No one deserves to be treated like that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very simple: If you don't like being told to fuck off, then adjust your behaviour accordingly. What's this; no luck at ANI, so thought you'd try another dramah board? Still, I'm sure some of the mongers around here will massage your ego and tell you what you want to hear. CassiantoTalk 21:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Like with Donald Trump, it is best to just let you express yourself, and people can decide for themselves. I bring it here because behaviour tolerated at Wikipedia reflects on the founder. By my incomplete count your told 8 people to fuck off or some similar incivil phrase, so, I don't feel special. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
More delusional bullshite from you, I see. I take responsibility for my own actions and if I want to tell troublemakers and trolls to "fuck off" from my talk page, then I will. In the past 24 hours you have hounded, edit warred, dramah mongered, and then templated me. Why then, when you harass me at my talk page, should I not be able to tell you to fuck off? Answer it, as you will, but I want nothing further to do with you and will not engage with you further. CassiantoTalk 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@RAN: "reflects on the founder" So John Yoo's Torture Memos reflect on Jefferson and Washington? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Stephen, if you tell people to "fuck off" you should be blocked for it immediately, and banned if you continue. Stop it now, it's not right. I am making no comment on whatever sequence of events led up to the incident, as there is no justification for it. A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way. We need to continue to be a better community than that. If you want to curse at people to try to modify their behavior, you should know that it seldom works -and you should know that there are thousands of message boards who tolerate it, and you'd be more than welcome there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess the "monger" spoke. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think you missed that it is Cassianto who has the dirty mouth. Stephan is a gentleman.
And no, "fuck off" isn't the new normal for Wikipedia behaviour; it's the entrenched norm, sadly. I've brought up the subject of civility numerous times on your talk page and elsewhere and finally gave up, seeing my ideas on civility are considered hopelessly priggish by most Wikipedians. YoPienso (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how gentlemanly my comment above was, but indeed, I have not in recent times, or indeed as far as my memory goes back, told anyone to "fuck off". Or called them Jimbu ;-). I have, however, tried to redact a PA, but to no avail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For my own part, someone who closes with a sarcastic "cheers" is far more irritating than somebody giving me an honest "fuck off". But I respect others who disagree -- and really, we shouldn't tolerate either one. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(Wow--I've often signed off with a sincere Regards or Best regards or Best wishes or Cheers, never sarcastically. I hope I haven't unintentionally given offense. Don't think so. YoPienso (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC))
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, User:Cassianto was the uncivil one, you can see his previous 8 "fuck off" comments on my user page where I was collating them before the ANI was closed as boys-will-be-boys. I stopped collecting when the ANI was closed. The rationale for the closing was "if an admin really thought saying 'fuck off' was bad enough, somebody would have been blocked for it." A good example of circular reasoning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales if you think that it's bad form to tell editors to Fuck off then you should set the standard by handling it. If people are allowed to simply get away with it then they will continue to do it. In the less than a month I have been editing I have seen it numerous times including from an admin a couple editors and in at least three edit summaries. I can provide some links if you want. Upon closer inspection it seems that a couple if the individuals use the term regularly when addressing others. So IMO stating the behavior isn't acceptable is less helpful than actually doing something about it.GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
On January 25, 2016, right here on this page, Jimbo dismissed the legitimate concerns expressed by Doc James as "utter fucking bullshit" in the wake of that editor's ouster from the WMF Board. When I asked Jimbo to withdraw those harsh words, he doubled down and dug in his feet. It turned out that most of what Doc James said was correct. The situation spiraled out of control, many valuable WMF staffers resigned and moved on to better tech jobs, a new member of the WMF Board resigned under a cloud, and eventually, the WMF Executive Director resigned without a tear being shed by anyone. Words have consequences and Jimbo is in no position to take a righteous stance against dropping "f-bombs". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
People wanting to instantly block users who resort to expletives should spend more time dealing with the many tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT contributors who waste enormous amounts of community time and energy. Sure, people should not resort to expletives. However, people should not waste community time by pushing and pushing and pushing their favorite thing. It would be great if a mechanism could be devised to instantly block both sides, but pronouncements that an expletive requires a block are particularly unhelpful because they ignore the actual problem and reward the editor who is really at fault. The comment by Jimbo mentioned above is diff. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
We should prosecute women that are raped, because they should not dress that way, they are just pushing and pushing. We call that victim blaming. Qatar Convicts Dutch Woman Who Reported Rape but Will Let Her Return Home. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that you are now comparing wikipedia editors to rape-apologists, do you not perhaps wonder why no one has sympathy when you bring one of your 'Everyone else is wrong' spurious complaints to AN/ANI? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone telling someone else to "fuck off" after they've been baited may not be blockable, but I strongly suspect that equating other editors to rape-apologists might well be. You're well out of bounds there. I'd quite forcefully suggest that you strike that, RAN. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You must see the irony in your continual blame the victim strategy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't over-react like that; nobody suggested we "instantly block users who resort to expletives." We're talking about a standard of civility, not an escalation in vengefulness. There would be a process of warning before a temporary block. If the user didn't improve his vocabulary, eventually there could be an indefinite block. Imo, administrators should more quickly be sent to the corner for a time-out since, along with using the mop, they should be (again, imo) modeling appropriate behavior. YoPienso (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but why not make a suggestion for how to handle the tendentious editor who pushes and pushes and pushes, but does not say BADWORD? I have never seen an editor who routinely uses expletives remain unblocked. The issue is how to handle good editors who occasionally resort to undesirable terminology when dealing with undesirable contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You wrote: "I have never seen an editor who routinely uses expletives remain unblocked." Apparently you have not followed the ANI I have linked to. Please read the subject of the ANI's comments below: "As for the future? Well, I shall continue to tell those coming to prod me to fuck off; this joke of a thread will have no bearing on my future conduct."
Sure, here's my suggestion: remain calm; don't take the bait; let normal editing procedures work. Railing back at a tendentious editor is counterproductive. We had one at the Charles Darwin talk page. You just have to back off and ignore his rants. The article hasn't suffered. We're all responsible for our own actions and it's our business to be civil even with difficult colleagues. YoPienso (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a quite a big difference between dealing with an annoying editor at an article talk page, and dealing with one who shows up at your talk page to template you and who raises spurious complaints at AN/ANI to drag you there. One can generally safely ignore the former, the latter requires an active response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. They usually get boomeranged or otherwise go down in flames. ANI checks your history, and if it shows good editing and collegial attitude the problem gets cleared up. I was falsely and rudely accused of being a sockpuppet once and threatened by an admin with banning. It was annoying and unnerving, but ended well. They ran a checkuser on me that showed I was thousands of miles away on another continent from my alleged alter ego. Problem solved. It just took a little patience and some help from friendly editors. Real life presents similar difficulties. Nothing to get upset about. YoPienso (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This is another example of the fallacy of circular reasoning. We justify bad behaviour because of templating a talk page. Yet, templating is demanded by the ANI process. Accusers "get boomeranged" is again an example of blaming the victim. Make a valid accusation and the surrogates and enablers will comb through your edit history looking for a gotcha moment to punish the accuser. You can see an example of it in the ANI I started. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yopienso you say: "nobody suggested we 'instantly block users who resort to expletives.' " -- er, I think Jimbo did above by saying: "Stephen, if you tell people to "fuck off" you should be blocked for it immediately, and banned...". But then I've never really taken anything Jimbo has said seriously, illustrated by Cullen's exposé, just above. As for the future? Well, I shall continue to tell those coming to prod me to fuck off; this joke of a thread will have no bearing on my future conduct. But I thank Richard Arthur Norton, anyway, for some added pleasure time in allowing me to read this to much hilarity. CassiantoTalk 06:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but Jimbo said that to you, specifically, because of your track record. (To be precise, he said it to Stephan, who he thought was you, and mistakenly called him "Stephen.") He added, "A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way. He didn't say the moment anybody says a bad word they should be summarily blocked. YoPienso (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Whenever anybody comes out with an outburst or personal attack I really think you have to look at the context and if the editor was provoked or not. Wikipedia does tend to attract particularly irritating people at times who will cross the line in harrassment territory and target an editor/editors for weeks even months sometimes. It can really be exasperating to deal with at times, especially if you've worked hard at an article and people are nitpicking or trying to force an infobox. Sometimes outbursts are understandable given how intense editing can be at times, but obviously ideally we would all be civil 100% of the time. Me, I try to be pleasant generally, but if I see an editor bullying others or just behaving annoyingly I won't hold back on saying what I think. It's just the way the site is, it's impossible to really be pleasant to people at all times. Sometimes certain people need to be spoken to harshly for unreasonable behaviour, though "f bombs" are sometimes a little harsh, and some are more understandable than others. Everybody has had heated moments on here, even Jimbo. I've been here 10 years now and I think it's impossible to not spend significant time on here without a heated dispute. I do think more people on here need to take a step back at times and look beyond certain disputes. Most of us are here for the same reason and share a similar passion for building this encyclopedia, and a lot of us tend to forget that. One thing though which I think tends to make situations worse is where one editor tries to draw out a dispute and try to get another editor blocked and take it to various talk pages as in this case. This is not the way to resolve a dispute and will only increase hostility in the long term rather than diminish it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are using the language of domestic violence to justify bad behaviour. They "pushed my buttons", they "prodded me", they "goaded me", "it got heated". If there are no consequences for bad behaviour it continues and escalates. If you want to troll people with incivility, use the comments sections of every news story online. I think they exist just for that purpose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not justifying anything. But I do think that you're milking this for all it's worth and you come out of it worse than if you simply had a heated argument with Cassianto and then yawned and moved on. I don't see what there is to gain by coming here complaining to Jimbo, knowing very well what the answer would be. If you really have a problem with its useage, the best thing would be to try to get arb to pass something which penalises an editor for saying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For years that was how Fox News operated. We should not have to accept it as part of Wikipedia culture and just move on. WP:Civility reads: In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. Why don't we just delete the page if it is never enforced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
I agree, but then we should also not have to accept people who contribute nothing to articles coming along and trying to enforce infoboxes upon articles where the people who have promoted them to GA/FA. It causes disruption with the disputes that follow and is really offputting to editors who promote content and opt not to have one. That to me is one of the most unacceptable parts of Wikipedia culture, but what can I do about it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't have worn that dress = You should expect this if you participate if RFCs and oppose my opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you calling me a cross dresser? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of us edit using machines behind corporate filters. Use of "f-bombs" results in the whole page being blocked. The same can happen for the word "bastard". So the simple message is: keep it civil, respect cultural differences or risk being unreadable to some readers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Martin. Some of us even edit in Lincolnshire (allegedly), where "bastard" is often used as a term of affection. Martin in Scunthorpe (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
About 6 months ago I had an email blocked from a garden centre. It was advertising bird feeders and claiming that it attracted several types of tit including great tits! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Oi, mate. Who are you calling a great tit!? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought Scunthorpe would have caused problems enough with automated censors. :) AnonNep (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes I see people express a desire to be consistent about censorship. The problem is, there is no consistency possible if you censor. Every comment is different, and every judge is moved more by his own personal biases and ulterior motives than by a hypothetical assessment of which term is worse than another (or which analogy is too provocative to make). Given an unfair and systematic bias, the solution is not to heap up more penalties on the weak end, because that will only lead to worse abuses by those alleging consistency while crushing somebody they don't like. Instead it is best always to focus on removing existing censorship, which is neither fair nor ever accomplishes what it claims to be seeking to do. Long ago I called civility enforcement "Wikipedia's War on Drugs", and I haven't seen anything to change my mind since; it is an enforcement that feeds into creating the problem it claims to solve.
That said, it is also helpful to examine positive duties that Wikipedians have, such as explaining themselves and discussing rather than just edit warring. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You are very wrong about all this, and I think it is because you are looking at it through the wrong filter. Thinking of this as 'censorship' is absolutely silly. Imagine if you have a little dinner party at your home. One of the guests is rude and abrasive to others. When people disagree with him on a some minor issue, rather than addressing the issue itself, he tells them to "fuck off". What do you do about? There are several options, but none of them really have anything at all to do with "censorship". My advice is this: don't tolerate behavior like that. Be forgiving of emotional outbursts, they do happen, and that's ok. Except to see apologies afterwards. Do not under any circumstances, though, suggest that such behavior is right. We are here to build an encyclopedia - nasty behavior to others is damaging to that effort. It's really that simple.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: The dinner party analogy just isn't accurate. Just imagine a dinner party where anybody in the world can show up and is supposed to have equal standing with anybody else doing the same thing. Imagine a dinner party where everyone is there to explain their own ideas. That's not a dinner party at all; it is something else, somewhere on a scale of public gatherings that runs in a gamut perhaps from a Rainbow Gathering to a Million Person March. With a dinner party, it's a monarchy - one single person in charge who can decide what he likes and what he doesn't, who he likes and who he doesn't. But with Wikipedia, allowing hundreds of admins to play their own favorites and set their own subjective opinions of what language and ideas is worst while looking over the behavior of whatever editors they happen to pick on is not much of a party. I'm not saying you can't have rules, but you can't work with the same kind of arbitrariness in the rules that you can if the only person the party has to please is you and you can see and adjudicate every situation yourself. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with Jimbo here, FWIW. ―Mandruss  18:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo, let's explore that imagining a little. Let's assume this dinner party has a person who, using polite language, declares an opposition to same sex marriage. Another guest asks why he should not be able to marry his partner just because he is gay, and gets the reply that gays aren't normal and don't get to redefine marriage, still expressed in polite terms. The second guest tells the first to "fuck off". I would see the second's comment as unfortunately worded (though I would not call it wrong), but the first as being the one whose behaviour was by far the more objectionable. True 'civility' is not determined by what words are used, and a reflexive objection to words without evaluation of the broader circumstances is unhelpful and can be unfair. EdChem (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Pending Jimbo's reply, I'll explore that with you. The point I think is that the "fuck off" response accomplishes absolutely nada except to inflame the situation, making any effective communication virtually impossible. Tell me to fuck off in such a situation and my pre-human attack reflex kicks in, my adrenaline spikes, and I go into self-defense mode and dig in my heels. At that point I'm deaf to any other words you have to say to me. People who use such tactics either (1) do not understand this involuntary reaction, or (2) do not seek effective communication. No mainstream (consensus) psychologist would support that kind of response, if you have any respect for the admittedly soft science of psychology.
Given that the practice is both counterproductive and offensive to many, I think "fuck off" proponents should be willing to refrain, and I don't buy the "I can't help it" argument. ―Mandruss  20:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think RAN and others are on the right track. He errs in believing that anything will be accomplished in discussions like this, however. Real change in this area will be achieved by (1) community evolution, debatably, or (2) WMF intervention. With the exception of occasional comments like these, I've long ago given up on this issue for the sake of my own mental well-being. My motto: In the end, it's only Wikipedia. (BTW, I have a mini-essay on the topic at User:Mandruss#Culture of disrespect.) ―Mandruss  18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo on " We are here to build an encyclopedia - nasty behavior to others is damaging to that effort.", but nasty behaviour goes beyond uttering expletives, some of the worst offenders I can think of on here are the ones who typically don't resort to direct personal attacks, but go about the site harrassing people and bringing a vendetta to multiple articles, psychological bullying on here really. That can be the most damaging I think. And they get away with it because they're "civil" in terms of abiding by NPA. Personally I'd rather somebody swear at me than spend weeks/months pursuing some issue and wearing me down by obsessively going on about it, or infobox warring!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The logic is that we shouldn't seek to address a problem while there are worse problems going unaddressed. But it's likely that some nuts are harder to crack than others; why not crack the easier ones first? (Assuming that either nut is crackable; see above.) ―Mandruss  21:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Has our civility compass really become so broken that we are even considering this. It should never be acceptable to tell another editor to "fuck off" (unless this is clearly done light-heartedly and is stated as such). I thought I read somewhere that editors should behave toward each other as if they were at real life work...I would not ever think of telling a colleague to fuck off. DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Considering this? Relative civility is community consensus, at least as per the voices of the editors who are prepared to speak up. We assume they are representative of the whole because we have no other choice. It doesn't take too much open-minded reflection to figure out that they are probably not representative, but there it is. And you've spent enough time at ANI to know this. ―Mandruss  22:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better if we treated inappropriate use of expletives as cries for help and all sent Wikilove messages to the editors in question, assuring them that they are loved and appreciated. --Boson (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is arguing that it is acceptable. However, there's a huge amount of territory in between "there is nothing wrong with this" and "you have been indefinitely blocked", and where any particular instance falls in that continuum is a matter of context. Incivility is still a major problem, but clear-cut civility blocks that don't take mitigating circumstances into account went out of fashion here 7 or 8 years ago. I remember dozens (hundreds?) of AN, ANI and Arbcom cases over a handful of extremely prolific content creators who constantly got in trouble for being rude to others. After a time the community got tired of the cycle of block influential editor > another admin unblocks > ANI thread > (loop for months) > RFC/U > Arbcom. There's never going to be any uniform concrete rule on it, because context is everything. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Many will argue that it is forgivable if one is sufficiently "provoked". Forgivable not once, but again, and again, and again with the same editor, without end. There are always ways to avoid the situation where one is provoked in the first place—we call them dispute resolution—but using them requires a bit of adult-like self-control. It's so much easier to just continue arguing until one is provoked and then tell them to go fuck themselves. (I believe Wikipedia is also a regular anger release valve for many editors, and using DR does not serve that need.) Keep turning up the flame until they (1) back down, or (2) take you to ANI, where you know from past experience you will be forgiven, once again, thereby reinforcing your behavior.
If this is not the same as "acceptable", that is a distinction without a difference.
The way to short-circuit your perpetual cycle is to stop the another admin unblocks step. As I've said previously, that would require WMF intervention and, since I don't see that happening in my remaining lifetime, I'm not optimistic. Essentially, this is merely a stimulating academic discussion for me, and I should probably stop wasting server resources here. ―Mandruss  22:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The only inconsistency to WP:CIVIL comes from who is doing the incivility and how many friends they have. This isn't a comment on Cassianto or RAN - this is a comment on the rest of you who quibble over this. At this point, I'm tired of this argument. Let's just drop the facade and accept that everyone, on all sides, protects their friends and they're not ashamed of it.--v/r - TP 01:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree and as I commented above if no one is going to enforce the policy and say or do something to these offenders then that policy isn't not worth the paper it's written on. I having the support of friends doesn't allow people to vandalize articles then they shouldn't be able to defend and justify their friends behavior in this way either. Jimbo is an admin and should do something about this behavior. GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Playing devil's advocate here, but is "fuck off" any different in meaning than "bugger off" or "piss off"? They all essentially mean "go away", but if any of the variants (or the actual meaning) were used, I don't think this thread would exist. So, is the personal attack in the intended meaning, the obscene word, or the manner which it was used? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say they are all about the same. When feeling that way it would be better to say: "Look, I feel as if our interaction isn't helping the encyclopedia. I'm going to back away from this issue now, and I would appreciate if you would do the same. Let's avoid each other for now, as clearly this isn't a good situation."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That would be a bit of a mouthful to say though. Better to have something like that in a Please Desist, you xxx (;-) ) thanks. Feel free anybody to develop that page. It should probably be developed as an essay. I'm sure there's lots of other similar pages on here, but it might be a way of telling people to fuck off without actually violating NPA. Can't see many people using it haha but it's worth a try!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The obvious solution is to create a subst-only template. Entering {{subst:fuck off}} then fills in "Look, I feel as if our interaction isn't helping the encyclopedia. I'm going to back away from this issue now, and I would appreciate if you would do the same. Let's avoid each other for now, as clearly this isn't a good situation." automatically. I am leaving Template:Fuck off a red link for now, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Could we have a real "fuck off you complete bastard" embedded in the template as hidden text? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Any of them can be seen as (will usually be seen as) offensive. We have WP:CIVIL with the clear and obvious instruction, "Do not be offensive to other editors". There is no question here as to what is offensive, rather the issue that established and popular editors are allowed to ignore both letter and spirit of this rule at will, and will be defended by their entourages.
I believe that CIVIL is a good principle and that we should keep it.
I believe, even more strongly, that if CIVIL is in force, it should be enforced. Equally, and to all editors. We are some way from this, to the harm of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, editors should be polite, no, editors should not swear at each other. However it would perhaps be a good idea to consider the underlying issue here that has caused the editor in question to blow a gasket - the neverending infobox wars, currently being fought on numerous articles and talk pages, an AN/I the other day, editwarring boards, an AE thread, AN, on and on and on. Content creators get increasingly bad tempered with others who have not contributed to the article they have worked on who only turn up en masse to insist, out of some ideological crusade, that every article needs an infobox. I don't blame the editor in question for reacting as he did to such provocation, although I would not use such language myself. The larger issues around the infobox wars are what needs to be addressed, not the use of naughty words.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
To me the problem is less about someone doing it once in a moment of anger or frustration but those doing it repeatedly and/or over minor disagreements. Those are the ones that should be addressed directly. GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am still staggered to see this thread continuing. In a moment of anger or frustration, editors could always write "go away" - that actually saves a key-stroke! DrChrissy (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Or, even better, not write anything at all and return to the topic later, at a calmer time. The instantaneous nature of the internet makes it easy to express your anger very quickly, but that doesn't always mean you should. Pinguinn 🐧 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
A very good point. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. Now fuck off. JOKE!Mandruss  00:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
And while the general thread continues to go on, at least three others have called out problems with the behavior of Cassianto in one article talk page. (RAN is one of them. I am another.) I heartily recommend anyone rolling through this thread to review Talk:Noël_Coward#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page?. Diffs are less helpful here than scanning the whole thing. I'm not going to bother with listing my own complaint at AN/I because I think that would be futile; been tried although confusedly with no action, and I won't even think about Arbcom because I can't be bothered with that much work. But, and not caring myself about the consequences because it is late and I've spent way too much time on one little RfC, if a banhammer falls on Cassianto I won't feel it is undeserved. He's certainly brought my wikimood down. And policy can be discussed all day long. It it results in no action against those who are uncivil, it will not help build the encyclopedia. And I'm too tired right now and too much of a wikignome to care any further about it. LaughingVulcan 06:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you pinged me? But seeing as I'm here again, I'll point something out: I note in your post above that you left out the part where you dismissed a featured article as having "stupid text"; that's the "stupid text" which someone has gone to the bother and expense to write for the likes of you. Your post was unacceptable, but is sadly indicative of the kind of comment expected from those catching a bus to an RfC they know nothing about. You should be embarrassed, disgusted, and wholly ashamed of yourself.
When I challenged you, you offered me a nopology whilst at the same time making up bullshit in order for you to come out looking like a victim. It won't wash, and running to Jimbo's page, much like your friend RAN did, makes you look rather pathetic. CassiantoTalk 08:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't intended to ping you; I guess linking someone's username does that, Cassianto? But I will now and since I spoke up about you here I'm glad it did ping you earlier. I referenced the whole talk thread above, I will that stand and let people read that and make any judgments of you and I from our interactions there as I've addressed the body of what you've said here over there ("stupid"). I've never spoken directly to RAN; he isn't an enemy but I wouldn't characterize him a friend. I was done talking to you, and still am, except to point out that now you have called me pathetic as well. Add that to the list of personal attacks you've engaged in, as well as attempting to continue trying to make this about me here when it is your behavior that is in question - and still is. You are uncivil, diffs will show that. I do not feel embarrassed, disgusted or ashamed, any passing admin is welcome to take action on either of us, and I'm done with you at this time. LaughingVulcan 11:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, you did intend to ping me; it doesn't just happen by mistake, you actually have to wrap link brackets round the user name in order to ping, so don't give me that cock-and-bull story. Secondly, of course, people are free to read the thread, but as far as blocking me is concerned, it'll take a brave admin to do that as blocking now will seem punitive and they could get desysopped for it. Thirdly:"I was done talking to you, and still am..." really? Because from where I'm sitting, you are very much continuing in your communications to me. Fourthly, I didn't call you pathetic, I was saying that you are coming across as "rather pathetic" for running to Jimbo's talk for tea and sympathy; there is a difference, you know. Fifthly, you don't need to provide diffs of my incivility; I admit, I am, at times, but I'm driven to it by people like you who rock up to insult the hard work of others by calling featured content "stupid". I don't think you'll get anybody around here agreeing with you that this was a justified thing to say. We are always on about "editor retention" and "not having enough quality articles", but a comment like that could drive people away or cause them to think better of it when they decide to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Sixthly, I note you have had no experience in writing featured articles, so I feel as if you don't fully appreciate what it takes to write one. I have written 21. That's 21 articles, each, of which, have taken around 3 months to write. That's the equivalent of about 63 months of my life I have spent trying to educate and entertain people like you. I don't even want to think about how much it has cost in buying books and subscriptions. The authors of Coward, whom I know personally, have a considerable amount more than me, so extend the 63 months by about half. To then have people like you turn up and dismiss the text as "stupid" is fucking disgraceful. If I were you, I'd seriously think about taking a break to reflect on what you've said and consider returning when you are a bit more appreciative of the hard work put in by others. CassiantoTalk 13:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Now, yes, I do have to provide some diffs and page links. No, I did not know how one pinged people, I only knew it was possible. Maybe it was while I was on Wikibreak from my user account 2008 and 2011 and then 2011 to July 2016. I really don't know, but maybe notifications and thanks and pings were implemented in between. And while I did IP edits over those years, I really didn't log in. I was thanked for the first time about a month ago and read that pings were possible after that. I'm not going to bother looking further into how I could be an editor for so long and not know about pings. In any event, I am telling the truth and you are completely wrong about that and so completely wrong that you are assuming bad faith at best. Since I came back from my last break I've been proceeding in the old school way of watching my watchlist and periodically reloading the pages. Now I know about them, and thanks for letting me know so backhandedly. Since you seem to take offense at it, I won't ping you this time. But I will say this as plainly as I can: stop calling me a fucking liar.
No, there is no difference in your using 'coming off as' or 'being' pathetic. Both reflect your belief I am pathetic. And you're wrong again. You have insulted me many times now, and each time I point that out to you, you make excuses for your behavior. "Somehow you pushed me into it," seems to be your big one for your civility failures. I just realized something else... You keep trying to make this about me. You keep trying to justify that my behavior is just as problematic. You can't seem to realize that all these words here on this talk are about you. But, as I've already said, I'll let others judge the merits of your behavior and mine. Will you? And you know what I'm sorry for? I seem to keep pushing your buttons and you seem to keep pushing mine. And yet I can't let go of it. Because if I bothered to take the time to look at all your contributions, I'm sure you actually do good work on Wiki. I'd find it hard to believe that someone does something for seven years, even intermittently, without wanting to do good. I just can't see it because of your other issues. And it's causing a massive timesuck for me and causing me to not want to be a Wikipedia editor again. Thanks for that.
I've tried to acknowledge me use of the word stupid was wrong, while still upholding the core of what I said in the one sentence where it appeared. If you can't adjust to that, well I wish there was a way. But here's my thing when you start bringing being an FA contributor into this, at all: On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level and are not entitled to their point of view. Only an essay but I happen to agree with it. I was, and still would, be trying to say that yes there are readers of articles who do not want to read text when searching for quick data bits that are in so many bio articles that I was surprised that there was such a thing over conflicts at including them. But I came here because of your behavior, not your positions on infoboxes, and not because you're a better or worse editor than I. You're trying to make it about these other things, or shift the blame to me. I've already tried to make amends for that one word, more than once actually. But you have not tried to make amends for your injuring words, but rather slip in the idea that calling my ideas and not me moronic and other terms makes a difference, whatever you tried to mean by that. You're trying to prove why you are Right. I'm joining an ongoing discussion about your behavior, not mine, and to add to the concerns others have already expressed about it.
You seem to be fixating on a single word, while I'm now pointing out how much damage you've caused by most of your edits in that page in your requirement to prove yourself Right. And, while I had come to the conclusion earlier, now I'll outright say it: You are bullying. Blocking you would not be punitive. It would be stopping you from editing because you refuse to follow the civility policy and assuming good faith of other editors. I'll now add: you are the wrong person to suggest that I leave Wikipedia for awhile, even if true. That. Is. Bullying. And my conclusion is you are making a not-so-subtle threat/warning outlining what you feel the consequences of any Admin action would be on the Admin. In short, you are proactively attempting to bully any Admin who would dare take action against you using a very gamesmanship "warning". Again, I invite any passing uninvolved admin to judge the situation using the diffs I've provided in this entry and above entries as well as your talk page and take whatever administrative action is necessary. Upon both you and me. I find it most ironic that you suggested I show you some respect when you so completely fail to do so to me, and others. But you think you know what "the likes of [me]" are.
Since you won't let go of the bone, again I offer any interested party to view the diff of the Noel Coward talk page as it exists now page and judge for themselves what I said wrongly, recognized the wrongness of my word, and attempted to amend and was rejected. But I'll say here again I apologize to any editor of that article, and sure, any FA contributor, for having used the word stupid in connection with the word text in that one sentence. Now, contrariwise, what have you done about your incivility problem besides admitting you have one and telling us you'll do nothing about it? But, sure, I agree with you. I'll sure put in a wikibreak now of at least 24 hours - you have well and truly reminded me why I took the last one. (Oh, that's right, you were concerned with editor retention, weren't you? But you must have meant Good Editors by however you choose to define that, as you feel no need to amend your conduct.) Thanks for the suggestion of taking a wikibreak. I'll leave the dinner party for awhile and hope I'll come back later, thanks for that analogy Mr. Wales. My apologies for joining in at the argument at your table. Now that I think of it, maybe I'll come back from break when you agree to be civil, Cassianto. I doubt I'll wait that long, though. But you can let me know on my talk page when that happens. Since I'm breaking now, you can have the last word if you want it for at least the next day or you can let this slip into the Archives until a time when it might be used later. I'll tell you what would make me forget this whole thing.... You admit you have a problem with being civil. I reject your, "you pushed me into it," defense. What are you going to do about your civility problem, Cassianto? And not just to me: To every one of us who are pointing out this serious problem of yours? We are, you and I, much better than this to argue further. LaughingVulcan 22:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary Most of the thread here concerns sympathy for fleeting expletives, something said in the heat of the moment and is instantly regretted and apologized for. What we have here is chronic lack of WP:Civility that is being used to intimidate other editors, to get them to stop working on articles that Cassianto is also working on. The editor states he will continue the incivility: "As for the future? Well, I shall continue to tell those coming to prod me to fuck off; this joke of a thread will have no bearing on my future conduct." . The consequences are clearly outlined in WP:Civility, which reads: In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. If we are not going to enforce WP:Civility, lets agree now to remove the page. Having !wikilaws that are enforced unevenly, based on how many friends you have in the community, is an abuse of the system. These are from the previous 1,500 edits by the editor, there are more if you go further back in the edit history, I stopped at page 3: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You have already posted all that at an AN/I you opened and was swiftly closed [27] with the wise comments of the closer that this is all about the infobox wars and a matter for AE or maybe ArbCom (again). Bringing it here will not do any good, unless maybe it makes you feel better.Smeat75 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Any single administrator can quash and ANI. It was closed because it was improperly classified as a disagreement over infoboxes, when it is about WP:Civility, it has nothing to do with infoboxes, that is a red herring. If two people argue over chewing gum and one punches the other, the criminal charge is assault, you are not charged with arguing over chewing gum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah it's okay, Smeat75, let RAN have his moment. He's obviously getting some kind of kick out of all this. He is immensely sore about having the AN/I filed as he was hoping for a bit more; alas, he was told to go away and that is why he has wound up at this Kangaroo Court. The closing comments there were, perhaps, a lot more polite than what I'd have told him to do. Still, embarrassing himself here reflects worse on him than it does on me. It makes him look rather sad. CassiantoTalk 14:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
^^^^Jimbo, this brand of self-righteous, openly hostile belligerence is too often tolerated, if not supported, and it's precisely what I and others have been talking about in this thread. This is not the kind of thing that should be subject to consensus among vocal editors, since those who subscribe to it will forever be the most vocal, being always up for a fight. As long as this is the model, the most aggressive and hostile among us will drive away or keep away many of those who would oppose their behavior, perpetuating their manufactured consensus. Self-governance fails here, and the evidence of that is staring us right in the face. ―Mandruss  00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's okay to for someone to go about poking, stalking, harassing, and behaving like, what would be considered in real life to be, an idiot, yet when the person who is being poked, stalked, harassed and treated like an idiot calls the poker, stalker, harasser, "an idiot", that's unacceptable, is it? CassiantoTalk 16:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not to use infoboxes, and since there seems to be multiple disputes at various articles stemming from this, it might be useful to add guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A while ago (Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 18) I tried to convince people to at least rewrite WP:Civility into something resembling a policy rather than an etiquette and lifestyle guide about stuff like how to avoid losing your temper that could be cited, most often unread, to support any position. At least then people could see what the policy was. Needless to say, this convinced no one. The worst-written stuff on Wikipedia nowadays are the policies, and then people wonder why so much time is wasted arguing about them. Wnt (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am fine

My twitter was hacked. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Meet OurMine, the Hackers Targeting the Tech Elite Count Iblis (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Media coverage from Mashable here. Does the account have login verification, which requires a mobile phone code to be entered before logging in?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Twitter is constantly being hacked, more specifically big Youtubers were primary targets for the past few weeks. Don't freak out, it's becoming the new mainstream on Twitter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Facebook also? For those like me who are thinking that's exactly what a hacker would say, Jimbo has apparently also been in touch with the Foundation in ways only Jimbo would know about. Looks like we won't need to block and de-sysop him after all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Count Iblis posted made them sound like they weren't doing that sort of obnoxious vandalism. I wouldn't rule out a different vandal did it and then cited them just as a way to cover his tracks (slightly). The most disturbing part of that article though was the claim by OurMine that there was some kind of exploit to get saved passwords out of a browser. There are a lot of people using Wikipedia who have saved their passwords in the browser, and if someone can really get at them, they can simultaneously vandalize accounts and "out" the people who hold them. Definitely should be a top security concern for Wikipedia, if there's any truth to it. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Upside: they "targeted Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey" [28]. Downside? Possibility of nude selfies. :o AnonNep (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
if interested, new stub for OurMine created. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
My completely uninformed guess is that since their hacks have mostly been of people on twitter, they have gotten a download of twitter's hashed passwords and have spent a lot of time running password crackers against that. Unlike most of my passwords which follow best practices, my twitter one wasn't completely awful but not as good as I normally use these days. It could have been cracked within a mortal amount of time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear that reports of your death were exaggerated Jimbo! NickCT (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

World needs password+pin security

I guess we are still in the "dark ages" of computer security, and it is frustrating to see people stuck with one-password accounts, while a password+pin login system (with the pin code stored separately from the password) should become the norm. In fact, I would recommend a "password macro" code which changed the password daily (or hourly), so that even if a person "saw" the password entered one time, then that same password would fail the next day because the password-macro code would require different text for the next login. Perhaps a pin-code which differed by day-of-week could be invented, so a person would select their 7 pin-codes for the 7 days of the week, as an extra security measure. Anyway, these days of one-password entry seem to be primitive times, and I hope the world evolves to use password+pin (separate) login codes in the near future. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that complicated systems like that make it hard for the user to well, use. Who needs advanced and complicated passwords that nobody can crack if the rightful owner can't remember them themselves, or must install another program to use? But then again I'm not a public figure or famous person, so I have substantially less to lose. Pinguinn 🐧 21:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
After decades of computer work, 2 degrees, and years of helping users, it can be amazing how well people respond to advanced technology. In the 1980s, some people predicted the "end of text entry" (not again) by point-and-click, but meanwhile "texting" skyrocketed as people learned to "abbrevi8" txt" and favored quick txts versus playing phone tag where 70% of phone calls were unanswered or people hated wading through tedious lengthy voice mail. Instead people can learn even complex methods quicker than imagined, especially when repeated (like 50 times to memorize a 2-hand piano piece). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Honeypot methods should also be used more widely. It's possible to designs a system that links a username to a large number of passwords, such that only the password set by the user leads to a normal login while the other passwords (generated automatically by the website that are of a lower strength) lead to a login to a fake account that the real user may control. If such a fake login happens then the user will be alerted that someone is trying to hack his account. The user can then change his password (it may be that the database of hashed passwords has been hacked). Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a great idea to track, or trace, the origin of hack edits or misuse of an account, beyond authorized co-users. Indeed, the future of computer security will be amazing. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
My company had a system where the password changed about once a minute, but that was over a decade ago, and eventually abandoned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
RFC 2289 S/KEY is still the best. EllenCT (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Username/password systems are weak security no matter how they are used. Multi-factor authentication which requires a person to have physical ownership of something, such as a mobile phone or token which can be used to enter a one time code, is becoming increasingly commonplace. Most major email companies support two step verification and many banks do too.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, those multi-factor authentication systems can produce the exact opposite effect in public, when I entered one email account+password which aseked 2nd email+password, then 2nd account asked txt phone number but I had other phone with me which I reset both onscreen and entered. Hence, anyone watching, or a video-phone propped on a bookcase, could record me typing 2 email accounts, 2 passwords, 2 private phone numbers, plus see how to reset phone number to any burner phone, all because the email companies thought multi-factor login was secure, while I was forced to give 6 private codes quickly in a public venue. But wait it gets worse; the accounts suggested I give tax-id number if I forgot (or mother's maiden name as a verification question). Meanwhile my security senses were in total meltdown, giving 6 private codes together in public, as I instantly realized the grotesque, anti-secure folly of those email login systems, where users actually need dummy 2nd accounts and burner phones to overcome public video of logins. Instead a simple 2-part, password+pin would be much safer (as stored separately) and quickly cover keyboard (under table?) during pin entry. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't log in while in public places, simple. If all and sundry can see you logging in, it's too risky. Don't use mother's real maiden name as a password question either. Some systems allow you to print out a series of one time passwords if you must log in while in public, but it is never ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the place where those "password questions" go wrong is that they don't actually have their computer verify that you can quickly find the answers on Google. I mean, your first pet might have died the same day before you had a chance to post pictures to Facebook, or there's a chance you just immigrated from West Jihadistan where the women's names aren't considered worth recording by the local authorities, or they don't have computers at all, and then you could provide a security answer that isn't immediately hackable by anyone who wants to. That would clearly defeat the whole purpose of having a short list of pre-set questions requiring publicly available data to answer. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Two-factor authentication isn't as secure as S/KEY, which is often if not usually implemented as two factor. EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that some of those hacked Youtubers actually had 2FA enabled. In some cases the unacceptable lax ways in which phone operators allow people to 'get a new SIM because I lost my phone' were to blame for these hacks, and in other cases the only thing which can't really use 2FA (well it could, but not too practically), namely "Find my iPhone" was abused to lock people out of all their accounts. There is no perfect security. I would advise people to compartmentalize, so that hackers at least cannot take over your entire digital life through one entry point. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

U.S. swimmers, diplomacy and media bias

On "Lochtegate" USA Today Sports report: [29]. Wikid77 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The robbery incident of 4 U.S. Olympic swimmers has quickly widened into arrests,[30] fines and final release, but the incidents have gone "wiki-viral" with text now in several pages which I have been updating for wp:NPOV coverage. After hours reading several sources+videos, I have concluded that Ryan Lochte was basically telling the truth about the complex events (despite horrific media bias claiming otherwise), but adverse reactions from Brazilian authorities have obscured the truth. Perhaps most complex is the fact there were multiple taxicabs; the first was paid and bolted after 6am, so the swimmers were confronted by 2 armed security men after hailing a 2nd taxi. The swimmers had left an exclusive party at the elite French equestrian club (outside the Olympic zone), with no motive to support claims of vandalism, which the swimmers denied, and the fall of a loose-hanging framed advert poster in the station seemed minor because the CCTV video shows the frame still intact when lifted by a gas-station attendant who was with the 4 swimmers as they calmly walked from the room within 17 seconds. Later, Rio police chief Veloso confirmed a security guard had "brandished" a gun (or 2?) and demanded payment at gunpoint, and statements by the swimmers agree they were confronted by armed security men (flashed a badge and gun) who demanded they leave the [2nd] taxi,[31] commanded them at gunpoint to sit on the (wet) sidewalk on-video before a translator arrived, and "pay" for vandalism which they said they did not commit (USA Today Sports: "soap dispenser hung on the wall and the mirror was not damaged"[32]; TMZ: "sign was the only thing damaged"[33]). Beyond armed robbery, it seems a case of kidnapping onsite (at gunpoint), and possible extortion by threats to call police unless the guards were paid. The amount varies from US$53-$400 (TMZ: [34], Reuters: [35]), plus extra taxi fares for the cab(s) which left the swimmers stranded at the scene (must cross-check money paid by each swimmer). Naturally, college students (Gunnar Bentz [UGA] & Jack Conger [UT] ) would not likely discern "extortion" at the moment, but the political and police pressure to retract statements under threat of imprisonment and fines seems clear in the athletes' haste to get-the-heck out of Brazil. Several other Olympians were also mugged or robbed during the games, but did not receive as much coverage or media bias. Well, these aspects are a reason why Wikipedia encyclopedic coverage is a good thing. Meanwhile if interviewed by world media, beware some bizarre media distortions of the situation, even in August 2016. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2016, +sources $400/robbery. 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a good laugh! Edison (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
There is also pressure on the involved swimmers from their paymasters to change their stories, or at least formulate it in a more politically correct way. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Lochte is 34, not a friggin' "college kid". Capeo (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Above, I mentioned "college students" (as even age 35 or above), but re source webpage, as college swimmers Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger; sources report Lochte age 32. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, 32, sorry. In other words a grown damn man who should be smarter than pissing on a building like a child, pulling down a sign, yelling at armed guards and the exaggerating about it to make himself look tough. And what truth is being obscured? They all told their stories at this point. Capeo (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The other swimmers said Lochte did not take a leak in shrubs, plus noted the framed sign was loose (so could have fallen if a drunk man leaned for support). The "truth obscured" is how a demand, at gunpoint, for payment of damages in excess of the fair value, of items, is considered to be armed robbery, even in Brazil. When overpaid, there should be a note of change intended along with the store receipt of payment; the lack of written receipt or change returned for overpayment then screams, "ARMED ROBBERY". Some investigative journalists had inspected the gas station and found no broken mirror/soapcase nor signs of new replacements, plus talked to employees who reported damage was minimal, as the framed poster only. The police report is contrary to hard evidence, and/or the U.S. swimmers are owed a big apology+refund for being robbed and slimed by incorrect police reports. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Your persistent ranting against your perceived anti-American bias in foreign media sources is getting boring now - can you post it at WT:CSB instead, rather than this rather irrelevant forum? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think he considers the media to be anti-American per se. I think it's more to do with his view of how the media becomes the de-facto jury, judge and prosecutor in controversial cases. Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's possible, but every example he posts is where some foreign news source is perceived to have been biased against an American. He's previously been topic-banned and blocked for similar [36] (some while ago, but he's brought the subject up here repeatedly more recently), and it's getting tiresome now especially when we have an actual forum especially for complaints such as these. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Black_Kite: my focus is on college students+others accused of crimes or misdeeds when the evidence does not (at all) support the police charges but diverts attention from real crimes committed; I'm not implying the police colluded in the crimes, but rather, the evidence cited by police is rejected by independent investigators (by people not hired by those college students), and media bias imagines the police reports are true, while victims and others are all wrong in their shared opposite view. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There are some run-of-the-mill BLP issues that apply here; for example the Jimmy Feigen article cites the claim about the soap dispenser without giving the contradictory information by TMZ. Also, we need to be careful that claims about each person in their biography are in fact about them - i.e. is Feigen the one who peed in the bushes, did Feigen knock down the sign, and if not, is this actually relevant to him, and at least, are we clear that it's not necessarily about him? And is his side of the story being properly told? There are, unfortunately, some things that we can't make original statements about, such as whether a false statement about the damage casts doubt on the gas station's story about the not-a-mugging-really at gunpoint. One injustice I'd like to see Wikipedia set to rights is that these articles are not illustrated - is there hope that WMF can arrange some kind of media contact at the USOC (and other national olympic organizations) who could get them releases on a big cache of athlete photos? Wnt (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Beware media-believe-police bias

Jimbo, you might not like this subtopic much better (after "U.S. police shoot more whites"), but there seems a form of bias in a media-believe-police viewpoint, in line with state-sponsored news reports as "Crimea freed from Ukraine oppression" (or not really?). I've also heard lawyers warn how a typical jury will tend to believe the police at trial (egad), as if most jurors never learned about massive police corruption, but then again the jury selection process tends to omit jurors who know about numerous police misdeeds, drugs sold/smoked from the evidence locker, etc. This is tangent to U.S. swimmers allegedly robbed in Rio, but it might be a major form of bias in worldwide source references. Perhaps some day, WP will have a policy to beware news from police reports and confirm by other independent evidence. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania in India

Formerly Wikimania 2017

I propose that Wikimania 2017 occur in New Delhi, the capital city of India. With the prospect of greatly increased coverage of India-related topics and of material in the languages of India, some Indian translators might be willing to provide (to the conference) translation and interpretion at no charge or at a reduced charge. (Please see also Category:Available translators in Wikipedia.) Also, the media of India might be willing to broadcast some or all of the sessions at no charge or at a reduced charge. All India Radio has its headquarters in New Delhi. (Please see also "Lists of television stations in India".) If a conference in New Delhi is not feasible or not desirable, then I propose Mumbai (formerly Bombay) or Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) or Chennai (formerly Madras), but New Delhi has the advantage of having a more central location.Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's too hot in summer and in the colder periods the problem is air pollution, levels peak between November and February. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
More recent article. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I invite comments from Category:Wikipedians in New Delhi (User:Aswarup84 and User:Cheekubaaj and User:Eakl0081 and User:Khalidgaur and User:Msnanda and User:Imnaiyar and User:NaiyarIm). Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2017 has already been scheduled for Montreal, but proposals for future ones can be made. Jonathunder (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Who makes the decision where it is held? QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
See meta:Wikimania#Future_Wikimania_locations. Ravensfire (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Before I started this discussion, I consulted the article "Wikimania", and it mentions neither "Montreal" nor "2017".  I am revising the heading of this section from Wikimania 2017 to Wikimania in India. Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Air Ink might reduce the air pollution. Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Let us not dismiss New Delhi too quickly. Conferences have occurred in New Delhi. (Please see and Advice on managing various challenges (heat and air pollution and monsoons and earthquakes) might be available from the Ministry of Tourism (India) and Incredible India. (Category:Tourism in India contains many articles.) English Wikivoyage ( has an article at voy:Delhi and a tourist office where online visitors can ask questions. Another resource is Askalo ( > >
Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see also Wiki Conference India and Category:Wikipedia meetups in India.
Wavelength (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think a higher priority should be finding a way for people who don't fly halfway across the world to view and comment on these events online. Wikipedia is a global online collaborative community and it seems unacceptable to accept Wikimania as a meeting of those with the money and time to go rather than putting WMF resources into creating the best universal online meetings the world has ever seen. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if most of the attendees are residents of India, the conference can be successful without being a web conference, although that can be another goal. Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply India in particular is out of the way - every conference site is halfway around the world from most of us (erm, actually I meant a quarter of the circumference by that...). Wnt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if most of the attendees at Wikimania at any location (for example, Esino Lario or Montreal) are residents of places within a radius of 1000 kilometers, the conference can be successful without being a web conference.
Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see
Wavelength (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)