User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64

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

Revenue sharing on wikipedia

There is a discussion that you should consider, sir. Right here. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A "discussion" is it? Hmmmmm. More like a rather ill-considered statement made by one person a week ago that got less traction than a funny car in a mud flat... Carrite (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Message to Persians!

Dear Mr Jimmy Wales, thanks for your message and congratulations to Wikipedia Persian users which recently reached their 100,000th entry! :) --Shayan7 13:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talkcontribs)

Hi MR. Wales,
Thanks for your message in our little celebration.
I and other persian users hope to growing this free encyclopedia in all days. TruthPraiser (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Likely leaving the project....

Dear Jimbo, FYI. Basket of Puppies 05:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you atheist???

Here is quote: [1] "The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales"... If you are atheists, then I stop editing wikipedia from today as I undertand its goals opposing God. However if you are not atheist - then I may have some hope for theistic wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.239.216 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. If you are wondering what the hell this is all about, the best route into this unedifying spectacle is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hare Krishna. Basically this guy thinks we have a grudge against his religion because his POV and poor quality content is up for deletion. I would like to make him understand that there is no grudge and that good quality writing on religious subjects is very welcome but I don't think I am getting through. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the IP's comment was rude and uncalled for, and Jimbo's religion is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia's goals are concerned (to create the most comprehensive encyclopedia of knowledge ever created); I must however point out that bad English, poor grammar, and not following our procedure's when in good faith trying to contribute does not make someone's contributions unneeded nor unwanted. Please work with contributors who dont live up to your "standards", poor quality can be fixed and is not a reason to dismiss contributions made in good faith. POV is another issue, and yet we have plenty of POV-pushers who end up in the long run making contributions (though I would never call them good) that are kept around. Perhaps a mentor is in order if this IP wishes to truly help the encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The nerve of some people to not believe without evidence in an invisible BFF in the sky. Unbelievable! - WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack, meet closet: Disgruntled IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why Jimbo being atheist or not has anything to do with the encyclopedia as a whole. His religion doesn't affect the running of the encyclopedia, unlike Conservapedia (E=liberal plot to encourage godless relativism!) Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing a page as a basis for your argument that calls itself "trustworthy" and fails to provide any sources for its claims is generally not a good source to take your arguments from. ;-) Regards SoWhy 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, after reading that link to the Conservapedia page regarding what we "got wrong" here on Wikipedia "because of our liberal bias" I am... on the floor laughing! I never knew that conservative right-wing Christians do not believe in gravity! Even Wiley Coyote believed in gravity once he looked down! Oh, wait... he was an inventor and scientist in a way, so he was probably liberal... if he had been conservative he could have kept walking off that cliff and caught the Roadrunner! (who was probably a Muslim terrorist anyways!) Well, that page has simply strengthened my belief that liberals and Democrats need to have a stronger backbone and fight back stronger and more aggressively because seriously a Republican with those views should never win an election EVER. (And in the city I'm from Albany, New York, Republicans routinely come in third and have not won any election in over 50 years whether for mayor, alderman from any ward, treasurer, etc). So it's proof that Republicans CAN be stopped!)Camelbinky (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Not all Republicans are like that, you know. Just saying is all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
True, there are still Rockefeller Republicans like Arlen Specter and Michael Bloomberg... oh wait not anymore... well there's... well, damn, I guess you have Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Pataki and Rudy Guiliani, how's that working for them in their popularity among the national organization when they dont sell their souls and lose their integrity like John McCain? I agree when it comes to regular registered Republicans and Conservatives there are plenty who are reasonable and intelligent and believe in the scientific method. However, the party since Ronald Reagan has been hijacked by the religious right on a national scale, but whereas RR had his one commandment "thou shall not attack another Republican", now-a-days if you are not right wing you are not only NOT a Republican, you are not patriotic either, to which Dick Cheney played dumb about breaking RR's commandment by attacking Colin Powell with the comment- "I was not aware he was still a Republican". But I am getting very soap-boxy, I would love to have a real discussion about national and local politics ("all politics is local"- Tip O'Neil) and if you wish to discuss this seriously we can go to a sandbox off my user page and continue what I consider an interesting topic.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I'd prefer not to. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, don't judge us all by the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh wing. The social libertarians aren't that bad. Soxwon (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is why I hate politics....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What is infinitely more preferable here is that it should not be possible to determine an editor's politics or beliefs by the edits they make; that is the whole point of neutrality, although sadly some editors will use whatever platform is available to them, including this encyclopedia, to pursue their own agenda. I hesitate to suggest that such editors should be shot, poisoned, or otherwise eliminated, but those of us who merely wish to provide the facts tend to get sidetracked by these people, and that is entirely without the cheap and utterly unnecessary vandalism that is a daily bane to those with better things to do. Although we allow unregistered editing, it is in my opinion increasingly an invitation to edit irresponsibly as Wikipedia's popularity and influence arguably increases. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, stop! Now! Guys, Don't feed the trolls, especially not on this page. And the anon above has already been blocked. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, watch your tone and dont act like that again. You are being uncivil and dont ever act like that towards me or anyone again.Camelbinky (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is a devout member of the Wiki church. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009

[[2]] The bog turtle article featured on 8/30 main page was the result of a high school biology project. I just thought you might appreciate that the Wiki-project has found its way into public education at the secondary level in such a positive way. The project is here:Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009. We should have the 2010 attempt up and running soon. Thank you for sharing your vision.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanks

Thanks for giving me his welcome. You were very kind. Augusto Antonio (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2010 (CEST) (timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Cyclopia's unexpected promotion to "spokesman" for Wikipedia by journalists of the Independent

88.106.151.183 (talk · contribs) has been promoted by Bignell and Bell to "approved Wikipedia committee member" as well. You've dealt with the press on occasion. Do you have any tips for Cyclopia and 88.106.151.183 on rectifying these reports? Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  • There's probably a case to be made for removing the ending. But really the "approved Wikipedia committee member" is talking real bollocks when it says "the revelation of the ending breaches an oral contract between the actors and the audience. Such is the fame of the secrecy that an audience member cannot reasonably attend without knowing their role to play in guarding it, and thus an oral contract, implied in fact, has taken place." One does not need a lawyer to smell the distinct odour of BS. If that's our approved spokesman, all I can say is "bring back David Gerard".--Scott Mac 14:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • David Gerard just commented at the Daily Telegraph"s piece on this. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a frivolous news story, sloppily written. Ignore it. 86.150.119.135 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no personal interest in correcting the report. But I think WP has a strong interest in not being publicized as having me ,or any other random humble editor, as a spokesman. --Cyclopiatalk 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Basically, if you don't want full information on something, you probably shouldn't look in an encyclopedia" (Gerard). Priceless. Geometry guy 18:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "We burnt all 45,000 spoiler templates, laughing with glee as we brutally murdered them," (Gerard) not so priceless symbolism. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Cyclopia's promotion to Wikipedia "spokesman" by Bignell and Bell, whom they say was "asked what the site's policy is", is echoing around the world, now. No mention of David Gerard in any piece, yet, despite his suggestion that this "is surely Press Complaints Commission material" at The Independent. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. It was on the major Italian newspaper today, too. Given the fame, I'd like at least a picture with Jimbo Wales to show to my friends! Face-smile.svg --Cyclopiatalk 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Now seriously: Shouldn't WP contact someone to point that editors in talk pages are not "spokespeople" of WP? --Cyclopiatalk 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Well in a sense we all are spokesmen for the Wikipedia; that this joint functions somewhere between direct democracy and functional anarchy, no one is above or below any other. Now if the writers were claiming you were a spokesman for the WMF itself, that's a different matter. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Technically I agree a lot, yet I doubt that's the impression people receive by reading such news articles. An IP editor was called an "approved committee member", which is plain nonsense. --Cyclopiatalk 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No mention, either, of the 1990 encyclopaedia that revealed who the murderer was in its The Mousetrap article. Ironically, anyone wanting to know what the encyclopaedia is need only go to our The Mousetrap article, where it is cited. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Erik Hayden, of The Altantic Wire, explicitly reports Cyclopia as having been interviewed by The Independent. Still no mention of David Gerard, or the 1990 encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

More evidence that there is no such thing as "reputable sources" when one is talking about the media. It's either mainstream or alternative, frivolous or serious, factual or false... Every story in every source must be weighed for veracity. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this very much. That was very well put, Carrite. I also have to wonder sometimes, for I often see the argument of "no-censorship" being used all to often to demonstrate that we can do something, such as reveal entire plots where a summary would suffice, (often times taken from the original source because secondary sources rarely reveal endings), but rarely do I see an effective argument as to why we should. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm more minded of a quotation that is often misattributed to originating with James Callaghan or Mark Twain, but which was actually said by Charles Haddon Spurgeon long before Callaghan; with even he not claiming that it was original (and which Wikiquote notes was said by Fisher Ames even before that):

Of course, what Spurgeon immediately went on to say next is often forgotten. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, it does not injure us; for if light as feather it travels as fast, its effect is just about as tremendous as the effect of down, when it is blown against the walls of a castle; it produces no damage whatever, on account of its lightness and littleness." 81.147.52.103 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Herero Wikipedia

Herero Wikipedia can to come into begin again! why you closed it?--88.253.215.159 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was closed following this discussion m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Herero Wikipedia in 2007 and moved to the incubator. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage is in a category

Disregard: I had the wrong presumption -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Your userpage User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification has a category, and so appears in Category:Inactive project pages.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Inactive project pages]]. -DePiep (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

it was added to this category recently by user:OlEnglish. By popular demand, we have no WP:CRED. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the policy you cite only requires users to not put userpages and sub-pages into categories used by Wikipedia articles.--  Forty two  09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Forty Two, my mistake. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia or other company/institution/organization pay me for translating english articles to spanish language?

Hi Jimmy,

I´m Sebastián A. Sierpe Toral, Business Engineer and English-spanish Translator living in Chile. I congratulate you for your magnificent idea of electronic encyclopaedia carried out on Internet that is so useful for so many people.

My question for you is:

Can I get paid for translating Wikipedia articles from ENGLISH language to SPANISH language? What can you tell me about this?

Best regards

Sebastián A. Sierpe Toral190.96.48.223 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 190.96.48.223 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia pays editors, including those that do translation work, in diddly and squat. §hepTalk 21:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The closest you'll probably get to this would be the Bounty Board. You won't get paid, but the Wikimedia Foundation will. It is a unique way of giving back to this "magnificent electronic encyclopaedia". EWikistTalk 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
However the idea of our friend is not worthless per se. It would be great if, so to say, the Spanish Ministry of Education paid for such a translation effort. Unfortunately it is very unlikely to happen. --Cyclopiatalk 11:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the Spanish language community is doing just fine without our help (640,000 articles!). Translation is likely to be much more useful, and cheaper to accomplish, for various other languages around the world. Some of the factors that I think about in this regard would be languages where there is a high literacy rate, small but fast-growing internet population, and large total population. In such a case, we would be preparing the ground for a new and large and successful community to form.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening in smaller languages.
The closest I can quickly recall is Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests, where two nations conducted a fairly significant competition to create content on Wikipedia. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned on Estonian Wikipedia or Norwegian Wikipedia.
I vaguely recall something similar in Germany, but maybe that didn't involve translations. Jimmy, can you think of any other similar instances of govt. involvement? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
In India, there was a case of a local state government sponsoring a writing contest. I think this was in Tamil, but my memory is failing me this morning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
See Effort to increase Tamil content in Wikipedia for an instance of government involvement and this Signpost story for the German thing.--  Forty two  09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The catalan wikipedia has a bot that makes automatic translations ca:Usuari:Amical-bot. Users of catalan wikipedia makes requests to the bot, and the bot gives them a translation were all the wiki formatting has been respected. Then the users go over the translation to fix all the mistakes and bad wordings from the automatic translation.

There is no need for paid translators as long as there are volunteers willing to do this work for free. And those volunteers might refuse to do this work if someone gets paid to make it...... Government subventions should be fine, but private payments from the WMF will just cause volunteers to abandon the project in mass. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

At Wikimania in Gdansk Google.org talked about a program they were running for charitable purposes to translate health information articles into various languages, and the Swahili pedia had been given a boost by a writing competition for students - I think one of the winners was in Gdansk. Some Basque wikipedians are working with a government funded program for machine assisted translation from Spanish to Basque. None of those seemed particularly controversial, but Google.com had sparked controversy by paying translators to create articles for very common search terms in certain south Asian languages. The Tamil wikipedia was annoyed at the resulting influx of articles on Bollywood films and Hollywood actors into an encyclopaedia, as neither the quality nor the topic was up to their standards. Other problems included translators not responding to talkpage discussion. Apparently the Bangla pedia had banned the translators, but no-one from Bangla was there. ϢereSpielChequers 10:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Being used?

It seems to me you and others may have been used in the matter of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson; see "White Space Media have been invited to assist redevelop the online presence for Mimi Macpherson. (6 July 2010) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The story says she has a new blog and website, but what does that have to do with me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I read "redevelop the online presence" as carrying a wider scope than just a blog but as "online presence" generally. It then occurred to me that removing the article on her, which you proposed, might well have assisted in that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the firm had nothing to do with that. It was just routine BLP work instigated by her personally. I suppose she might be doing multiple things to improve the way she is presented online, but that hardly amounts to "using" anyone, which sounds like a fairly hostile way to describe an ordinary activity undertaken by all kinds of people all the time.
In her case, specifically, the google results are often catastrophic, with such gems as "slutload.com". :-( You can hardly blame her if she wants to improve the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking of Ms. Macpherson, it has been some time since I asked: Did you manage to get in touch with her on whether or not she would be OK with having a Wikipedia article? NW (Talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, I am concerned that you are perpetuating and reinforcing a double standard by your treatment of Mimi Macpherson. It would be easy to create an article about Ms Mcpherson that complies with all of our rules and guidelines using the not insubstantial amount of coverage of her life in the press. With or without mention of the sex tape. Similarly, the article on Penthouse Pet and porn performer Ginger Jolie was deleted following a request of someone who identified themselves as Jolie's publicist, despite Jolie unambiguously meeting the WP:PORNBIO criteria. On the other hand, Don Murphy has made it clear that he wishes for his article to be deleted, yet we are not extending him the same courtesy. If we are allowing one to "opt-out", why not allow the other? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • So its a double standard. So what? We are not robots programmed to rigidly follow a single standard. If someone is only marginally notable anyway, and is likely to be distressed by their BLP, give them a break. We are not monsters. Don Murphy is a lot more notable, and there are actually useful and important and nice things to say about him. In fact, looking at Murphy's article, what's the problem? It simply describes an accomplished life. We don't remove BLP's for no good reason, but we do remove them if there is a good reason. Its as simple as that. Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't speak for Don Murphy, but I don't think the reasons why someone prefers not to have a biography on Wikipedia are important. It is enough that they do not. After all, "we are not monsters". The question that needs to be addressed is how to decide who is too well-known to omit from Wikipedia, and how to deal with those cases. I believe we should allow everyone the same opportunity to "opt out", but I think it needs to be handled more consistently. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Mimi Macpherson should redirect to Elle Macpherson, who generally seems to be mentioned in articles where the first name comes up.[3] But I can't create this redirect because the article was "WP:SALTed". Why is an article with a fairly weak consensus for deletion being "salted" when this was not proposed in the deletion discussion? Wnt (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The Kafkaesque situation is now that not only has her article name been salted, but her name has become apparently "unmentionable"; it has been erased from Mimi and twice from Elle Macpherson: 8 July 2010 and 2 September 2010. This kind of treatment has been the domain of totalitarian governments in the past; I'm surprised to see it on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That is bloody bizarre. I never saw the AFD/DRV/etc unfold, so I am in disbelief that somehow we have concluded that Mimi isn't notable all of a sudden. Next, we will be deleting Paris Hilton, so I guess the outlook isnt entirely bad. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Judging by her bio on her new site, it does appear that Mimi McPherson feels that she is notable - I suspect part of the problem is one of control. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Political silly season

Currently a large number of "political" BLPs are being "added to" with editorial comments, and "charges" from political campaign organizations (which will not be examined for accuracy for months - leaving the damage pretty much there on these poor people). Might you consider declaring officially a "silly season avoidance" policy until after the election? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should decidedly not be a means of deliberately pushing "charges" of any nature which derive from political sources (if a candidate is arrested for murder, that would be quite a different matter - but we have people being accused of all sorts of improper behavior on all sides.) My own preference is that all political charges be refused in BLPs until the election, but you might wish to make a stronger or weaker statement. Cordially, Collect (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this comment is related to the WP:BLP article on David H. Koch. If I am allowed to make a prediction, I would say the ArbCom elected for 2011 will mainly be employed with disputes related to the Koch brothers and Koch Industries. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually more than a dozen articles are involved - the Koch ones are notable, but so are the others (including one accusing Charlie Crist of being a homosexual), etc. As Jimbo knows already, I treat all BLPs equally. Collect (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking of bringing a similar, more generic version of this very question to the Village pump (policy) due to what happened about a year ago at Gerald Jennings, Albany's mayor; that article was edited with information that was not always exactly what the reference stated because the facts added were cherry-picked and I did my best to control the damage and put in neutral statements, and then once the primary occurred suddenly dropped to almost nothing (primaries are in Sept in New York) and then ended altogether with the November election. There should be some sort of policy to restrict editing on politicians when they are in a campaign, we are not Wikinews and therefore delaying having new info put into an article could not possibly hurt the goal of developing an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
What an absurd proposal! That Wikipedia should deliberately ignore sourced information, solely because it might help people make an informed choice in an (American) election? Maybe we should ask Hudong to launch an English version with less political censorship... or maybe we should recognize that the big problem with Wikipedia politics is not the people adding politically inconvenient references, but those taking them out. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you do not recall the edit wars about Obama's birth certificate, Palin believing in "Jesus Ponies" and Joe being a "Plumber's Ass", not to mention more serious charges about cocaine use by people, sordid affairs, illegitimate children (the Palin birth fraud inter alia) and a bunch of others. Many (almost all) of which were untrue - and which, left in place, were there for political purposes and not for encyclopedic purposes. And, of course, the fact that WP in the past has, indeed, locked some BLPs for this very reason. This has nothing to do with Chinese censorship at all, and to imply such is absurd - the aim is to prevent a huge waste of time in fixing such allegations. The purpose of WP has naught to do with promulgating campaign rhetoric and dirty tricks. Collect (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this attempted suppression of information. Certainly the charges and accusations that fly back and forth concerning public figures are sometimes true and sometimes false. We can't just ignore them until enough facts are available to generate consensus about which side is right (or until an election occurs, whichever comes first). I remember in 1972 thinking that George McGovern shouldn't detract from his solid points on the issues by making exaggerated accusations about Nixon and Watergate -- accusations that turned out to understate rather than overstate the case. Your proposal, if applicable in 1972, would have been that Nixon's Wikipedia bio carry nothing about Watergate until after the election?
The fact is that some individuals and institutions have a big enough bullhorn that they can make an issue notable even if the substance minor, or even if key points are simply wrong (such as Sarah Palin and the nonexistent "death panels" in the health insurance bill). If we want to give the reader the best available picture of the facts, we have to include notable baloney like "death panels". We shoud continue to follow the directive of WP:NPOV to report facts about opinions.
Our real problem is in the opposite direction. Too often, editors remove an accurate report of a politically noteworthy accusation, demanding that there be a reliable source for it. Certainly we need to have confidence that the spokesperson whom we're quoting or paraphrasing actual made the comment, but it's not possible to find a reliable source to "prove" something like "Obama's stimulus package was wasteful" or "Congressional Republicans are overusing the filibuster". We need more, not less, openness to fairly summarizing the major debates that concern a particular article subject (whether BLP or not), even though we anticipate that more information will be available in another year or two. JamesMLane t c 08:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
We do not have enough scurrilous material on people? Look at [4], [5] , [6] and more show the opinion of one person about material in BLPs which does not appear to coincide with the position just stated above. Collect (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there is great merit in taking additional care on political biographies during election campaigns. This does not amount to "suppression of information" but rather the opposite: a strong desire to give the public the most comprehensive accurate information possible.
During election campaigns in particular, we should be sensitive to recentism, POV-pushing, and similar woes, as they are likely to be increased as highly motivated partisans descend on Wikipedia for the first time with no understanding of our culture of neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, the problem isn' the newbies who show up, since we can recognize them and act accordingly. The really problem this project faces are the long term, persistent, agenda driven POV warriors, some of which even admitt on their user page that they have a dislike for certain peoples in our political system. They are relentless and most "regular" editors who really don't "care" eventually just give up battling these warriors. My favorite example still was Palin being a pro-rapist. The "rape-kit material" was battled over endlessly for months and months on page after page of talk page space. No one really cared until magically AFTER the election when a bunch of folks showed up in support of removing it permanently from her bio. Anyways, good luck with this :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this "rape-kit material" so I can't comment specifically on that. But I can say this: we should have very very low tolerance for regular editors POV-pushing. We can be sweet and nice to newcomers who just don't know how to behave, but once you've been around, you know what you aren't supposed to do.
At the same time, of course, it is worth acknowledging that political biographies really should cover legitimate controversies and will, by their very nature, be difficult to write. We're often trying to do something requiring heroic effort: to extract a neutral summary of the facts from a highly partisan media, while at the same time not engaging in original research and synthesis. Good people will try hard to do that.
In my view, the best Wikipedia editors are the ones whose work is so even-handed, so thoughtful and careful about reporting the facts, that one would find it nearly impossible to guess their personal political views. I strongly reject the idea that Wikipedia ought to be a place for ideas to do battle. Leave that to the newspaper. We should aim for something higher.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with this very much. I have to say, Mr. Wales, I like wathcing this page, for in times when I have felt fed-up with Wikipedia, there have been statements you have made just like that which help renew my faith in this project. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes we should, but the real problem is that we have precious little to bang some of these types over the head with. POV warriors exist because they know there are no serious (enough) consequences for their actions. Unfortunately, high standards doesnt affect the minority that do the overwhelming majority of the damage. This make WP unreliable for anything even somewhat controversial.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Desribing newspaper reports impartially, reflecting current events transparently, is surely less "unreliable" than leaving out well-publicized ongoing issues that the reader wishes to learn more about.
A neutral point of view is like white light - to create it, you must allow every color of the spectrum to shine through. Everyone has biases, whether they are known or admitted or not. Only by allowing full expression to every side of an issue can one reach the level of understanding necessary to be capable of being unbiased.
I believe that when POV drives people to add relevant, sourced content to articles, fairly summarizing the sources added, it is a good thing. But when it drives people to remove such content, it is a bad thing. Only the article needs to be NPOV, and that can be managed, if need be, by the progressive additions of editors on each side. An editor who adds arguments from both sides is merely more useful than one who adds only from one side, just as an editor familiar with chemistry and French is more useful than one who only knows chemistry. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. Do you know how much crap/non notable, but said to be relevant, and sourcable from reliable sources of course, "material" is added to bios to smear or drive an agenda? Tons! What would happen if we did this with the Obama article, but added arguments from both sides? It would suck. I wish every bio in this project could enjoy the "protection", "scrutny", "care", "fairness", oversight, whateveryouwanttocallit that that bio currently recieves. With 100s of 1,000s of bios out there is that possible? I am sure thats the standard Jimbo would strive for per his above comments. Also, I find the analogy about the amount somebody knows being a more useful editor highly eletist and not true. My spelling sucks but that can be fixed by others as an example :) Anwyays, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have too much "crap", i.e. too much detail, you can spin it off in a more detailed article (e.g. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Wnt (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
lol, I think those sub articles are absolute ceespools, I won't even touch them any more. The problem is, only .0000001% of articles get them, ie, the Obama/Palin/Fox News, ects of the world. The rest, the crap remains. I am actually glad for those spin off articles, because I would rather have the crap flow down into them (hence my ceespool analogy), than float up into the surface article. Have we digressed sufficiently :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Cesspool, yes —— but perhaps the defining element of American politics this year. A Wikipedia without such an article or section would have to tell some revisionist fairy tale about how the American elections were decided. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
true :), but how about when they cover BLPs? --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Wnt's analogy of NPOV to white light, being neutral does not in any way, shape, or form mean every single point of view is equal nor deserving of equal time or coverage. Science is science, faith is faith, and in an article about one the other (usually) has no relevance as an example. Fringe theories are not equal nor to be neutral do we need to give them equal time. Just because people (even a majority) believe something that does not mean we need to give it equal treatment to what the majority of EXPERTS believe, for instance. We are an encyclopedia. We may tout the mantra of "verifiable, not truth", but the rest of that is that verifiable is not the only thing, it must be reliable, professional, peer-reviewed, and accurate, not just "oh, it was reported in a newspaper so its verifiable because someone can look it up". Truth matters. Especially in a BLP. We are not a newspaper, this idea that we should "publish" everything and then after the facts are sorted out then we can delete material is dangerous and unprofessional of an encyclopedia. "Kill them all, let God sort them out"? I dont know if Wikipedia has impacted so much as 1% the votes any politician has received, but eventually it will impact one enough to make it noticeable, though probably never change the outcome. We should limit our influence. We report the past and present, we do not try to impact the present or future is my interpretation of our goal here.Camelbinky (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I said relevant sourced information — speaking of politically charged news reports about politicians, not mixing science and faith. Even so, irrelevant data doesn't need to be deleted (we have an article Young Earth creationism; we just don't give it equal time in the Evolution article). Nor was I suggesting to delete material after the fact - the way I see it, if many newspapers print a false story about someone, we should thoroughly cover the sources that prove it was false. That is far more responsible to the reputation of a living person than removing all mention and leaving the issue to smoulder on the talk page. The analogy to "killing them all" is invalid: if you do your talking with a gun I want you censored, but this isn't that. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) We must prove a scurrilous political charge is false? Which always happens well after an election! After the damage is done. Nay that has it precisely backwards. Unless and until indictments are announced, the charges emanating from political sources should have no place in a BLP. And Jimbo has it right. Really. Collect (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Anent this, I posted [7] hoping that others will find favor therewith. Collect (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, I believe your premise regarding how to put this information in and then we can always cover after the fact the sources that show these allegations to be false flies in the face our BLP policies and is the opposite of what Jimbo's stance has tended to be in these matters regarding politicians. What really is hurt by simply not reporting published allegations until it can be shown that they are accurate? Again- NOT WIKINEWS.Camelbinky (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Politicians, and their political parties, usually respond to partisan allegations quite quickly. Allegations aimed at politicians, or other persons of political relevance such as Julian Assange, should simply be documented, impartially, even when we know they're not true. The source of the allegation should be described from the beginning with great care, to ensure that its seriousness and veracity is not overestimated. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, in the WP:BLP policy itself: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" Wnt (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point of the words "notable, relevant, and well-documented"... you need time to pass before we know whether an allegation, or any fact, will pass those requirements. You continue to blur the lines between Wiki-news and Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia!Camelbinky (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The line between Wikipedia and Wikinews is blurry. Just look at "In the news" on the Main Page. A well-documented allegation is simply one that has appeared in several respectable sources - such as newspapers - not one where a final verdict has been determined that shall stand for all time. History tells us that final verdicts are few and far between, and Wikipedia is not a jury. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this, and here is why. First, try applying this to all articles and not just political ones. A magazine alleges that gravity disappears just a few hundred miles above Earth, causing weightlessness. A tour guide claims that the term "dogfight" came from WWI airplanes because they had to start and stop their engines during battle. A high-school textbook says that any material can be made to lase if placed between two mirrors and a light is shined on it. A newspaper article reports that grizzly bears actively hunt people in Alaska. (Believe it or not, these are real examples.) If I just take this information at face value and put it into an article, it would make not just me, but all of Wikipedia look like we're idiots. I find quite a bit of merit in taking some time to double check any allegation for veracity. I'm in no hurry.
Second, we tend to forget that we're affecting the lives of real people when we write, and respect for those people as human beings is not too much to ask. As an example, say "Joe Blow" is accused of being a child molester. Joe's name and address go up on a website to alert everyone to his presence in the neighborhood. Evidence quickly turns up that proves Joe committed no crime. Joe is acquitted and his name is taken off the website. However, many people only looked at the site once, don't know, don't believe, or just don't care that he was acquitted, and the stigma of having been publicly labled a molester sticks with an innocent man for the rest of his life. There should be no need to sacrifice quality, accuracy, and human decency for speed. We have a responsibility to not only our readers, but also to our subjects and our sources to get the information correct. We have a responsibility to each other. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No matter what you say, in any community in just about any country, if you get arrested for child molesting, it's going in the paper. The police department will cheerfully run you through a "perp walk" so they can all get your picture. That's what people in the wider world think is ethical.
Here on Wikipedia, we aren't as bad as that. We don't put the arrestee under a gag order, then run a news story with leaks from the prosecution answered by silence. We look around - or should - for sources that tell the story from other perspectives. And we don't stop and publish when the story is a day old - we keep building it up until all the sides are in. An even-handed and comprehensive coverage of allegations is far more humane than leaving the subject of the biography to be known only from copyrighted sources found on a web search that give the "facts" from the day after the arrest.
Those who would defy established BLP policy and say that allegations shouldn't be reported, wouldn't allow us to build up that body of evidence and go over all the details and research all the gaps. They say that the negative story shouldn't be covered now because it is too soon - but later they'll say it was only "temporarily" notable, or that because the person was exonerated that it would be improper to include it, or that because he was guilty the article is only an attack piece. There's always some new theory to exclude what they don't like, and of course all the while that "talk" goes on, it is their divine right to exclude anything they want from the text. Needless to say, they never run out of excuses. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont find them to be "excuses" but instead legitimate points of argument and if you cant counter our points then they are legit points that show exactly why something shouldnt be used in an article. Yes, you have a burden of proof to provide to other users. Sorry, but its true. If someone being arrested for child porn isnt in multiple official biographies published by third-party reliable sources (not hired by the said person) then it really isnt notable if you happen to find a newspaper article about them being arrested for it. Notability matters!Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is a quote that is quite applicable- *Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson and I expand that to say it is better to err on the side of caution and NOT put in these rumors and allegations until history sorts it out. And the idea that history comes to conclusions few and far between is not true, it is a science and is never complete but is always moving forward and conclusions and facts are used. The idea that history and historians are not accurate and full of contradictions comes from the same people who say "evolution is just a theory" and who believe that gravity is because the centrifugal force of the Earth spinning (yes that is a real opinion of a fundamentalist Christian preacher).Camelbinky (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What Jefferson never said was that he who reads nothing is less remote from the truth than he who reads what is wrong. And we are supposed to be helping people with their reading, not their believing. Wnt (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sesame Street can help people with their reading. We can help people get accurate knowledge.Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Which brings us full circle. Accurate according to whom? I don't want to read what Camelbinky thinks is true, I want to read both sides of the story. You never really know which side is wrong until they convict themselves out of their own mouths. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
We are not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. There are boundaries as to what is notable and what is relevant. Yes, someone must make that decision and in some articles it will be me, in others it will be another person, and in larger articles it will be a large number of editors collectively making that decision. But the point is that someone (or -ones) will be making a decision. This isnt a politically correct exercise of making sure every point of view is equal and valid and out there. Decisions are made and often one point will make it in. BLP issues are taken into consideration. You seem to not worry about any legal and/or ethical considerations regarding issues with BLP. That I find disturbing.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
How can it be illegal or unethical to print what the newspapers say? Now you're misusing WP:IINFO. I get your point that you will draw the line and that what you don't like will get reverted - that is a very common point of view to encounter here. Articles are getting censored like this all over Wikipedia. But policy, ethics, and law have nothing at all to do with it. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if it is published in a newspaper if it ends up being libel or we on Wikipedia present the information in a manner not as carefully as the newspaper we can in fact get in legal trouble. My point about editors needing to make a stand and make tough decisions is not a bad thing and in fact it is the only way that articles become good. Cooperation among large numbers of editors is not always easy and sometimes impossible for a decision to be made that is in the best interest of the article. You think if someone comes up with a decision based on Wikipedia policy and general ethics that is contrary to your "anything goes" attitude then they are cesnoring and "what they dont like gets reverted"; it isnt about what WE want, we are reverting things that are harmful and applying general consensus regarding BLP. Sorry you disagree. This isn't censorship. Your philosophy is like that of Oliver North- "I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version." We are not here to be unduly negative about someone's life, we are not here to throw everything and the kitchen sink in a biography. Notability matters! Good grief, the fact that you dont care about the notability of what goes into an article and BLP issues regarding people's reputations is so disturbing I'm done talking about this. Frankly you are giving libertarians a bad reputation by taking their philosophy to a place it was never intended and distorting it.Camelbinky (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For inclusionist editors, no independent thought is allowed. The ban on "original research" extends not just to elaborate theories, but even things as mundane as drawing a conclusion based on two sources. Even going through and pulling out data from the results section of a scientific article draws complaints, and there's repeated pressure to ban them entirely and confine ourselves to science that is at least three or four years old (more in the case of medicine). But for the deletionist? well, the sky's the limit. It doesn't matter if there are ten sources, if a story topped the page at Google news, if it's been heard by everyone who turns on a television set - if they can go through and look at the details and find one little detail that they say doesn't add up, then it's out of here. And if they can't they can always say we're being "unduly negative" and delete it anyway, imagining libel claims never filed against the original newspaper much less the carefully toned-down BLP version of the story. No newspaper boy's cries can be heard from atop Wikipedia's ivory tower - we make our own version of the world! But only for the deletionists.
As I said before, we're not "hurting reputations" by covering the news. The information is already out there, on Google, on Bing, on Altavista - on all the services people use when they realize that Wikipedia is censored. (Especially where Republicans are concerned, who I suppose demonstrate their moral superiority by censoring articles far more aggressively) And what they find there aren't the best sources, the most reasoned effort to cover all sides of the story - what they find are gossip columns and forum posters blasting away at people for political ends.
Now maybe some people here think it is just wrong for a "copyleft" site to do what all the copyrighted sites do all over the web. Maybe the true philosophical wellspring of freedom of speech is the money charged by a corporation for copyright, which pays the retainer for its lawyers. Maybe the inclusionists should just give up and go away. Maybe one day you will have the eternal honor of deleting the very last article from Wikipedia. Maybe people from different political parties can't cover both sides of a story, and each need to find their own truths from private publishers, and can only settle their disputes with acts of terrorism. But I think not. Wikipedia is flawed by a lack of protection for sourced relevant information, and swamped by too many people who think that it's bad to have information in an encyclopedia, and its edit rate and article creation rate have been declining since 2007, but it is still worth fighting to save it. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I find the whole "deletionist/inclusionist" argument to be ridiculous. The inclusionist tends to leave us with something resembling stream of consciousness;" an incoherent mess of rambling thoughts. The deletionist tends to leave us with something resembling a bad cell phone call; relevant and irrelevant information cut out indiscriminately, and just as incoherent. What I prefer is to be on the side of good writing. It's not enough to simply publish information, the information needs to be both readable and enjoyable. The average reader is only going to read three to five lines, so the task of making the writing coherent, informative and captivating is not a simple one. I too am reminded of a quote:

We journalists often take ourselves too seriously and, when we do, we talk about our mission to communicate truth and our duty to report with objectivity. Truth, however, is elusive. Because truth deals with conclusions and values, each of us have a different idea of what truth is and what it isn't.

It is journalism's job to provide facts, concepts, ideas and emotions --as we sense them-- but not conclusions. Conclusions are what the reader, listener or viewer comes to.

Objectivity, which is supposed to be the soul of journalism, simply does not exist. The moment a reporter uses his or her sense of newsworthiness to decide what to keep in his story and what to leave out, objectivity has vanished. What passes for objectivity becomes the reporter taking the job of a tape recorder, methodically taking down what was said and making no effort to check its veracity. Nor does such a "reporter" make any effort to get another point of view.

Better that we, as journalists, pursue attainable goals; accuracy, balance and fairness without bias. That we can do. Not only can we; we must. --Robert M. Knight A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity

Before you claim WP:NOTNEWS, I'll point out that journalistic style is used in most all good non-fiction writing, and not just journalism. The above is a very good book on writing. If you'd like, I can recommend many more. Zaereth (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

JIDF drama

The basic problem with the JIDF article is that there isn't much new news. They had their 15 minutes of fame back in 2008, and today they don't get much press. Zero hits in current Google News for "jewish internet defense force" today.[8] The drama surrounding this article seems to be more about getting attention than the content of the article. The content disputes are minor. WP:DRAMA applies. Please don't feed the trolls. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted a load of edits that are self-evidently by a sock- or meat-pupept of a banned user.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so that's what happened. Not puppetry here. Resent the false allegation. As I said, earlier:
That's been your standard response. The drama surrounding the article has to do with the fact that there is currently a campaign to put the organization the worse light possible. There were also problems about the accuracy of the article. Please note that there has been some news in 2010. In fact, their work against the "Kill a Jew Day" pages on Facebook is relevant and should be considered for inclusion in the article. Here are three other relatively new articles:

There are others, too. (Of course I realize these are Jewish/Israeli sources which don't seem to really count on Wikipedia when applied to Jewish/Israel subjects, on account of antisemitic views of the Wikipedia community, but they exist!) --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

In response to your edit summary, he knows you're a meatpuppet because you self-declared. copied/adapted from an email forwarded to me, originally by DavidAppletree is at the top of your long post. To be fair, everyone here would have assumed this anyway. I personally don't care at this point -- if Jimbo wants the fun and games at his page, that's his call (aside to weaponbb -- i really think this one is a meatpuppet rather than a sock, not that it makes much difference).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If I do something on my own, without anyone telling me to do it (and in fact, David Appletree encouraged me NOT to do anything, as he's in private conversations with Wikipedia), I dont how this makes me a "meat puppet". We realize everyone who is "pro-JIDF" is automatically accused of being some sort of puppet. You should change "puppet" to "zionist" or "jew" because that's what is really happening here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Right! Clearly the only reason someone could be upset with partisan editing is because the partisans in question might (or might not -- go know) be (gasp) Jewish or (horrors) Zionists. Or it could be they don't like ideologically-driven partisans. Either. Or. Gey veys. But at least you're keeping it binary -- you'll be an admin in no time.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
These terms "sockpuppets" and "meatpuppets" are a silly Wikipedia jargon, the tragic outcome of excessive administerial self-abuse. Wikipedia shouldn't take anything down for anybody, and we should say that in grown-up talk. But honestly, it's not some anti-Semitic slur. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You may want to read up on jargon before you dismiss it as not "grown up talk." And the repeated claims that all of the opposition to DA's attempts to insert his own bias are solely because of his Jewish heritage or Zionist beliefs are a common passive-aggressive method of claiming anti-Semitism. I've been here long enough to see that actual anti-Semitism gets smacked down hard, so these claims are spurious and only serve to stir up drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have personally blocked a number of actually antisemitic editors, who edit advocating it or with that agenda, and would do so if I saw another one in the future without reservations. That type of behavior is not tolerated here.
Nor is abusive behavior by Israeli-boosters.
We're applying the same standards to both sides. We apply them to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs; to Zionists and to Antisemites. If you use Wikipedia as a battleground you're gone. If you try to promote your agenda you're gone. If you abuse or threaten other editors you're gone.
DA and Einstein (and anyone else who participates in JIDF who's reading) - the tragedy here is that you appear to have no clue that you've descended to a moral level and behavioral level that's as impeccably unacceptable as those of the people you claim to be fighting. You are truly just as bad as they are right now. Until you understand that you're doing your cause absolutely no good by brawling like this, you're wasting your time and harming yourselves in the process.
If you really want to do some good, take the high ground and keep it. There was some hope that DA's account might be attempting to do so, which is why there was a significant discussion about it without any sanctions being immediately applied. That could have led to the high ground. But you dove off it, and into the mud, and lost your chance there.
I have no desire to have this article inaccurate or biased against any group. But perhaps inaccuracies should be fixed by OTRS tickets from now on, and you all should just keep away from editing the site. If you can't do it constructively and keeping to the high ground, you're just wasting our time and yours. You can provide email or OTRS feedback to people to deal with factual issues or biased editing. But engaging on-wiki is obviously problematic.
Anyways - my two cents. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, according to you, the JIDF and David Appletree are "just as bad" as Jew haters, Holocaust deniers, and Islamic terrorists who behead people and kill innocent civilians because the JIDF has caused a bit of a ruckus on Wikipedia. Wow. And were you meaning to compare antisemites to Zionist, because FYI, Zionism does NOT equal racism. --80.79.116.231 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

News story

Did you really say[9]

or is this just another example of the high standards of accuracy and diligence for which the American mainstream press is renowned? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First, notice that bit isn't even purporting to quote me. Second, it's a reasonably sensible summary of what goes on - oversimplified to be sure, but it's a decent rough explanation. Third, this was an Italian journalist, not American. :-) Anyway, no, I didn't say exactly that. I gave a long explanation of how things work and that's how she summed it up. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of line

Wales: You have no right to use personal emails from unknown people as the basis for wikipedia articles. Your claim here [10] of a "BLP" issue is straight bull. How on earth could the sentence "As of August 2010, both groups, "Palestine is not a Country" and "Israel is not a Country", remained on Facebook" (which can be confirmed by, duh, going to facebook) possibly have anything to do with harming/defaming a living person?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is simple: relax. It seems fairly clear that the facts are on the side of those who are pointing out that the groups were deleted, and that new groups were created. Your hatred for the subject has no bearing on the facts of reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
And to answer your question specifically. The simple and likely misleading claim that the groups "remain" on Facebook - rather than the accurate point that different groups of the same name have been created, goes directly to the question of effectiveness and accuracy of the JIDF. If the groups in question were in fact violating facebook terms of service (by containing hate speech) and were removed because of it, and then new groups (not containing hate speech) were created, then that's one state of affairs. If Facebook refused to delete them because they didn't contain hate speech at all, that's a different state of affairs. Each state of affairs reflects on the subject of the article.
We need to get it right. We have credible testimony that the situation is as my edit described it. This testimony is not certain just yet, and we need reliable sources. But you looking things up on facebook to make a point is absolutely not the right way to do this.
Try to relax. I'm neither in favor nor against the JIDF. I only want us to be accurate and to proceed slowly and carefully.
Even if you hate the JIDF, I'm sure you can be content that the truth is sufficient to tell the world about them. A minor misleading point, no matter how emotionally invested you are in it, is not the way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My original pique was that you styled it as a "BLP" concern (which it isn't) and that you're in offline communication and coddling a troll who has forged libelous posts here, sought to out and attack editors here and elsewhere, and has been bringing the old battelfield for years (first indef was 2008, dozens of socks since). As for the content: If it can be verified that groups closed, groups of same name later opened, i have no problem at all. As for the "JIDF" I never heard of them until a few days ago, when the guy who runs the site ended up at a drama board again for the latest in a long calvacade of vaquely threatening socks attacking users in good-standing (the curret IP at the bottom of this page). Why? He was using socks and a massive off-wikipedia canvassing effort to edit war over an "advert" tag. Do I "hate" them. No. But i think the fellow behind the websites and accounts is poisining the editing environment and weakening the quality of contentBali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to have been some recent editing that appears to reflect the position of, living person comes to defend comments in his article he sees as derogatory and misleading and the user is blocked and then his article is dramatically edited in what appears to reflect in a more negative manner on that person, it all looks a bit attacking and small minded. User:Peter Cohen has also commented that he is trying to get some of the users twitter posts into reliable sources so he can add them to the article, to me this is increasing of the drama and close to actual activism against a living person that we have an article about.Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio -- the "person" is a pseuonym who's been seeking to control "his" article for two years (got banned for his pains). He runs off-wikipedia propoganda campaigns and would clearly like the wikipedia article about him to bolster those campaigns. He's now upset that he can't control the content anymore -- some bleating about "BLP" is the latest in years of socking and attacks against wikipedia editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
We have the opportunity and the NPOV and BLP requirement through wikipedia to rise above such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on the article talk page that Bali has made an edit there that is a clear BLP violation, and which he should should redact. I also commented that the obvious anger he has expresses against the subject of the article seems to make his editing COI, and he should recuse himself from further editing of that article. His response was to delete my comment from the talk page, which I also think is inappropriate. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • - Perhaps we can consider deleting and salting the article completely as it is the source of a lot of conflict and deleting it would be perhaps a good option and the subject is upset and complaining about it. There is no obligation on en wiki to host an article about any group , org or suchlike. I don't think the educational and encyclopedic value of the project would be affected by deleting the article and it would seal the deal, so to speak.Off2riorob (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (e/c) I'd be all for deletion (i don't think wikipedia should have articles on any topics for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage) but if you so nominate it, you won't get anywhere (wikipedia in general does no share my inclusion standards. And there will be a lot of pile on keeps simply because the banned user who used to control it is now whining that he can no longer control it). And while i would support deletion, the argument that it "causes trouble" is the wrong one. One more time on "BLP" -- it can't be an issue when there is no named, living person (in this case there isn't one - just a pseudonym). And in any case, there is no infomation in the article about the pseudonym beyond its own statements. A sentence about the existence or not of a facebook group defames no one, real or invented.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a living person involved, please don't assert otherwise as a get around BLP policy. Your assertion that there would be as you infer, a lot of pile on revengeful keep comments is also a poor claim indeed.Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What we agree on is that the article should be deleted. If you nom it, i will weigh in. My commet that it would be kept to a dead-certainty merely reflects my understanding of the way things work here. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but you are the one with the best policy POV for deletion ... on-line protest group for which there is no independent academic analysis and coverage, article is the subject of multiple complaints from the organizer of the protest. I could happily go with that as the golden kiss goodbye to the whole issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There are not many, but scholarly sources do exist [11] 173.52.126.77 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Penned by one of the ardent defenders of the now-banned parties in the WP:CAMERA affair. You begin to see how tightly-wound the web of disinformation and propaganda is that surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Tarc (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Did he defend the abuse of wikipedia countenanced by the now-banned parties in that incident, or did he defend their thesis that a bias exists; a rather different statement, no? -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be both. At any rate, Oboler is a pro-Zionist acivist. Nothing wrong with that per se. But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.[12].Bali ultimate (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Any different from Rashid Khalidi or Joseph Massad? Not that it matters; we can quote him and what he says and assume the reader has a few brain cells--the same way if we quote Edward Said, we can assume the reader knows from whence his perspective arises. Regardless, we are getting off-topic. If it is true that the current groups are not the same as the original groups, then the article must reflect that (some variant of "JIDF successfully took the groups down, and later, others restarted them"). Do you disagree, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
With apologies for butting in, there has to be a difference in the way we treat the writings of professors of major universities (such as Khalidi and Massad) and those of directors of 'online engagement' at the zionist federation of australia. (Never heard of oboler but this is what I found when googling the name). Otherwise we're never going to be able to sort things out. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No apologies required, RP, healthy discussion only helps. Your point is accurate, Oboler does not have the same gravitas as Said, I agree. Oboler is not David Appletree, either. He is an academic, for whatever that is worth. My concern is that if we start "disallowing" people solely based on their views or associations with organizations who hold strong views, we are hurting ourselves. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Not keen on getting involved in the content here, but I just want to note that Oboler is not an academic. According to his website he has a PhD in computer science, but he doesn't hold any academic position. Given how much trouble this article has caused, and how few good sources there are, I would support deleting it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an academic, so what does "in 2007-2008 he was a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University, Israel" mean? Was that an academic position, a research position, or meaningless? -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the bias completely one-sided?

But a disspassionate "scholar" in this area, he is not. He works directly with groups that target the other side of their ideological divide.
— Bali Ultimate, 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, Bali. Shouldn't we be thankful for anyone who exposes bias on wikipedia of any sort? Doesn't it help us address problem areas? Do you think that the bias on wikipedia is completely one-sided, Bali? -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No wikipedia is filled with roving gangs of anti-scientific cranks, ideologically-driven political activists, pr people promoting minor celebrites, and others were are poison to neutral and accurate information. In Oboler's case, he's just the "Zionist" flavor of the ideological internet warrior (other flavors include, but are not limited to "Jew-hating," "Muslim-hatig," "Propalestinian," "Neo-Nazi," "Anti/Pro-climate science," "Vaccines are giving our children autism," etc. etc.) We should get rid of all of them when we find them here. In the case of folks like Oboler, their off-site writings should be treated as the work of folks with an agenda, rather than neutral scholarship. If you're proposing the warriors from all the sides be left to duke it out (actually what is generally done here --yielding sprawling, unreadable and wholly inappropriate pieces of crap like Israel and the apartheid analogy) I disagree. It don't work, and drives off the people who don't have a dog in the intramural squabbles.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It is published in a peer reviewed journal. All the complaining about the article amounts to a dislike of the articles premises and conclusions...in other words there are editors who think it is not 'true'. However, as is well known, inclusion in WP is based on WP:V, not truth. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali, this ties into what I asked you above. Shall we remove all references cited to Rashid Khalidi for the same reason? He is cited on wikipedia (British Mandate for Palestine#Arab political rights) for example. How about Joseph Massad (see Israeli–Palestinian conflict note 122). And Edward Said is quoted many times. I could find other scholars/intellectuals whose political viewpoings are clearly demarcated (and strongly held on one side of a debate) yet we quote them and trust that the reader understands their perspective. The same is true for Oboler. All academics have viewpoints, and some (the three I mentioned and Oboler for example) have their viewpoints held strongly and openly. That does not make any of these four improper sources for wikiepdia; it just requires us to trust our readers' intelligence. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Khalidi? Depends. Said? Depends. Oboler? Depends. My comment on Oboler was in the context of whether his single article about the topic of his activism was suffiient to justify having an article here (inclusion standads). If Khalidi was the only scholar to have ever written about, say, a Palestinian internet activist group, and worked directly with whatever the Palestinian version of NGO Monitor is to boot at the time of writing, I would argue he was too deeply involved in that particular topic and would say that it should not be treated as independent and not enough to start to justify inclusion. I would hope that in general Khalidi and Saids views are attributed to them when used here (I would suspect they are). At any rate, the analogy is poor. I find about 30 hits for Andre Oboler on google scholar, compared to 45,000 for Said and about 1,500 for Khalidi. Both are/were eminent academics at leading institutions. Obelor has a PHD in computer science and his website says he is the "Director of Online Engagement at the Zionist Federation of Australia." There are of course many pro-Zionist academics of equal or higher standing than the two Palestinian under discussion. Oboler isn't one of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another study that mentions the JIDF [13], although the discussion of the group is much shorter than the other article. The point is that scholarly sources do exist, and the claim that no such sources exist is incorrect. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A one-sentence mention in a 150 page piece wouldn't cut it either, User:Einsteindonut.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What a strange statement. Admittedly the mention is brief, but it is within the context of "A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College..." which certainly is not insignificant. The term you use "wouldn't cut it" brings up the point I raised earlier. You are clearly so hostile to the subject of the article that it would be better if you recused yourself from editing, because your apparent advocacy raises COI concerns. There are usable sources I found in a few minutes of looking, and which some editors said do not exist. Now I have shown sources exist, but you want to raise the bar, although you can not deny WP:V. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Full mention of the JIDF from the thesis: "The Jewish Internet Defense Force disabled social networking sites that promote anti-semitism or Islamic terrorism." It's a stupid point because this discussion of AFDing it isn't going to go anywhere. But no, i don't consider that the sort of in depth coverage to allow for a stand-alone article. The basis for my belief that one sentece doesn't amount to "substantial coverage" has nothing to do with "hostility."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Bali, you keep using terms such as "stupid point", "it isn't going to go anywhere", "wouldn't cut it", etc, which presents two problems. One is that these terms suggest emotion but not meaning. The other is that these terms, and many others you have used, indicate that the emotion involved is hostility. Someone, such as you, who is that hostile to a subject should not be editing an article about that subject. The reason is COI. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a "stupid" point because the article is not going to be AFD'd given the way inclusion standards work here. An AFD "isn't going to go anywhere" because I believe the outcome (unfortuately from my perspective) is that it would end as "keep." I.e. the status quo, i.e. "going nowhere." My belief that one sentence in a paper "doesn't cut it" when it comes to the GNG's call for "substantial coverage" can be agreed with or disagreed with, but has nothing to do with "hostility." That a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question -- and forged a post here to make an admin look antisemtic as part of your little game -- is talking about COI is amusing. And sad. Since it's the same rhetorical tactic you've been using for years here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your attitude that anyone, who wants the article to be fair and good, must be "a sock of a banned editor who runs the website in question" leaves a lot to be desired. I have no relationship to the subject of the article. But if you think differently, take steps to prove your accusation. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO it is rather telling that this IP's first edit is to JIDF's talk page asking another editor to "redact the clear BLP violation". Quite obviously the language of someone familiar with the Wikipedia. Anyways, an AfD on the JIDF would produce a lot of consternation from certain corners, true, but if the only thing they have really been in the news for is the facebook usurpations, then there's a case to be made for WP:ONEEVENT. Tarc (talk)

Comment: I'm not sure if you're part of this or not or if you just don't know much about the organization, but it a common tactic of many Wikipedia editors to downplay the JIDF's significance. Please note my response to another editor who just tried to do this, here. Obviously, they are significant to some extent, or the circus wouldn't be happening. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)

Is this, then, just a supporting point of view, or is it WP:CIRCUS? Does one side need to show good faith and act with civility, while the other side is exempt? There is every reason to maintain civility, no matter what users involved may think of others. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey 173.52.126.77, Don't take the allegations of COI or being a sockpuppet, personally. That's what happens to any of us who are the slightest bit interested in honesty/objectivity in the article about the JIDF. --79.172.242.150 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.242.161 (talk)
WP:QUACK? IP editors that edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page concerning the JIDF respectively. Everyone involved in this knows that DA threatened to continue with socks and meatpuppets if he didn't get his way. I am somewhat surprised that these most recent puppets aren't banned or at least striked from record. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Saddhiyama, we (func-en, CUs, etc.) are aware of the issues. For the record, it is  Unlikely, in my opinion, that the 173 user is DA or Jewdefence or one of the other suite of puppets, and that is what I said when asked today on func-en. So while the obvious ones should be handled, I fear that there is the danger of dismissing interested parties who are not one-track meatpuppets or sockpuppets out of hand. Then again, I have been known to be wrong, about lots of things :) -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is fair enough. I don't have the same tools available as bureaucrats. I only have WP:QUACK and a couple of SPI IP's that has never edited before, but seems to know the specifcs of BLP violations and the relevance of Jimbo Wales' talk page, and uses them in favour of said DA who promised something exactly like this, so what do I know. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, Saddhiyama, you're right for trying to protect the project. In my opinion (not as a CU but an editor) the 79 IP is quacking mighty loudly :) -- Avi (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Saddhiyama is quite mistaken, and I do not "edit exclusively on the JIDF-article and this talk page". In fact, it is very rare for me to get involved in such issues. My IP address does change from time to time, and it changing just when I made some comments here. But my interests, and almost all my editing, are focused elsewhere. A little good faith would go a long way. I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but you are a banned editor, aren't you now? You're on a 173.52 IP range, you have a penchant for false allegations of anti-semitism and a pure warrior mentality for your "side" in the IP area. You're the banned User:Malcolm Schosha (previously the banned User:Kwork. And here's the last IP he socked and got caught with User:173.52.182.160. I'm a little embarrassed that i didn't pick up on this sooner (poor 'ol Malcolm has come linguistic quirks.) Ciao, as you say Malcolm.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said above: "I very much regret the combative stance taken by some editors that their own motivations are as pure as the driven snow, and that (in stark contrast) the motives of those who disagree with them are evil. Framing discussions in that way is, I think, harmful to Wikipedia." It is common in I/P dispute discussions (as this is) for sides to claim good intentions for themselves, and evil intentions to those who disagree with them. It is really just a variation on the claim, of those in dispute, that God is on their side. Of course. 173.52.126.77 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be wary of this kind of "sockpuppet" analysis. Note that apparently most addresses in 173.52.x.x geolocate to Brooklyn, New York [14], and are held by Verizon, a very major US internet provider which provided 10% of broadband connections in 2004.[15] Now 1.618 million Jews are said to live in New York[16], some 12% of a total 13.2 million (about 1/3 of the 4.9 million in Israel). Assuming Verizon's Brooklyn site covers the greater New York City area, this means that (unless there's something I missed) about 1.2% of all Jews should be logging in from 173.52.x.x. (Maybe more - the Verizon figure may have grown) You could make the wrong conclusion from this sort of guesswork. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's Malcolm to a dead certainty. The IP geolocates to the same residential address on Ocean Avenue across from Prospect Park in both cases. What do you figure the odds are that it's Malcolm's downstairs neighbor? Same writing style, same interest in the same type of art and philosophy, same straw men and misdirection tactics, etc..Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any standard internet providers let people geolocate their customers' homes. The customers won't stand for it. A random IP [17] geolocates to the same coordinates. Not every 173.52.x.x resolves to Brooklyn - some are in the Bronx or Long Island - but as far as I can tell all the ones that do resolve to the exact same spot. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're right. And I apologize for misunderstanding and misusing the technology (i tested it out on my IP -- i live in a dense city much like Brooklyn -- the coordinates were half a mile off). This edit clinched it though [18] -- Malcolm styles himself as a disciple of the Stoic philosphers.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
David Appletree is a hate mongering pseudonymous avatar, Rob. If we were using his real name that would be different.78.46.105.209 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There are not many,

Observations on Bali's Comments about Dr. Oboler Here - BLP/Personal attacks Isues?

redacted - Reposting private email is not allowed on WPThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

I am Hans Von Albert of Germany and vould like to zay hello!!!!!!76.177.47.225 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jou Germans from the USA should know zat zee vee is not capitalised ven zee first name is given, and not all German/Americans speak like Arte Johnson let alone write in zat accent... You are very far from ze Favzerland, "Interesting... but not very funny!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mousetrap

There's been some press coverage in the UK (and internationally, actually) about our article on Agatha Christie's long-running West End play, The Mousetrap:

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organisations:

With many more articles here: [19]. Recent discussions: Talk:The_Mousetrap#Spoiling_on_Facebook_too, Talk:The_Mousetrap#Ending_spoiler. What do you think is the best thing to do? --JN466 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In my view, our current policy on spoilers is wrong, but I'm not wound up about it in the least and I don't intend to really join in discussions about it. I think there should be some kind of clause encouraging people to be particularly careful about spoiling reader enjoyment of art works that hinge particularly on a surprise ending, and to reveal it only if there is some particular encyclopedic purpose. Revealing endings just for the sake of some passion for documenting every single provable fact in the universe is not really right. I should add: I have not seen this play, I have not read the article, and I don't want to read the article because I don't want to have the ending spoiled for me. So I have no opinion about this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If only those journalists had the same grasp on the principle of an encyclopedia. No matter what one thinks about spoiler warnings, there is no justified reason to first read something that per definitionem will contain a spoiler (like any plot summary, book report etc.) and then complain about having it spoiled for you. Especially if you willingly click on a section called "plot" (or even "identity of the murder" in this case!), you should not be surprised to find the plot of the subject there. So yes, Joe is right, ignore it. It's a "controversy" created by some journalists with no grasp on what an encyclopedia is and apparently too much time on their hands. Regards SoWhy 08:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a spoiler warning should be a huge, blinking notice "caution, spoiler" followed by a collapsible box containing the spoiler itself. The last sentence of the article's short lead says: "The play is also known for its twist ending, which at the end of every performance the audience is asked not to reveal." The spoiler itself is the second half of the second paragraph of the subsection "Identity of the murderer" of the "Plot" section. That was also the situation when the Independent article was written, except that at the time "Identity of the murderer" was a separate section following "Plot". Hans Adler 09:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The article version which hid the ending (and is safe to read for those not wishing to know the ending) was this one. It did not actually contain a "huge blinking notice 'caution spoiler'", just a collapsed box that readers could click on. A collapsed box is a good compromise, respecting the feelings of fans of this extremely long-running and much-loved play, while not withholding information from those who want to access it. The labelling of the box needn't be as dramatic as it was in that article version. "Click on Show if you want to know the play's ending" would do just as well. --JN466 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this "reasonable compromise" is that too many people are suggesting it for too many things. Muhammad images, medical pictures, long tables, nudity ... and if any one category is given community approval, we can only expect it to expand to cover all of them, and much more: not just the ending but any part of the plot, not just Muhammad images but Fred Phelps protest banners, not just long tables but any mathematical derivation, not just nudity but any drawing suggesting a disturbing activity. You'd end up with boxes in boxes, articles that can't be printed out without holding a scavenger hunt for all the clickable items. The more this is argued, the more sense the original WP:SPOILER decision makes. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be an extreme worst case scenario with no basis in actual requests. I think wikipedia as a project should always be leaning towards any kind of reasonable compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
We are a global website. As the article itself says "Christie asked that the story not be published as long as it ran as a play in the West End of London. The short story has still not been published within the United Kingdom but it has appeared in the United States in the 1950 collection Three Blind Mice and Other Stories." So it was first published in the US sixty years ago.... If we were a UK specific website then I would be inclined to go along with Ms Christie's heirs. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────On collapsing surprise endings in plot summaries: The only argument I've seen against it is the slippery slope. But we could agree to collapse surprise endings in plot summaries while not agreeing to collapse stuff because of offensiveness. Two utterly distinct issues. No slippery slope here, but false equivalence. Anthony (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What criterion can we use, that says it's wrong to offend those with an interest in the Mousetrap, but right to offend Muslims? The Muslims have had their spoiler ban for 1500 years, and when broken there have been riots about it. What do we tell them, about why we can't hide those images, if we roll over and hide this? Apart from being white, and Christian, and English, I can't imagine a single advantage for those pressing this issue, over those pressing that one. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Cyclopia's unexpected promotion to "spokesman" for Wikipedia by journalists of the Independent, Jayen466. And while you are reading our article on The Mousetrap, pay attention to its references section. See that citation of a book by Salem Press? That's an encyclopaedia, that tells the reader the twist in the tale just like this encyclopaedia does, that was published twenty years ago. Readers can check Wikipedia's facts against it.

Don't let journalists who got their facts wrong and then parroted the errors around the world do your thinking for you. Whatever fact checking they each did, it wasn't nearly good enough. Little to nothing in the news reports, that you are waving about to support your stance that there's some problem with an encyclopaedia entry here, was actually factually correct in the first place. They got the status of the talk page contributors wrong; they claimed that the Independent had interviewed people that Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell had not interviewed; they got the date of the relevant article edits wrong by several years; they committed the sin of omission of failing to note that they were quoting what people had written months before the "story"; they didn't notice the existence of an actual spokesman; they didn't check the Wikipedia article out for themselves before parroting a previous newspaper's story; and they didn't bother to check out the many other reference works, including other encyclopaedias and books like Facciponti's and Reed's Teacher's Guide to Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap and Other Plays available for free on the World Wide Web from Penguin since July 2004 (according to its publication data), that have trodden this ground years or even decades ago, before Wikipedia ever did, without three U.K. newspapers constructing a tizzy from whole cloth.

Check your facts before basing your arguments upon this newspaper fabrication. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The errors in the newspaper articles are a red herring in this discussion, as is the slippery-slope argument. It is clear that some people wish the ending weren't in plain sight; so why not accommodate them, by hiding the content in a box that readers can open if they wish? Some readers may not know that the whole crux of the play is the surprise twist at the end.
It is also wrong to frame this whole issue in terms of a power struggle, or us "rolling over", as though it would inconvenience us or anyone else to put the material in a collapsed box, or as though it would jeopardise our encyclopedic mission to do so. If we can remove a source of annoyance to someone else without cost to ourselves, why not be generous and do it? Why be dogmatic, inflexible and rule-bound for the sake of it?
And by the way, likening the impact of our article on The Mousetrap, which is read more than 10,000 times a month, to that of an obscure specialist cyclopedia that appears to be unavailable from amazon and costs $368 when bought directly from Salem Press, is comparing apples and oranges.
In a different sense, the errors in the newspaper articles are of course relevant. Some wit or philosopher -- the name escapes me right now -- once wrote something to the effect, "Isn't it disturbing to find, with any event that you have personal, first-hand knowledge of, that it is misreported in the newspapers?" Newspaper coverage of Wikipedia is, in most cases, atrocious balderdash. Sam Blacketer was lambasted in the international press for removing an attack picture designed to ridicule David Cameron (the press made out he did it to make Cameron look bad). Cycl0pia and an anonymous IP are described as official spokespeople or approved committee members for Wikipedia. Etc. If press reporting on us is so distorted, isn't it time we entertained the possibility in our minds that press reporting on other topics may be similarly off the wall? I have never understood why our sourcing guidelines (with the exception of the medical field, where sanity prevailed, thank God) assume that press sources are as reliable as academic books and other scholarly sources. --JN466 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Some readers may not know that the whole crux of the play is the surprise twist at the end. : Ehm, I don't want to sound rude, but do you actually read the articles you talk about? The fourth sentence of the whole article, before the TOC, currently says: "The play is also known for its twist ending, which at the end of every performance the audience is asked not to reveal." --Cyclopiatalk 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion reminds me of complaints several years ago from magicians in response to Wikipedia articles that explained how their tricks work. I'm not sure how that was resolved, but it might have been by declaring the article "how-tos" and moving them to the relative obscurity of Wikibooks. It also has some connection to other secrets, like the Mormon Temple Garments, that Wikipedia has publicized. I can sympathize with those whose faith or livelihood depends in some part on keeping these matters secret. However Wikipedia doesn't reveal secrets. At most, it publicizes what has already been published elsewhere. In this case, the information has been published in at least a couple of sources.
Regarding "spoiling" plots, that's mostly an issue with whodunits. Nobody is complaining that Wikipedia or Cliff Notes is giving away the ending of Hamlet. When it comes to books, readers should avoid flipping to the last page or reading plot summaries if they want to be surprised. It's a little different with a play, but still, attendees would be well-advised to avoid reading reviews of whodunits.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Cycl0pia, I often find your way of thinking really abstract and dogmatic; ideology-based rather than practical. Here in this case, you seem to assume that the typical Wikipedia reader sits down at their screen, begins in line 1, and then methodically reads the article, sentence by sentence. I am 100% positive that pretty much the only people who ever read Wikipedia articles that way are (some) reviewers in the GA and FAC processes. The overwhelming majority of our surfing readership "skims". They may begin in the middle, the end, or any place else that attracts their eyes, and typically move on to another page after having read merely parts of the article, rather than the whole of it. --JN466 02:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I often find your way of thinking really abstract and dogmatic; ideology-based rather than practical. : I am curious to know what "ideology" you are talking about. I was simply stating facts, I see nothing "abstract" or "dogmatic" in facts.
The overwhelming majority of our surfing readership "skims"  : I skim a lot as well. But you will notice that articles, nonetheless, strive to have a coherent, old-fashioned top-to-bottom structure. We do not know how our readers will actually use the content, but we structure it in the classical way and we assume it will be used that way. It's the most basic assumption, and it is one that is known to work. We do not repeat definitions in every paragraph because the readers will "skim", for example. If we have to throw away every assumption on that, I could also reply that users can casually click on the collapsible box and read it before realizing what they clicked on -and it's not a far-fetched example: I click on collapsible boxes automatically all the time. --Cyclopiatalk 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Authority abandonment?

You became silent. The community regards it as an official agreement.As for Jinbo and Wikimedia Foundation, the management authority and the management rights other than English Wikipedia were abandoned. It is very regrettable. How will management and the management of each language version be done in the future?Whom is the domain of "wikipedia.jp" succeeded by?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please send someone else to talk to me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think he thinks that you have forfeited ownership (or at least management) of Wikipedia Japan by not participating in discussions with them. I seem to recall one of the other messengers from Wikipedia Japan expressing a concern about this as well.--*Kat* (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
here. It was this same person. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand what he is saying, I suppose. But he's absolutely wrong. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
What I do wrong?.It will not explain Japanese community in you. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User:山吹色の御菓子 is blocked indefinitely on ja.wikipedia; an explanation is here. 山吹色の御菓子 has made a series of allegations on Jimbo's talk page that are not clearly understandable[20] [21][22][23]. Plainly though it is a matter relating to Japanese Wikipedia rather than the English Wikipedia. 81.145.247.158 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In Japanese Wikipedia, sysop can be freely blocked. There is no policy. The reason why I am blocked it is because of harmful in sysop, and doesn't have the tangible reason. However, sysop is concluded without doing the check user. The act that I proposed Wikipedia:Office action and Wikipedia:Revision deletion is a block reason. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please write in Japanese so we can have someone here who understands both Japanese and English translate it into something intelligible. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd cease attempting to communicate with this editor. You've asked him to communicate in Japanese several times to be more understandable and he has refused, which feels like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He's also posted here at least twice before, and neither of those discussions went anywhere. He's been blocked from editing the Japanese Wikipedia, so I can't see him contributing productively here either. His continued posting here is grandstanding, plain and simple, and we shouldn't be encouraging him to continue. elektrikSHOOS 09:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I want you to refer(User talk:Jimbo Wales#wikipedia.jp and User:Tietew). --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia.jp and User:Tietew

The Japanese user is making references to the domain wikipedia.jp, so I made some research.

The Japanese Internet authority has its Whois service at http://whois.jprs.jp/en/ A query for the domain wikipedia.jp returns the following result:

Domain Information:
[Domain Name]                   WIKIPEDIA.JP
[Registrant]                    Tietew
[Name Server]                   ns1.tietew.jp
[Created on]                    2005/02/01
[Expires on]                    2011/02/28
[Status]                        Active
[Last Updated]                  2010/03/01 01:05:05 (JST)

All the contact information is invalid, so I will not repeat it here. (There is however a contact form available here.)

The domain tietew.jp contains a web page. More information is available at the About page:

The Meta page makes the following statement: Tietew is a Japanese Wikipedian. A user box list his English skills as En-1. The page also lists a number of accounts:

  • The account User:Tietew on the English language Wikipedia was last active in May 2007.
  • Tietew (利用者:Tietew) is an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia.

On the Japanese Wikipedia Tietew made his last edit on June 9, 2010 – to his appropriately named subpage ja:利用者:Tietew/activity. The subsection ドメイン contains the following additional information (as seen through Google Translate)

I do see a potential for a real problem here. I do not think I need to go any deeper into this. At present wikipedia.jp redirects to the main page of the Japanese language version of Wikipedia. What would be the optimal solution is something like exists in France: The page wikipedia.fr is owned by Wikimédia France and serves as a portal to all Wikimedia projects.

Some additional trivia:

  • I did not come across any personal information on Tietew , His user page only contains a copy of the template WP:IFPROXY
  • Searching on the Japanese version of Google for "Wikipedia" does not return results for wikipedia.jp. This is most likely because Google dislikes redirects. The situation would change if the page had independent contents.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I remove == from title. This topic has no relation to above. He is admin of ja.wikipedia who mainly active in blocking of open-proxies. That domain is taken in maybe 4 or 5 years ago (old domain). As far as I know, That domain is reserved for future use of local chapter of Japan in good faith. Local chapter has not yet realized in Japanese region. If that reservation is problematic for foundation and people of foundation or so contact him, he would talk and may reply about it. I want to say one thing. I feel prejudice about "Japanese Wikipedia". --Was a bee (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
His main work is similar to User:ProcseeBot, checking port and if it is open-proxy, then block it 6 months. You can confirm his admin log.
And his user page IS NOT the copy of WP:IFPROXY. WP:IFPROXY IS the copy of his user page. You can check it at history of that page(through google trans).
--Was a bee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a message to Jimbo. If you want to know this more deeply, I think it is good to ask it to User:aphaia. She know well about old days of Wikimedia project of Japanese region, and if I am not mistaken, she is one of the friend of Tietew. Also she can speak English nicely. --Was a bee (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have already emailed her. I think there is no problem, Tietew is a known Wikipedian from a long time ago, and in many cases, community members registered domains for us to hold them away from spammers, etc. I'll also let the Wikimedia Foundation know what the situation is on this domain name once I get to the bottom of it. I really doubt there is any problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think there is no problem. Those domains has been taken in good faith, and we once asked WMF if they wanted to get them transferred. At that time, we got a informal reply like "no, thank you, we'd rather be grateful for you a trusted Wikipedian to hold them in your own expense". That is why an individual Wikipedia user holds those domains. And Was a bee pointed out, there is no Wikimedia chapter in Japan yet. If asked by WMF or a future chapter, those domains would be transferred without trouble, I believe. --Aphaia (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no 利用者:Tietew in effective syaop. If syaop does not edit it in Japanese Wikipedia for three months, they are made to resign automatically (ja:Wikipedia:管理者の辞任#自動退任について).He is Tuesday, February 23, 2010 04:47 It was not done since(ja:Wikipedia:管理者の辞任#管理者の自動退任). The resignation was confirmed.However, he does not give back sysop authority.--222.150.138.24 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
His admin status has been confirmed in community by polling (ja:Wikipedia:管理者解任の投票/Tietew_20100602, through google trans). I want English speakers to know that how Japanese trolls anonymously spread distorted information about Japanese Wikipedia like this. Prejudices are come from there. If you have any doubts about Japanese Wikipedia, feel free to ask me, or post it to ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers like Petri Krohn did, or visit irc.freenode.net#wikipedia-ja channel on IRC (Although I am not active on IRC). Many Japanese are not good at English, like me, but many would try to respond your questions sincerely. --Was a bee (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
利用者:Tietew problem divided into "Automatic resignation in regulations" sect and "Exception" sect, and an intense discussion was done. It is a vote forced so that "Exception" sect may confirm it. Therefore, "Automatic resignation in regulations" sect is not participating(ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者の辞任#自動退任にしたらどうかja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者解任の投票/Tietew_20100602#異議申立). It is not in the act of normality. No one has decided the confirmation of the authority(ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:管理者の辞任#Tietew氏の処遇について). --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to pay for the domain registration costs is a bad excuse for not transferring the domains to WMF. I can only imagine... (retracted because of WP:BEANS). Does WMF really want to put their faith in the good will of users? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that exactly what our projects are? — Coren (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I should have said "good will of of one individual user?" -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Quite a selection of wikipedia. whatever are held by somewhat random individuals. Only recently have we started to adress this.©Geni 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I want to hear it from Aphaia. With whom of Wikimedia Foundation did you speak?Can the content be clarified?The act is good intentions, and I feel that their act will contribute to Wikipedia in the future.However, the danger that it will be resold by owner's bankruptcy and others the way things are going cannot be prevented. --山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can ja:Wikipedia:Info-ja(info-ja@wikipedia.jp) that uses the domain of "wikipedia.jp" provisionally use continuance? Wikipedia:Info-ja is a representative organization of Japanese Wikipedia. It negotiates handling complaints. Isn't there problem though 利用者:miya is receiving the E-mail?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The page seems to be some kind of contact page for the Japanese Wikipedia. I checked the Finnish language "Press contacts" page here: fi:Wikipedia:Lehdistölle. It lists an email address: info-fi@wikimedia.org for user help. There is also the name and private email address for press contacts. I guess there should be something like info-ja@wikimedia.org for Japanese language queries. The Japanese page ja:Wikipedia:Info-ja only lists info-ja@wikimedia.jp. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This really is a matter for the Japanese Wikipedia community, not an editor on the English Wikipedia. I suggest it be left to them to handle this. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That suggestion has been made many times, but this user comes back with this same complaint every few weeks/months now. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a question at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers#wikipedia.jp and User:Tietew. Jimbo's talk page is not the place to solve this, but at least we should be able to decide where to move this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It has negotiated on Wikipedia:Info-ja as Wikipedia representative organization. It is a problem of IOND UniversityWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IOND_University).It changed to the content that it had demanded by protesting against IOND Universityja:ノート:イオンド大学ja:ノート:平和神軍観察会事件/メール200704. It was said that it sued wikipedia if not corresponding according to the demandja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/イオンド大学 20070329/メール. A disadvantageous content for IOND_University was deleted.The page protected in Mikegodwin instruction[24][25]ja:ノート:グロービートジャパン対平和神軍観察会事件#Info-ja対応について, and was deleted.The content will do the propaganda to a specific other party.Jimbo and Mike godwin transferred, and approved the disposal authority to the member of Info-ja.Afterwards, Mike godwin had retired temporarily. Is Jimbo permitted until the future though it is effective up to the present time?--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This remark contradicts what Aphaia explained[26]--山吹色の御菓子 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Removal of a website from the external links section

Hi Jimbo,

This is Sigi. Please could you explain me the process how to get a page listed again in the external link section without removal. Our page - which is quite serious - is now removed after an entry.

Thank you in advance for your help! Sigi

You can reach me at sluger@vol.at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.232.82 (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You should probably review our external links guidelines. The link was removed because it was inappropriate, and I don't really see it adding to the articles, so there would really be no way around that. Also, you may wish to review the guidelines on conflict of interest—your use of "we" makes it seem you have a connection with this company, which generally means you shouldn't be inserting links for them anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer to be Barca Lounger Emeritus instead?

I considered that, but I just think they look so ugly. HalfShadow 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Donation

Hiya :) I saw the message thing about the donation. I would like to, but I dont have a credit card or paypal So can I sent it by the post?

Thanks

Sophie (Talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there are, as seen here. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 350° 3' 45" NET 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Objections removed

As a result of an offwiki discussion, the contents of which I will not reveal here without consent, between myself and Jimbo Wales, I have decided that my interpretation of the issues surrounding PC and its usage here are widely off the mark, due to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of quite a lot of the issues. As such, I've decided to withdraw all of my objections to PC, its implementation and usage here, and hope that what I have said in the debates up to now will be taken as read that it no longer applies (other than the UI issues, but these can be resolved). BarkingFish 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great~can someone alert the media? 69.180.160.77 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit :) BarkingFish 01:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
While a media alert is probably unnecessary, striking through the comments which you are withdrawing would be useful. Gerardw (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know how I could do that without breaking conversations, since Jimbo has replied to me more than a couple of times. I'd rather gain approval from him to remove the entire exchanges, rather than have him talking to himself :) BarkingFish 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You can just use the <s></s> to strikethrough your comments you no longer mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
BarkingFish: Given your significant previous opposition, it seems that such an epiphany might be useful for the rest of us. Any chance you could get Jimbo's permission to disclose your discussion? —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

PC and other issues

I'd say #1 concern about pending changes, all the tools that we are so used to using to police live changes, are useless for pending changes, so we are going to see backlogs. We need a huggle-esque tool for PC for the human element of PC to be able to scale, and we need it before we have large numbers of pages under PC. Honestly, I think the foundation needs to become a part of the tools business in general, so that better software for "advanced" users (rc patrollers, newpage patrollers, admins, etc) is developed alongside MediaWiki itself, and so that those tools acccurately reflect the vision of the community and foundation. We've had a number of people working to develop tools over the years, and some very good ones, Huggle, VandalProof, Igloo, AutoWikiBrowser, and others over the years, but they've all been developed in a vacuum, to scratch an editor's itch, by editors that also happened to be competent developers. As such, they perform well, but not as well as they could if the development was structured towards things the community needs, rather than whatever that tool author needed at the moment. This needs to change for long term success. Part of keeping an open community and open editing environment successful is making sure that the people working to keep it open are better equipped (and thus, more efficient) than those who would abuse that openness. With vandalism in particular, we want the difference in effort between some random vandal working to undermine our work and the RC patrollers working to stop them to be as great as possible - where it takes them anywhere from 15 seconds to 5 minutes to destroy, it should take a second or two at most to protect, keeping a "balance of effort" in favor of those who create, improve, and protect, versus those who destroy and corrupt, all the while keeping us open to anyone who wants to contribute constructively. Triona (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said. Check out EzPR on English Wikinews as an example.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, we need to have Pending Changes easier to use here. I'm a reviewer on Wikinews, and Easy Peer Review is great. I also think the Pending Changes should be activated on all the Wikipedia pages, just like German Wikipedia. Cheers, --Diego Grez (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
How's de's edit rate doing these days?©Geni 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bad part is that no one is gonna ever review 3.000.000 articles. PC should be only on Good and Featured articles, that are supposed to be reviewed in a way or another. Diego Grez (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A few points

  • @ Cenarium. I think 65% is accurate, not 60%. The 'other responses' did not address the feature itself, and many who voted in that section also voted to close. FWIW, the PC/Closure discussion was almost exactly 2:1 as well.
  • @ SlimVirgin. Re: three keep options vs. one close option. I agree that we were missing a close option to close-but-improve, however, consider this analogy. I ask you if you want to a) stay home; b) go for a 1 mile run; c) go for a 3 mile run; or d) go for a 9 mile run. Let's say you tell me you are 35% against running at all, 25% up for 1 mile; 35% in the mood for 2; and 10% down for 9. This is not a sneaky way to tip the balance. It is a way to elicit your specific enthusiasm. The 'consensus' from that decision would be something like, "Well, let's go for a run but not for too long. How about we aim for 2-and-a-half and see how my energy level is." I don't see how the PC straw poll was any different. Otherwise, I find your stance on this pretty reasonable.
  • @Jimbo. Bold move. FBOW, the notion of a trial implied that it would be time-limited in some meaningful way and that it would default to turn-off. 65% support is very significant, but it wasn't quite consensus, so the workaround compromise happened. It wasn't perfect, but it allowed the same feature development to occur without muddying the water for 35% of the community. That's important. Minority opposition shouldn't be able to hold technological advances hostage (party-of-no style), but they should not be overlooked. You never know when you'll be in that minority, and moreover, once polls aren't trusted, the whole thing falls apart.
  • I shared your specific conclusion from the outset--it seemed common sense and reasonable to keep the feature on while it was improved--but I was persuaded/required to take the procedural arguments of the opposition seriously. That seemed like sausage-making in action, painstaking but at least everyone seemed ok with the outcome. Your intervention was more of a deux-ex-machina, great Legislator coming down to declare the obvious. So I'm torn. I thought the conclusion was fairly obvious, too. But it was still smack-laying.
  • Also, two points which heavily skewed the debate: 1) the poll was started without much advanced approval, phrased as a simple up and down vote requiring 2/3 support, and pretty quickly tainted things, giving the opposition another whole set of complaints. It didn't look good that the poll starter is a pretty strong supporter of the feature. 2) The opposition to this thing is loud. It's not always articulated in a way I understand, but there is a gut feeling that many editors seem to have that this is just wrong. That's hard to have reasonable discussions about, but since a large number of people shared that sentiment, it made proceeding carefully a pretty reasonable approach, if only to make the real discussion about what to do with PC a productive one. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It is disheartening to see that, after literally douzens of editors pointed out how flawed the vote is, the total number of votes for 2-4 are still used heavily to argue in favor of PC. To point out once more just why it is flawed, I'll work with your example Ocaasi:
Imagine I'd set up the vote as a) stay in bed b) stay home and clean the house c) stay home and work out d) go for a 9 mile run. How many of the same people as in your version would vote for d)? Lets say 35%. With means there is a clear majority against running. The way how options are presented and how many are presented changes results. What is worse, all of the votes for 2-4 are being used above to argue for gradual expansion. There is no justification at all to count votes for 2 in favor of what is essentially option 3. Option 1 means less PC, option 3 means more PC than option 2. Why are these votes counted on one side and not the other?
If the results were very clear cut (say 95% in favor), it would not matter, but taking a close result, that was only achieved with a biased voting mechanism and presenting it as "the community wants PC" is dishonest. --Xeeron (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing pending

User:Dabomb87 is removing pending protection from what looks like a random position, without consideration to whether or not it was beneficial at the article or not, just with the summary, trial ended.. Is this necessary or beneficial, he appears to be reverting back to the level of protection previous to pending being applied. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped for now, since it seems to be more controversial than it was originally (and there seemed to be reasonable support for it here). As for reverting to to the previous level of protection, I'm just returning to the status quo, and am not necessarily endorsing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. What I propose we do now is have a discussion of where Pending changes is useful, even in the current configuration, and where it is not as useful, and make some gentle adjustments based on that. I do not want to see sudden fast moves in any direction, as I think that would not be helpful for general peace and harmony. There is no reason to rule out removing it from some articles, but there is also no reason to rule out adding it to some articles that don't have it. (When should we add it? When it improves the encyclopedia. When should we remove it? When it improves the encyclopedia.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is no reason why it can't continue to be requested when in some situations it is clearly the better method of protection and allows more unconfirmed users to contribute than semi protection there are clearly occasions where I have been wanting to add it and have seen articles semi protected for a year when against the attacking additions of a single user pending protection would have been plenty. I also find it a poor idea to be removing pending when it was working fine and reverting back to indefinite semi protection, that is clearly a restrictive retrograde step. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A way to resolve the lingering debate

I've asked the Foundation to give me a firm schedule for when a version 2.0 will be available.

There seems to be general support from everyone who isn't just absolutely dead set against the feature no matter what that it will be worthwhile to test a new version. The remaining question is what do we do until that new version happens. Given that it took years to get this version, I am sure some are wondering whether the time scale should be estimated in weeks, months, or years.

When I hear back from them, I will report on what they have said, and we'll do a quick poll strictly to determine what to do in the meantime. The two options will be simple:

1. Stop using it (either by turning it off, or removing it from all the articles, leaving it turned on but dormant)

2. Use it, with an evaluation (in the normal policy discussion way) of where it should be used and where not, based on our existing experience. (I.E. it works in some cases, not in others, so we can clarify and use it based on those parameters).

The result will be determined by a simple majority vote, since either option is guaranteed to be temporary in any case.

Item (2) will also include a "hard stop" or "drop dead" date - *not* the Foundation's estimate of when they will have Version 2 ready, but a reasonable date after that (to allow, in full fairness, some slippage of ship date - this is software, after all).

I will also encourage the Foundation to roll out fixes in a "release early, release often" fashion to the existing product, i.e. to do some of the super easy UI fixes like naming the buttons properly as quickly as possible.

I hope that this will resolve the impasse caused by the vagueness in the closing conditions of the original trial, and give us a way to determine what the community wants to do in the meantime.

(I think we will all agree - if the meantime means 3 more years, we might as well turn the feature off and wait. And if we are talking about 3 weeks, there's no need to get agitated about anything. I'm sure the real timing is somewhere between those two!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty good way to handle it. I can't really think of anything better. I suppose that's why you are our leader... :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Will this propsed Version 2.0 or the fix have the option to decline an edit if it is vandalism, patent nonsense, unreferenced etc. without the need to manually rollback/undo the edits? Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 01:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request two items of clarification:

  • Does "drop dead date" mean a date upon which (if the fixes are not done by then) the whole thing will be abandoned, a date at which the feature will be shut off but will be eligible for trial once the fixes are completed, or something else? Basically, what will happen if the fixes are not completed by this "drop dead date"?
    Once the fixes are completed and a new trial of them takes place, will we have an opportunity for a discussion at that point to either gain strong consensus (at the very minimum as strong as it takes to promote an admin, preferably a crat), or failing it, get rid of this? Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
We'll take a poll on what to do next, in case the drop dead date is missed. The point of the drop dead date is to give a definitive date when something will happen, so that this is not thought to be endless limbo.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some sort of Huggle-like system to review the PCs could be included in 2.0. But if release is going to take more than a year, the feature needs to be turned off. Also, I'm not quite sure if I'm comfortable with a simple majority vote on that poll, perhaps 2/3? Ronk01 talk 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
2/3 what? 2/3 majority to turn it off on all articles? 2/3 majority to leave things as they are? I don't think either of those is justifiable. Remember the 50% simple majority poll is just between the two options outlined above - simply the question of what we do "in the meantime" - and you are absolutely right that before we can sensibly vote on that, we need to get some commitment on dates. If it's 3 weeks, that different from a year. I think most people, if the time before a new release is set were to be very short, would say, fine, let's keep using the current version for a little while. If it is longer, it gets more complex.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I need to involve the many staff that a commitment affects, but barring unforeseen circumstances, I'll make some sort of timeline available on the Pending Changes project page by end-of-day Friday (September 17), being as specific as I can be without access to a crystal ball or slave labor. In the meantime, a not-so-well-publicized newer version of the software is available at prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs. This version has some user interface cleanups in it (e.g. hides the "unaccept" button in many cases), and will be the first place we deploy our work. With any luck, a proper reject button should be showing up there soon. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great, Rob. Let us know on Thursday what the timeline looks like, so we can decide whether to keep using the current version while we wait.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this for real?

YouTube channel - I'm rather skeptical since it was only started on YouTube 2 days ago. mechamind90 02:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The video is real (at least the 5 seconds of it that I just watched), but the channel has nothing to do with me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps something the Foundation set up? Ronk01 talk 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm, no. Although they are WMF-related videos. Risker (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Wonder who then. Ronk01 talk 05:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Check the info box to the right; it's 4chan. I would suggest the profile be reported as impersonation.— dαlus Contribs 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone must have reported him, because clicking the link now gives a message "This account is closed" and there is no video. Soap 13:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Users closing pending protection

Well it looks like the trial is being shut down, this edit from User:Nakon closes it and says its not to be added to any articles and this one from Nakon to the Wikipedia:Protection policy page also asserts PC trial closed. I get the feeling a new straw poll with a simple yes or no to a continuation of the trial will be needed as you outlined. Or perhaps put plan B into operation and switch it off and semi protect half a million BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll set up that poll after Robla gives us the timeline, which he has promised to do by Friday. In the meantime, I added a note to the Protection policy page encouraging people not to fight or do anything drastic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Adish Aggarwala

Sir, There is someone who is tampering with the Page "Adish Aggarwala" and is defaming hi by writing certain things. Kindly appoint "Genius1087" as an authorised editor to edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.189.135 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Announcement about Pending Changes

The following is an archive of a past discussion. If you wish to start a new discussion or join an existing discussion regarding Pending Changes, please visit my talk page.

I have been studying the end of the Pending Changes poll and was asked by the Wikimedia Foundation to help interpret and to advise them about the meaning of the poll and what should be done going forward. My feeling is that, as usual, none of this is up to me to decide as a matter of finality, but that I can and should play a strong role in communicating community desires to the Foundation.

Based on the poll result, I’d like us to take a path forward that’s in the spirit of consensus driven decision-making. It’s clear from the poll that there’s a strong majority in favor of continuing to use some version of Pending Changes (65% / 35% of Support/Oppose voices, plus a considerable number of people who opposed the straw poll). It’s therefore clear that there’s absolutely no consensus for simply turning the system off and walking away.

On the other hand, there’s substantial, vocal, and articulate opposition to using a system of this kind at all, or to using it in its current form. I’ve looked carefully at the feedback, and want to address some of the most common concerns:

Openness: I believe Pending Changes, used properly, can make Wikipedia more open if used on pages that would otherwise be put under some other form of protection. We’ve been very thoughtful in using this system where it makes sense, and I believe that we can and should continue to exercise thoughtful discretion about its use.

I want to share here a personal lesson that I learned through the trial. When we first talked about this system, I believed we could use it to open up pages like George W. Bush and Barack Obama. At least in the current incarnation of the system, that’s not the case, I was wrong: these particular pages get flooded with so much vandalism, that the workload of vetting edits and the polluted edit history weigh greater than the benefit of the system.

But, I also think that this represents a useful future direction for the development of the system -- the development of more effective bulk review and edit management, to ultimately make it possible to unlock these pages. So, it continues to be my belief that Pending Changes represents a useful strategic direction to open up problematic pages rather than locking them down, and that this is in fact one of the most important topics to talk about as we refine and tweak it.

Effectiveness: Many who opposed continued use of Pending Changes expressed doubts regarding the effectiveness of the feature. I’ve looked over the results at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics, and I think there’s still much to learn. As noted above, it doesn’t work well on highly trafficked pages yet -- but there are some places where the tool seems to be effective, such as articles relating to current events (e.g. Toy Story 3 or Spain national football team). Supporters of the system have also pointed out that it can be usefully applied to determine if a page is ready to be moved from semi-protection to unprotection, without exposing it to visible vandalism. All this argues for continued careful exploration of the tool.

Complexity: Many believe that the feature is too complicated, and that the user interface is too difficult. I agree that the current iteration is rough around the edges, but I’m hopeful that this feature will become a more integrated part of the user experience over time, just like traditional page protection. I'm asking the Foundation to fix the more problematic parts of the Pending Changes interface. Based on my initial discussions, they know of several things they can do to streamline things, and plan to continue to improve and integrate the interface. If I didn't feel that I had a firm commitment from them to do this in a timely fashion, I would feel differently about the whole thing. But I think they'll do fine - and volunteer developer input would be massively appreciated.

In my traditional leadership role in the English Wikipedia, I am therefore also asking the Wikimedia Foundation to keep Pending Changes enabled, and to increase the hard-coded limit of pages as the performance characteristics of the system allow it. We will discuss on various policy pages where the use of the system is appropriate. I would ask all those opposing the system to use the coming weeks to provide feedback (or code!) that will reduce the complexity of the system, and help us to make Wikipedia more open, not less. And I suggest that 6 months from now, in mid-March, we have a deeper conversation about determining success or failure of this system, on the basis of the data available by then. My hope and belief is that, working together, we can build a system and policies that have even broader support, similar to page protection and user blocking today. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for this statement Jimbo. Might I ask what you are asking the developers to raise the hard-coded limit of pages to? NW (Talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As the performance characteristics of the system allow it. My view is that limits on the use of the tool should be up to us, through policy, not imposed by the software, but if there are performance reasons to limit it for now, I'm ok with that as well. I don't know what they will do first, but probably doubling the limit would be reasonable and then again if there are no problems as we increase our usage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping that we might start trying out Scott MacDonald's proposal, with a few thousand low-edited BLPs at a time. Perhaps we could reserve a few thousand spots for the higher-traffic articles, and add pending changes to maybe 5 or 10,000 pf the BLPs as a test. What would you think of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talkcontribs) 19:26, 10 September 2010
I am all for it, "as the performance characteristics of the system allow it".  :-) I think it would be unfortunate if slowness that should be fixed in the software causes people to shy away from using the system. But once we identify a class of articles (low-edited BLPs, particularly those which are not well-watched?) where it is useful, we should go ahead. I think that one problem with the test to date is that with only 2,000 slots, we had to be careful about where to use it... so lots of people (myself included) didn't yet add pages that will obviously benefit. Still, we must defer to the techies on the performance characteristics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Lets get this straight -- there is no consensus to turn it off? It was off in the first place! It is being turned on, and the concept of community discussion is being squelched. This is a very unfortunate decision. If this is so critical, perhaps some WMF employees might consider doing a half decent statistical analysis. It is clear that this could be potentially alluded to in your comments above. User A1 (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, A1, I don't understand your reasoning. It has been on and in use for some time now. There was a 2/3 approval to continue it. I wasn't happy with 2/3 - I think we should shoot for 80% or more, so I'm asking the Foundation to improve it based on community feedback so far, so that we can discuss an improved version. How is any of that "the concept of community discussion being squelched"?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a trial, remember? It was supposed to be turned off a while ago, at the end of the trial, but wasn't - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't have made sense to just shut it off at the end of the trial - and then vote - and then turn it back on. Why bother with all that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, if you're not happy with a 2/3 approval, why is it still on? Stop its use here until such time as the developers feel they've got it fixed on the trial implementation which was going on in the labs, then let's have another go here. Keeping it switched on and enabled when you've said yourself you're not happy with the figure reached is not, at least to me, acceptable. Send it back to labs, let them test it there, then let's test it here when the devs have worked on it. BarkingFish 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ecstatic that we got to 66% with version one of the feature, but that's not good enough to simply stop and say it is done. It is plenty of support to continue, but to insist on improvements.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@Kingpin: Part of the trial was to reach consensus once it expired to continue or shut it off. As Jimbo said, there is currently no consensus in support of the latter. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
But part of the reason the trial started in the first place was due to editors supporting a limited trial to see what it was like, and then review. So the consensus should be gained to switch it on now. We shouldn't have to gain consensus to switch this off, when we were promised it was just going to be a trial... - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@Tyrol5 - Per Jimbo's own quote "I wasn't happy with 2/3 - I think we should shoot for 80% or more" - that shows even he isn't accepting that 2/3 is enough to keep it enabled. I don't see that we HAVE reached consensus to keep it on. We haven't, not by a long shot. BarkingFish 20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
BarkingFish, that is not my view. 2/3 is enough to keep it enabled. I'm not happy with stopping here, though, which is why I'm requesting that the Foundation address the specific concerns so we can get to 80%.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think the Pending Changes system is just a huge assumption of bad faith. If somebody vandalises, there are always 4 or 5 people on Huggle ready to revert it instantly. I don't see how makes Wikipedia more open; it does just the contrary IMO. The Accept/Unaccept system is confusing too. And PLEASE, no matter what you do, don't follow de.wiki's approach of putting Pending Changes on EVERY SINGLE PAGE. Access Denied 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) My thinking, and from Jimbo's comments I gather Jimbo's thinking too, is that PC is good for pages that would otherwise have semi protection (or worse). In the case of semi protection no IP edits; in the case of PC IPs can edit. Of course that needs policy to ensure it happens - I'll concede that without policy enforcing that, then PC could well be used instead of no protection. TFOWR 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • @Access Denied:Yes, but the feature is intended to keep questionable material, that is not blatant vandalism, from appearing to anonymous viewers before being reviewed by another, more experienced, editor. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • @Access Denied: I don't get your point. de.wp is my home-wiki and when I compare the recent-changes page here and there the difference is obvious. Here the diffs are full of kiddie's entries like "LOL" and "Hellooooh!" whereas such entries are almost entirely missing in de.wp. Changes by IPs in the German wiki are not visible to them after they have edited the page. So most of them simply give up. The system is working efficiently for more than two years; why do you think I does not make sense implementing it over here? I agree that the interface needs improvements. I'm wondering whether the developers talked to their German colleagues? Alfie±Talk 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, let me also say thank you for this analysis, which in my opinion you have gotten exactly right. Where you discuss your experiences with it working somewhat differently than expected on some pages, I had a similar observation, and I'm inclined to think (as I've said on pages where the trial and poll have been discussed) that PC isn't so much a substitute for semi-protection as it is a substitute for no protection, on some but not all pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @Access Denied: Set Huggle to show oldest edits, keep 10 minutes of diffs, otherwise default settings. See how much slips past the aggressive RC patrollers. You'd be surprised. I usually see several blatant vandalism that are 5+ minutes old when doing it that way, and a lot of sneaky vandalism that becomes obvious if you spend more than 2 seconds looking at it. Huggle is the best tool right now, and it does an ok job, but it's so far from perfect that it's not funny. The big flaw IMO is there's zero coordination, so we all have to look at the same diffs. As a result, the only coordination possible is "if it was reverted, it was vandalism". That, and the competitive spirit of RC patrol (not itself a bad thing, but some bad outcomes), mean that RC patrollers try to work with as much volume as possible, when what we need to be doing is spreading out the workload to make sure that every edit gets a high confidence decision as to vandalism, good faith but harmful, not vandalism, or is tagged "not sure" and left for someone else to take a more thorough look at. PC is the beginning of one system to do that, but it's not the only possible way forward. The review model needs to extend even to edits that aren't under PC. That means, when we find an edit to be constructive, we sign off on it - taking responsibility not only for what we revert, but also for what we let through. Triona (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo did you read the discussion on the talk page and in particular this section here? - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing - where almost unanimous agreement was being reached on a way forward which is different to what you are saying/proposing/dictating and I am to understand you are over-ruling that discussion? Davewild (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That discussion was started after the time when I was reading a static (downloaded so I could read it offline) version of the discussion... and it only progressed a short time. I am not going to ask that the feature be removed from any articles where it is currently active, as there appears to be absolutely no positive reason to do that. If there are articles where it is causing problems, then it can be removed from those articles - but why remove a popular feature that is working well in most cases, just to have more discussions? It works well enough to keep - the community has spoken loud and clear on that point (65% in favor!). The best energy looking forwrad is to assist with comments and code on how to improve the feature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I couldn't agree more. There simply isn't a positive reason to remove it from where it is unless it is to solve a problem. @Davewild: I don't think that Jimbo necessarily contradicted the contents of that discussion in his closing comment. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I wanted to be careful here, so I just went and checked the original votes of those who supported this proposal (which came to late) - their votes are mostly split between (3) - keep with gradual limited expansion - and opposing the vote on principle. I think the question of what do to while we wait for the foundation to release version 2 is one that isn't hard for everyone to agree on, at least in principle: remove it where it is causing a problem, keep it where it is working, and use it more in cases like the ones where it is working ("gradual limited expansion").--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for a while that proposals derived from the straw poll accommodate the significant majority support shown. Jimbo's suggestions here very clearly do so, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
So once again, we're walked on. The 35% of community who have spoken out against this, for varying reasons including bureaucracy, complication, ineffectiveness and general all-round annoyance at its introduction are being discounted. It doesn't work well enough to keep unless there are significant improvements to the system and its effectiveness. If it does get kept (and it looks like its going to, whether we like it or not) can we at least have your assurance, Jimbo, that after the 6 month discussion you propose in mid-March of next year, that if the community says "switch it off", you'll abide by that? BarkingFish 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that the community has "walked on" you. That's what happens in voting situations. Fortunately, we aren't in a pure voting system, we try to proceed based on consensus. You can have my assurance that I will, at the appropriate time, again recommend to the Foundation that they follow the wishes of the community, and that they listen really hard to dissent to try to find a way to make things more universally appealing for everyone. I don't really understand your attitude here, as if someone is doing you wrong, or I'm overriding the community. The numbers just don't support you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, allow me to clarify my position, please. I don't feel as if someone is doing me wrong, but you quoted yourself only a small number of lines above here, that you felt two thirds or 65% wasn't enough, yet you still decide to keep it on. Where is the reasoning in that? You're not overriding the community, you're overriding your own judgement in my opinion. Can we at least get some fixes in place off-wiki, i.e in the labs, before it carries on here? Maybe if some of the issues were sorted first, I'd be a little more open to accepting its continuation. BarkingFish 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You have misunderstood me. 2/3 support is plenty strong enough to keep it on for now. When I said that I'm not happy with 2/3, I meant it in the sense of: I want it to be even better. That's why I'm asking the Foundation to fix the known problems with it, improve it, and do so with energy and vigor!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My question was about workload as I found it fiddly - to see how that impacted, another 'trial' of a few thousand BLPs is not going to tell us much. If we make it on all BLPs for three months we are actually looking at something different WRT workload and something along the lines of the original intention of the thing. Hence we either try it fully or not, not continue in this piecemeal fashion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence the concept of gradual expansion (if that proves to attain consensus at some point in the future). Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I think this makes sense. Pending changes is a feature that will be selectively employed on some articles. It didn't work well because of implementation issues but we all know that implementation issues are better sorted out in the real world than in a lab. So, we have a feature that can be used where necessary, which will only get better over time, and that 66% of editors apparently already find useful. Continuing it makes sense and is in no way a squelching of discussion or a trampling on consensus. IMO, of course. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will elaborate on my comments from the top of the page. There is obviously going to be a lot of talk here.

  • By keeping this enabled, and I am sure you can see this, you create the impression that no matter the outcome of the trial, this was going to be kept on. This is regardless of the reality, the impression will always be generated by this sort of action -- surely this devalues the validity of community discussion.
  • From a purely political perspective if you had made this "announcement" with some statistics, this would have been a better political move. Rather this is being continually made with the same "gut" response.
  • PC does not alter the relative openness of wikipedia, rather how users apply pending changes does. If we rolled out PC to the entire encyclopaedia, this would surely be closing wiki. So PC itself does little here. What it does do is alter the workload that users have to deal with with respect to vandalism. We are very good at keeping vandalism under tabs -- the success of WP is itself a testament to this. What we are not good at is writing articles, and keeping the number of policies, concepts and ideas that users need to keep in their head at once in order to be part of the WP community.
  • After my first edit I wrote "Did I do that right?" -- I had no idea. I still find policies being bandied about that I have never heard of before. WP:PEND does little to help new users, and does a lot to confuse the basic WP model.
  • Comments have been made like "lets roll this out to all BLPs", this is precisely the opposite of open, and represents the horrid closed, censured approach to article writing. There is certainly some of that 65% who believe that we should lock up a large subset of articles, purely for convenience. This is not what one would expect of a dynamic community, and precisely what one would expect of a stoic, slow cautious beauracratic process.

In summary, if it was clear that PC was going to be kept running, calling it a trial was not a good idea, it should just have been switched on, and saved us all a lot of wasted discussion. Our time has been used here in this debate, if nothing else. Now the discussion is going to morph from "should we have this on or not" to "what ever happened to consensus", this is a unwelcome development. 81.110.184.105 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

None of this makes any logical sense whatsoever. How exactly does accepting the communities overwhelming support (65%!) amount to a signal that it was always going to be kept on? That is not only false, quite obviously, it is also not even remotely plausible in term of giving that impression. If I asked that it be turned off, that would be a horrible violation of the community, it would be ignoring what the community has said loud and clear. I just don't know what you mean.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
65% won't appoint an admin, which is "no big deal". How did it get to be "overwhelming support" on a major change to Wikipedia's operation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a vocal minority who hate pending changes, and they're the ones who are going to pop up here griping as the decision went against them. Some people have this bizarre idea that "consensus" means "everyone agrees", which is obviously not the case. Just by numbers, 2/3 approval is a supermajority, so this is hardly the imposition of something without community support. And I say this as someone who finds pending changes to be frustrating. Fences&Windows 21:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And there is plenty of good faith opposition to a system which completely rewires our core tenet (assertions from Jimbo to the contrary). It's not fair at all to just announce that the consensus was "overwhelming" (it wasn't) or that opposition is knee jerk/inflexible (they aren't). And the general concern that a huge number of editor-hours were wasted in a trial/discussion/post-trial discussion is valid. If jimbo is going to step in at each veto point and assert his authority, then he ought to just cowboy up and declare there will be no veto points. Wastes everyones' time otherwise. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Unlike others, I do not feel that this is a disaster. I opposed PC, but felt that its implementation was inevitable. I only wish that you Jimbo, had trusted the process and the community and allowed us to reach a decision by consensus, which we were on the point of doing before you stepped in. I understand that you may not have agreed completely with the decision that was emerging from discussion, but that is an inherent characteristic of operating on consensus. It requires compromise, even from you. Revcasy (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I personally believe that PC could never get the 80% support that standard consensus requires, but PC is a good thing for Wikipedia, it can help us keep an eye on low traffic BLPs and other articles prone to low profile vandalism. Perhaps in the future, it can be used in some improved form on more contentious pages.

I can see the arguments both ways on using pending changes, but I do think that the consensus that had pretty-much been reached at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing was a better way forward than that suggested by Jimbo. Yaris678 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is; people of both sides agree to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm sympathetic, and I appreciate the work being done on the Straw Poll talk page, but the alternative Phrasing proposal has 12 support !votes - including struck !votes and weak supports. I can't accept that 12 !votes a consensus makes. I'd !voted in an earlier proposal or two, and that page is littered with proposals: I'm not convinced that the Straw Poll talk page is the right venue for any serious attempt at consensus building. TFOWR 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
We won't have another two-week poll on interpreting the result of the poll. This is the best way to go and reflects consensus accurately. Cenarium (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It has the voice of everyone who discussed it, with two exceptions. One can be dealt with by tweaking the wording, the other is irreconciably opposed to any future commitment to even discuss PC - and therefore to this decree also. Considering that what's being discussed is a poll closure, generally done by one admin without discussion, that's pretty good - and more consensus than here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be in support of PC were this the mythical Utopia of Perfection. Unfortunately, human nature is such that PC is fatally flawed. I've seen enough of my fellow man to know that any implementation of PC is going to end up, despite all its good intentions, anathema to Wikipedia. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 00:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, given that a minority of reviewers requested a way to decline an edit made to a PC protected page if it was blatant vandalism, patent nonsense, unsourced/unreferenced etc. I was wondering if the WMF is currently working on developing such a way of declining such changes to an article. Many thanks, --James Lu/Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 11:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you not aware of the "(undo)" link? – Smyth\talk 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am well aware of the existence of the undo button, this is why I'm requesting it I'm asking that the suggestion that users should be able to decline an edit without the need for rollbacking or undoing. I was not clear on that. If such a button were to be implemented then it would be a benefit for reviewers since they don't need to manually revert/rollback an edit that was meant in good faith or that broke policy. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading through your analysis, Mr. Wales, I have to express my concern that perhaps the Pending Changes system should only be used as a possible transition and/or gauge to and from protection. It certainly isn't doing much good on its own, as I've seen an almost unhindered amount of vandalism getting a rubber stamp and going up onto the page, which then I need approval to undo. I'm not at all familiar with the mechanics of the system, as my edits get just as blocked as everyone else's, but I don't believe it's in anyone's best interests to replace or even scale back protection in favor of Pending Changes. →Twentydragon 06:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Break

Jimbo, did you even look at the talk page ? I would like you to read this and respond point by point to my statement (also copied below). Before anyone starts shooting at me that I'm an anti-FlaggedRevs, know that I am the creator, proposer and (by far) principal organizer of this trial, without me there would have been no trial. And I have not spent hundreds of hours devising this trial proposal and trying to get a real consensus for it, to see it destroyed like this. The trial was supposed to end after the two months, so that we can have a constructive discussion on the results of the trial, the merits of PC, the problems raised and then that we make a thoughtful, careful decision, as a mature community and in serenity. What's the point of having a trial if we don't analyze it properly, try to find solutions to the problems identified, etc, so we can make an informed decision ? It's because the devs said that this wouldn't be practical to turn it off then back on that we've got this imbroglio - and that poll was badly designed by a single person (too bad I was absent at that time). It was not a consensus to turn it off that was necessary, but the opposite. A compelling consensus was necessary to divert from the default deactivation, what we've got is nowhere near that. And you are compromising the future of PC by not respecting this, because people will be less willing to compromise if the implementation is kept active on frail grounds (and more, see statement).

Erik Moller had assured here that 66% were needed to approve a FlaggedRevs implementation, we've got 60% here (you forgot the other responses), so PC ought to be removed from articles on that sole basis. We have found a compromise closure here, making the implementation dormant, discuss thoroughly in serenity (which is not possible in the state of permanent controversy that would result of a forced extension) and come up with new implementation proposals, which was roughly what we expected to do after the trial from the beginning. Now that would be showing that we are a strong, mature community.

I copy the text below of my analysis, please address each point:

I do not want to see the hundreds of hours I spent on this destroyed. Cenarium (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cenerium, I don't see any possibility that anything is going to be destroyed. We're going to get improvements to the software that respond to objections, and have another poll. There is no crisis here, there is no reason to panic. Your work is successful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There is if we don't suspend use of PC until we have worked out the multiple issues which have been raised (of whom the "don't use PC on heavily vandalized articles" was the most predictable and obvious) and made some in depth analyzis of the trial. There is simply no consensus to continue with PC until we haven't made this work, it shouldn't take more than a few months, and then we'll better know what we want of PC and be able to make an informed decision. Cenarium (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't follow you. I do agree that it shouldn't take more than a few months. And when we get the revised version from the Foundation, we can test that. It's an iterative process. That's all right. But I don't see why on earth we should turn off a popular feature - against the wish of the community - in the meantime. Let's use it in the cases where it works well, and not use it in the cases where it doesn't work well. What's the problem you are trying to solve?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Popular feature yes, but there ain't no consensus to keep it up and running at the moment, and it's pretty obvious. It's not against the 'wish of the community' to turn it off, people of both sides agree it's the right thing to do now. Read the discussions. There's not just the technical side of things, I've written on this at length, given plenty of arguments, I won't repeat them here. You're giving a dimension to this poll that it just doesn't have. We needed consensus to keep it, not consensus to deactivate it - it's expressly stated in the poll, it was on this promise that we launched the trial. We make the trial, we think about it, then we decide. People didn't want that we make the decisions hastily, and there are too many issues to keep it running now even as an extension of the trial. The thing is, that we should not reverse the burden of consensus while the initial consensus was for a trial limited in time, the burden of consensus building is on extending it, not the reverse, otherwise the trial is nothing more than a backdoor to implement PC in a more definite way without supporting consensus to do so. Cenarium (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
(In response to you post on SV's talk page) This is simple. The consensus was for a two-month trial, full stop. If we want to extend it, we need consensus. We don't have consensus, so we stop using PC. With regard to the devs' concerns of the difficulty in turning the feature off then back on, we have reached a compromise: keep the implementation dormant. Cenarium (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that nearly 2/3 of the community disagrees with you, what compromise are you willing to accept and support? What problems is your proposal designed to solve? Are there particular pages where you think it should be turned off? Or is it your view that a minority of the community can - and should - block progress forever?
We know the feature is popular. We know that it is working extremely well in the vast majority of cases. Going backwards is not an option. You can try to redefine the terms so that change requires near-unanimity, but that's not the deal and never was the deal.
I listen to the community... all the community, and we have strong support for this. We also have some legitimate concerns, and so we will address those concerns and have another poll. Iteratively. In the meantime, turning the feature off is impractical and would be outrageous, given the demands of the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
We already have a compromise: keep the implementation dormant (we keep the extension enabled, just don't use it for now). My trial proposal was for two months, not indefinite, PC should be removed from all articles until further consensus because there is no consensus to extend it. Consensus is not near-unanimity but clearly this is not consensus. We can reach consensus on a permanent implementation if we do it properly. It's not going backwards, it's being faithful to our decision-making process. Out of principles, I cannot endorse that.
Do you recognize the problem in the unexpected reversal of the burden of consensus ? In your proposal, does the next poll require consensus to keep PC on or the opposite ? Cenarium (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no reversal of burden. In future polls, if there is consensus to keep it permanently, it will be kept permanently. If there is consensus to remove it permanently, it will be removed permanently. If there is, as in this case, an overwhelming majority to keep it, but not quite consensus, then it will be kept temporarily and improved.
There has never been any tradition in any of our decision-making processes that in the middle of an iterative process of improvement, we should completely delete or remove something that has near-consensus and start all over.
What problem are you trying to solve with temporarily removing it from all the articles where it is working well and very popular, only to re-add it when the next version comes out? That seems entirely pointless and a grave violation of the will of the community, which is 65% in favor of keeping the feature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept temporarily until what ? Under such terms there may never exist a consensus supporting the permanent implementation of PC, but it would be kept indefinitely regardless. In fine, the trial would have been used as a backdoor for an implementation of PC indefinite in time, conveniently bypassing the need to establish a consensus for a permanent use. This was a great concern among users at the time of the proposal, and I assured that this would not happen.
If there is no consensus it's not for nothing. There are numerous, substantial issues which need to be addressed. It's not working well in many cases, that's the point. The efficiency of PC to prevent malicious editing isn't as good as we could hope for various reasons, it can have a detrimental effect on editing, etc, see the poll comments. They are not deal-breakers but need to be addressed, and until addressed they harm the encyclopedia.
It makes total sense to pause the implementation, we have a trial, it's done, then we analyze it, we address the multiple issues which come up, before going ahead with something more permanent. If we keep it up regardless, there will be little effort from 'supporters' to analyze it and help in addressing issues because they'll think they have 'won' so it's done, and no more from 'opposers' because they'll feel disenfranchised. If there had been consensus here and consensus would be needed for the next poll, it would be totally different because people would be concerned and willing to compromise. Cenarium (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

60% of the hundreds who voted is pretty substantial. Before serving a minority, I would recommend another poll. but with a more substantial effort to get more !votes. Ronk01 talk 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By present policy, Wikipedia is not run by majority vote. Those who want to change that policy had better get much, much more than 60% support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This (Mr. Wale's decision) is good. There has been floundering around the 'what is consensus?' (51%? 60%? 80%? 90%) question and this ends that. Obviously with a split vote not everyone could be happy. Now the WP community can focus on how to improve the shortfalls of PC. Gerardw (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's actually not good. A lot of people agreed to a limited trial to see if this thing works, including me. A substantial number of people now (35% by Jimbo's numbers, higher by some others) have now stated "Alright, it didn't work satisfactorily." 65% would not be enough in favor to turn something as major as this on, and that's the standard we should be applying here. 65% isn't even enough for someone to be promoted to admin, which is a far less major change than this. 65% in favor to delete on a highly-commented AfD would be teetering right between delete and no consensus, and again, deleting a single article is orders of magnitude less of a change than making a structural change to the entire site.
What really needs to be done here (since even the guy doing this says he isn't happy with 65%!), is to turn the thing off, make the improvements, and then seek consensus after, not before, the improvements have been made to trial it with those improvements. At the end of that trial (if there is consensus to allow it), see if we get consensus to turn it on—that's the standard after such a trial, not "no consensus to turn it off". We agreed to try this thing, not to accept it. It didn't work, and a substantial portion of the community has said it didn't work. If it needs fixed, turn it off until it is fixed, and then we'll try it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is unfortunate. There was a trial, after which it was meant to be switched off. Then there was a straw poll, in which it failed to gain consensus. Now it's still not being switched off. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually agree with SV, but I'm going to here. Consider our deal for Pending Changes to be along the lines of Cincinnatus, but we wound up with Caesar Augustus. We had a deal. Pending changes sucks, because it leaves footprints for those that wish to harm the Foundation. Saying "well, it's on so why turn it off?" ignores the consensus we had to turn it off while reviewing the results. It was not turned off on August 15 as it was supposed to be, and now we're keeping it because 66%, which is 6.6 of 10 (clearly not a supermajority, this isn't congress), either like it or have no opinion. Keegan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record Keegan (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have to agree with SlimVirgin, Cenarium, Kww, etc. The original plan was that pending changes would be implemented as a trial which would require community consensus to retain beyond the trial period. If there is not consensus to retain it in it's current form, we need to suspend its use until the outstanding issues have been resolved. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with SlimVirgin and Keegan. The rule was simple and all parties agreed to abide it. 2 months to test and stop if it doesn't get the consensus to keep going, not by keeping it there for prosperity or waiting for further announcements. This is changing the rules of the game. What's worse is that you change the rules not when the trial is still ongoing (which would upset some people already), but changing it only after the trial is long over and the consensus poll result was out. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Those who forcefully demand PC "turned off"

I keep hearing people say they want PC turned off. Many opposers even refusing to give a hint as to what would win their support for PC at the present, and only giving vague assurances that they will be more open when PC is turned off. How would those in opposition to PC suggest that the wishes of the significant majority (who are in support of PC) be respected? BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of them believe that PC makes the project less accessible, however, as the trial has shown, that opposite is often true. Ronk01 talk 07:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
PC is less accessible than unprotection, more accessible than semi-protection. One of the few results that I have not seen contested is that PC cannot entirely replace semi-protection; for example, Barack Obama was moved back to semiprotection while the trial was underway.
Therefore whether PC improved accessibility depends on whether PC replaced semi-protection more than it replaced unprotection; and whether the two steps (PC to semi and unprot to PC) are equal in loss of accessibility or not. The first is an interesting question on which I have seen no statistics; I doubt the second can be determined by such a trial.
Claims without evidence are not helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Pending Protection is just another tool that helps us protect articles, in some situations semi protection is preferable and in some situations pending protection is enough to protect the article. Users should imo just accept it as that simple. I don't get it that anyone needs to object to it at all. It is a win win additional tool, its that simple, it helps us to protect and watch articles and allows users to contribute that wouldn't be able to under semi protection, and it will only get better and quicker and more understood. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly

The domain name of Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly (http://www.wikipediaweekly.org/) has expired.—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it has been renewed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe your understanding of the word "pending" is different from mine.—Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
At this moment, that web page (http://www.wikipediaweekly.org/) says "NOTICE: This domain name expired on 09/03/2010 and is pending renewal or deletion". Is your observation (that the domain name seems to have been renewed) based on that statement, or is it based on something else?—Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I just looked at the whois information, which says:
  • Domain ID:D149031334-LROR
  • Domain Name:WIKIPEDIAWEEKLY.ORG
  • Created On:03-Sep-2007 17:30:10 UTC
  • Last Updated On:04-Sep-2010 12:19:52 UTC
  • Expiration Date:03-Sep-2011 17:30:10 UTC
That seems pretty definitive to me. Why it is pointing to a parking page, I don't know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. Maybe for someone, updating the website is a backlogged task on a long checklist.
Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You will see that the website is now live again. Furthermore, this is a privately hosted website owned by user:tawker that neither Jimbo nor the WMF is personally responsible for. I'm not sure why your getting angry at him about it. Witty Lama 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Separated at birth?

Just to lighten the mood of this page a little... has anyone mentioned that you look quite a bit like this guy? Neutron (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Image in question has been nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think my point (humorous and trivial though it may be) is affected by which web site the photo is on. Check out this one, for example. Neutron (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, yeah... :-) I'm pathologically optimistic, as you may know, so I'm more hoping for this one [28], haha. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, look at that. I don't think Costner usually has a beard though. And he seems to have a lot of gray up top, whereas you and the Republican Senate candidate in Alaska just have a touch in your beards. Of course, to paraphrase the old tv ads, only your hairstylist knows for sure.  :) Neutron (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That's kind of scary. Ronk01 talk 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Image used in a Wikia video isn't reporting the author, as required by the license

This image by Gbaku was used in a video here (go to 1:12) without citing the author of said image. Can you, or someone who controls the account on that site, solve the problem? Credit where credit is due. Paco Francisco (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The author is properly cited in the original document. I don't control the video.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial list for "Pending Changes v2"

Hi Jimmy and everyone else! We're currently working out a timetable for improvements to Pending Changes as requested here earlier. The list we're working off of is on mediawiki.org here: mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial/v2 Features. Still a work in progress as we gather the list of features and figure out what is reasonable to implement in the near term. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, how soon until we can get a timetable? (And yes, I know I sound like a congressman debating the Iraq war :) ) Ronk01 talk 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
We plan to have something more concrete by end-of-day Friday. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds great. Ronk01 talk 01:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet

The consensus was for a two-month trial of PC. After two months, the trial was not stopped, and now it is being indefinitely continued without consensus. Since the last promise of it being a temporary trial was completely ignored by supporters, what reason is there to believe that this promise of it being a temporary trial will be honored? "I'll only put it in a little bit" is not a strategy that should be effective on Wikipedia, and I think it is shameful that it was deployed here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of what we were doing all along, nor what we are doing next. I don't know where we ended up with this strange idea floating around that nothing can change without getting "consensus" (which is undefined, but apparently must be a lot higher than 2/3 support) for anything new.
My view is that we should drive for consensus, that we will get consensus, and that in the meantime we should pursue an iterative process of improvement, as opposed to allowing a minority to block progress.
It is also worth contemplating the level of screaming that I would *quite justifiably* face, were I to say "65% are in favor of this, so I'm asking the Foundation to turn it off".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What on earth did "two month" mean in "two month trial" if it didn't mean "we'll stop in two months and evaluate the results?"—Kww(talk) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It meant that we would vote after two months to figure out what to do. So that's what we did. And the results are in: the extension is popular, with 65% support, but has some problems which led to 35% opposition. The next step? Revised software from the Foundation, a new trial, and a new vote. Iterating until we get strong enough support to call it stable and keep it permanently.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not a two-month trial, and I strongly suspect that you know that. That's an indefinite-length trial with a review at the two-month point. That's a substantially different thing, and I don't think you ever would have gotten consensus for an indefinite-length trial. The terms are being changed after the fact to suit the supporters, and that's immoral.—Kww(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
No one's asking to turn the extension off, we just remove it from articles until we have properly reviewed the effects of PC and address to a satisfiable extent the serious problems that came up. That's a compromise supported by people of both 'camp'. Cenarium (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It is also a compromise opposed by people of both 'camp'. Convince me that it's a good idea? Why should we stop using it in the cases where it is working perfectly well? It's popular and it works! Removing it from articles where it is doing a good job makes no sense to me. What problem are you trying to solve?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus isn't the same as a vote, but generally, the closer of a discussion does evaluate the numbers along with the arguments. Firstly, there was no consensus to a particular keep position, and I know at least some people said they would rather remove it entirely than see it expanded past a certain point. There were nuances in the !votes that don't seem necessarily to have been taken into account. Not everyone supported an expansion, per se.
Regardless, however, I had very much the same idea that Kww did—that a "trial" meant "We'll test it for a couple months, shut it off, and then see if there's strong consensus to enable it permanently." Honestly, if you already consider this "progress", and those who oppose to be "blocking progress", you've taken a side and probably shouldn't be closing the debates—someone who doesn't care much either way should be. Those who opposed considering it are not trying to "block progress", they disagree that it is progress. I think that position has some merit. As you said yourself—it has bugs, even at a small sample size it's created backlogs, it's not fulfilled one of its major promises (namely, to let high-profile articles be reduced to this rather than indefinite semiprotection), and it's opposed by a sizable portion of the community. If I'd known the concept was going to be "We're going to try it and then put continuing it to a majority vote (and count three of the four positions in the debate as one lump toward what constitutes a majority)", I never would've supported the trial. It honestly sounds like you're trying to ramrod this, and whether or not that's true, if it's your intent that it's going in no matter what anyone says, just say that. If it's going to be up to the community, that's fine—but a massive structural change like this should require a higher, not lower, degree of consensus than what it takes to make a single person an admin (or even bureaucrat, for that matter—and that's even higher). It's not like the devs' work will go to waste if we don't use it. Many other Wikimedia wikis, with a different scale than we have, use it and are happy with it. But at this point, the community's response basically amounts to "Maybe if some things are fixed, but at this point no consensus to enable". Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any way to support that interpretation; that's a highly POV rendering of the facts. A position is supported by 65% of the community - I won't defy them and shut this thing off. I think the thing to get busy on now is a more precise specification of what we expect from the Foundation in terms of version 2, what deadline we will have for them to get that out to us, and what precise parameters we will use for the next poll. In my view, following the desires of the *entire* community (rather than the vocal minority trying to block this) will involve acknowledging that there can be consensus to keep, consensus to get rid of it, and a range of options in the middle which tell us "keep working on it". What I recommend at this point is prioritizing for the Foundation just what they need to fix to meet the most important and fixable objections.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What about those whose "keep" !votes were conditional or for one position only, huh? If it doesn't go according to their wishes, are you not defying them? —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Not allowing IP users to create articles was supposed to be a limited time test, too. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, Seraphimblade makes a good point about you closing the discussion. The usual practice is that entirely uninvolved admins close straw polls and RfCs, taking into account the numbers and the arguments. Because you expressed a strong view in favour, and the consensus is so narrow, it doesn't seem like the best idea for you to be closing it. In addition, the poll was inherently problematic because it lumped together as "keep" everyone who wanted PC in any sense at all, even in a very minimal sense, so it's going to be a difficult poll to close fairly. Would you be willing to hand the decision over to someone uninvolved, assuming we can find such a person at this point? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't close the poll at all! I'm asking as liaison for the Foundation here and working in my traditional role to shepherd this process. I plan to keep doing that. For the next poll, I intend to bless the poll as official only once I am satisfied that the options are clearly explained, and only once I have said exactly what I am going to do based on each possible outcome. It's not pleasant having ambiguity like this. With an unambiguous poll, with clear outcomes specified in advance, we won't have this confusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it is that Jimbo is going to end up pissing off either a significant majority or a significant minority .... opposers have yet to convince him of any of the merits of pissing off the significant majority. Conspicuously, there hasn't been much effort to address the question of what damage is being done on any particular article with PC, when the alternative for that article is semi- or full page protection. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's where I'd like to move the discussion - to talk about where we should be using it now (during the interim before version 2 comes out), where we shouldn't, and - importantly - why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


Possible straw poll for the future

RE: "For the next poll, I intend to bless the poll as official only once I am satisfied that the options are clearly explained..."

While having some shortcomings, I do think the previous straw poll did very well at jogging enough discussion to give a strong basis for a more thorough discussion in the future. I think the primary question to be posed to the community in the future is how to proceed, followed by the editor's rationale. A future poll could ask whether editors would like:

  1. [Oppose] Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles and we return to use of Page Protection permanently
  2. [Weak oppose] Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being, while leaning towards outright rejection of Pending Changes
  3. [Weak oppose] Continued trial of pending changes leanings towards opposing permanent use of PC
  4. [Neutral] Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being
  5. [Weak support] Pending Changes removed from all Mainspace articles -- at least temporarily -- and we return to use of Page Protection, for the time being, while leaning towards acceptance of Pending Changes
  6. [Weak support] Continued trial of pending changes leanings towards approving permanent use of PC
  7. [Conditional Support] Pending Changes system accepted permanently, but with conditions [one common condition seen is editors who require PC used only where page-protection would definitely be applied otherwise].
  8. [Support] Pending Changes system accepted permanently

It would be noted that varying supports and varying opposes would be grouped for a rough overview of the sense of the community. Just as important as the above decision would be the rationale of the responding editors (of course, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY).

My review of the previous straw poll discussion found many of the responses fit into one or more of the following rationale, which editors could cite, or they can just type out their own response:

A) People who oppose PC and have no interest in future development of Pending Changes, because Page Protection is a superior tool to fight vandalism
B) People who oppose PC and have no interest in future development of Pending Changes, because of cynicism that the system will be abused and that administrators will apply PC outside of guidelines
C) People who oppose PC at the present, and think the system is currently unusable, but are interested in continuing discussion on improvements
D) People who are undecided, but think use of the system should be stopped for now
E) People who are undecided, but are interested enough to desire that a new poll be offered within 6 months or so, on whether a new Pending Changes trial should be conducted
F) People who are undecided and would support extension of any present trial for a couple of months
G) People who conditionally support PC, but are wary of either the programming for pending changes in its current state or the mission/policies of pending changes, but support very limited and judicious use of Pending Changes on low traffic articles (less than 40k hits or so per month?) that would otherwise be Page Protected.
H) People who conditionally support the use of Pending Changes in lieu of Page Protection on vandalized pages, but only in groups of articles that will be clearly defined in later discussion, and may be, for example, some combination of the following categories: low-traffic BLPs, Featured/Good articles in only the WikiProject Medicine, and/or heavily sockpuppet targeted articles (and perhaps some other small categories). Support is conditional upon Pending Changes being used only where Page Protection would have been applied.
I) People who conditionally support PC and are OK with its use on any article throughout Wikipedia, as needed to fight active threats of vandalism, with the firm exception that it should almost *never* be used on high-traffic articles (greater than 150k hits or so per month?) unless there's some compelling community consensus for an individual high-traffic article. Support is conditional upon Pending Changes being used only where Page Protection would have been applied.
J) People who support PC and believe it should be used on vandalized articles as needed, and also would not mind a discussion being held on possible proactive uses of PC fight vandalism on "likely" targets.

This is my understanding from the straw poll discussion. Hope it might help in your efforts towards finding a poll that you can officially stamp. BigK HeX (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis, and it matches my thinking to a large extent. I think all of that is a great deal too complex, though, and the exact wording of the options, and the number of support options versus oppose options, etc., were all called into question this page vote.
Why not simply have two voting options? support and oppose. The goal is to get to 80%+ eventually of either support or oppose. Along the way, the vote results will determine what to do...
<50% - we turn it off and go back to the drawing board as to whether or not PC is what we want to be doing at all anyway
50%-66% - we turn it off temporarily and ask the Foundation to go back to the drawing board
66%-80% - we keep it on but ask for further revisions and a v3 poll
80%+ - we keep it as a stable permanent feature but also welcome improvements over time, as with anything
Isn't that, subject of course to some discussion and modification and specification, more or less reasonable and more or less what we want to do? I think it unwise to ask too many complicated questions, although as with all our !votes, people should give reasons with their vote, as it helps others to think it through, and helps with understanding afterwards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Any straw poll should have 2 options only, otherwise many of the problems that plagued the first straw poll will recur. Ronk01 talk 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we can avoid the problems with the previous poll if we offer options similar to the four possible outcomes listed by Jimbo and then go with the option that gets the median vote. In my preferred version, the options are:
  1. Turn off the pending changes feature. Go back to the drawing board as to whether or not PC is what we want to be doing at all anyway.
  2. "Soft shutdown". Work on improvements. Poll on new trial. As per Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#Alternative phrasing
  3. Hold at 2k page maximum while we think about policy and software features. A new poll after some new features have been rolled out.
  4. Steady expansion and roll out of new features. A new poll after some new features have been rolled out.
These options are ranked from least to most gung-ho about pending changes. The median vote will be taken as the decider. e.g. if 30% vote 1, 21% vote 2, 15% vote 3 and 34% vote 4 then option 2 will be taken whereas if 30% vote 1, 19% vote 2, 17% vote 3 and 34% vote 4 then option 3 will be taken.
Options 2, 3 and 4 would all require a separate poll with a sizable majority before pending changes could be treated as a permanent feature of the English Wikipedia. We could add an option 5 that is the same as 4 but removing the requirement for a future poll. However, I think that would confuse the issue because that option would require way more than 50% approval to be the consensus required for full acceptance and hence the median vote thing goes out the window. I think it is cleaner to have the full acceptance as part of a separate, later poll.
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
None of the 4 options on your poll seems to be one for permanent acceptance. They all seem to presume more work will be necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I addressed that issue in the last paragraph, but I guess you didn't get that far. Obviously, you could have an option 5 that is full acceptance, but you would need way more than 50% of people to vote for 5 for it to be sufficient to say that there is consensus to permanently accept the pending changes feature. That complicates how the poll would work but it would still work. I guess we would default to option 4 if 50%-80% of people voted 5. Yaris678 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that a support/oppose poll would be less complicated and serve the purpose. While not necessary to create "stock" responses, I think it's useful to what's "under the hood" of people's reasoning at this depth. Unfortunately, we've seen that these details can cloud the overriding message of support (or opposition). BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, what needs to be emphasized in the future...

I think the most basic problem with previous discussion on Pending Changes is that people have repeatedly compared PC-protected articles to unprotected articles. In the next discussion, I think it cannot be emphasized enough that PC-protection should be compared to semi-protection and full-protection. My understanding is that PC is being proposed to be used only where Page Protection would be applied, so any future discussion should be worded so as to convey that without PC-protection, a page would receive semi/full-protection. It was very frustrating to have discussions with people who kept declaring that "PC-protection is terrible because it will scare off our friendly IP-editors from making edits" when we all know that semi-protection has that effect (but is even more draconian about it!). BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Option 4 in the straw poll was to roll out pending changes to all BLPs. Some people want to trial it on all good-class medical articles. My own thought is that PC might make sense for border-line cases between semi- and non-protected (with the exception of articles with a very high edit frequency). In all three of those cases, pending changes protection is doing more than just replacing semi-protection. Yaris678 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that option may have contributed to some of the complications of the recent straw poll. While there may be a different proposal in the future about a more aggressive use of Pending Changes, the current proposal seems to have fairly clear language that Pending Changes be used only as a substitute for semi/full protection. That being the case, it would be hoped that responses on the present proposal would be regarding PC being used in the proposed manner. We might be able to gauge some of the interest for more aggressive use, but that's not the question at the moment, and, I think it's clearly a separate question for a different proposal in the future.
So .... what might be a decent idea for the current proposal, in order to end all of the speculation and cynicism about "potential abuse," it might help simply to mandate that Pending Changes not be enabled on a page, unless the page has already been on semi/full protection for at least 24 hours. BigK HeX (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, but a bit odd in that it requires someone to use a stronger protection than necessary or desirable for 24 hours before moving to the softer protection of PC. That's a good way to alleviate concerns about overuse, but a bit odd and in the long run could lead to pressure to widen the use of semi-protection in order to get to PC. It seems better to me to be upfront and say: likely, PC will replace semi-protection in a very large percentage of the cases (except high-edit-volume pages where it's just a pain in the neck to deal with), and likely, PC will be used in places where semi-protection is "too much" (like obscure BLPs where we want anons to be able to make legit edits).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that my proposal to require semi-prot first is a nonsensical process on its face, but as a compromise measure, it might be a huge step forward to assuaging opposition to PC. My review of the straw poll discussion found a very significant amount of the opposition to PC being based very heavily on the idea that PC will be used proactively on non-vandalized pages or based on cynicism that admins will disregard the proposed guidelines and use PC where they would not apply semi-prot. If nothing else, it would eliminate a large swath of the rationale people have voiced in opposition. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
But you will never win over people like Jéské Couriano who apparently either hate IP's or oppose all forms of protection and want the vandals to take over the Wiki. No offense to anyone intended, but the whole thing frustrates me. Ronk01 talk 21:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It is for the legitimate IPs that I oppose Pending Changes, chummer - it forces their edits to go through editors whom more likely than not have a point-of-view they'd rather push on the article, and it does nothging to alleviate the vandalism problem - if anything it will exacerbate it as vandals switch to more subtle vandalism which an unknowledgeable reviewer will then accept, making it more difficult to get rid of. Lose the bad faith. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please AGF. What pending changes does (when used appropriately) is open up Semi-protected pages to IP's, or prevents the application of Semi in the first place. In regards to vandalism, most vandals simply are not intelligent enough (or are not dedicated enough) to resort to subtle vandalsim, and if they do, there are plently of knowledgeable editors/reviewers out there, and at some look up changed facts while reviewing. Finally, PC was not about reducing vandalism, it was about opening up Semi-protected pages to IPs. Think about this: isn't having to have your edits reviewed better than not being able to make them at all? Ronk01 talk 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [PC opens] up Semi-protected pages to IP's, or prevents the application of Semi in the first place. This is a double-edged sword, and you know it. Anything that helps legit IPs also, by definition, helps vandal IPs. The fact that several highly-vandalized pages spent less than 24 hours in the PC-interim between semiprotection bouts is enough evidence to prove this.
  • In regards to vandalism, most vandals simply are not intelligent enough (or are not dedicated enough) to resort to subtle vandalsim[.][sic] Wrong. It's child's play to figure out a way to band together with your friends and overload reviewers' workload on an article, or to follow someone's orders as to how to disrupt Wikipedia even with PendingChanges on. In addition, most of our subtle vandals are LTA sockpuppeteers, making PC ultimately worthless to deal with vandalism from these sources.
  • [I]f they do, there are plently of knowledgeable editors/reviewers out there, and at some look up changed facts while reviewing. This I agree on. The caveat is that most of the knowledgeable reviewers have a POV to push about the topics they are knowledgeable on, or are unlikely to be able to make it there before a reviewer who is a victim of Huggle syndrome.
  • Finally, PC was not about reducing vandalism, it was about opening up Semi-protected pages to IPs. Given how it was implemented, this is a baldfaced lie, especially given the psychological issues with the community that make it impossible for me to assume that PC will do anything but damage Wikipedia. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for likely posting this in wrong place, in wrong time. Much criticism against pending changes concerned complexity. Thus suggest:

  • No autoreviewers. Every user registered for XX days with YYY edits can review pending changes (ironically, this complies with the term autoreviewer).
  • Absolutely not. This essentially gives those unwilling and/or unworthy of the tool the kill-code to the robot. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No flashy markup, meaning pending changes are not bolded and not painted in orange in the watchlists and recent change lists. They do not pop up on top in personal wachlists 'please review' (annoying). They are examined as regular changes, with no "Review this revision" and "Comment" window at the top (useless, there is already an edit summary, which most editors do not use) - the only difference is "accept" button next to "undo".

My personal displeasure with PC was speed (could it be that users of old wiki interface are slowed more, as PC is written in the new markup?), and my requirement to developers is negligible delay in viewing diffs compared to regular articles - this is a real pain in going after vandals in real time. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been contributing for a while now and I see that on the English Wikipedia many established editors think Pending Changes will let them control admission not only of new content but also of new editors. This is gatekeeping at its worse. New editors will be compliant or they will be rejected. I have run into several editors like this in just the last few days alone, people who come online and apparently the first thing they do is check their huge watchlists and revert as much as they can justify of the hard work that was done in their absence. They treat good faith editors, both anons and registered users, even established, like filth. Sometimes they even have the gall to complain about how much of their time we cause them to waste in this manner. If the new editor responds as most normal people do they get blocked. If the new editor perseveres, quietly editing defensively, the gatekeepers stroke themselves for whatever quality the new editor achieves. This is obscene. If Pending Changes were used only where semi- and full protection is used now, it would be progress. But I don't think that is likely. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


With Jeremy and anon IP 69.3.72.249, we have two prime examples of the cynicism that I've referred to. BigK HeX (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to say that I had no strong feelings one way or the other about PC before coming to the previous straw poll. However, after seeing the way in which that poll was short-circuiting consensus and choking off discussion I felt that I had no choice but to oppose PC in the poll by default. I could not support the idea that such a major change in WP was going to be determined by a poll, and a faulty one at that.

The new proposal for a poll discussed above seems to indicate that once again our course of action will be determined by a vote, rather than by consensus and discussion. This is clearly wrong, and clearly against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I am disappointed to see so many otherwise intelligent and well-intentioned editors (including Jimbo!) suggesting that a vote is the way to determine the future of such a major change.

I admit that gaining consensus is similar to herding cats. I understand that many may be frustrated by the outlook that gaining consensus for PC could drag on for a long time (perhaps indefinitely). But, that is the point of consensus! The collective wisdom of thousands and thousands of contributors over many years, who have established and maintained the principle of consensus, is essentially being abandoned when we abandon the process. That voting might be more convenient or expedient in this particular case is completely beside the point. The merits of PC, or the lack thereof, is completely beside the point. This is not the way we do things here. Revcasy (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that polls are not the best way to determine consensus (which, by the way is very vague, 66% in some places 80%, even 90%, but never 100%), in this case it was the only way (though it was poorly made) to determine consensus. A full out discussion among 124,000 editors is unimaginable, we cannot apply the same principles that we use on pages to sitewide decisions. In all reality, the results of that poll have all but been thrown out (except as justification to keep it running until the second straw poll) in favor of a second straw poll with yes or no answers, to determine it PC should be kept on until the trial of PC 2.0. I personally have my reservation regarding simple majority votes, but I also believe that PC is a step forward for Wikipedia in allowing IPs to edit formerly semi-protected pages. Ronk01 talk 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A simple majority vote is a mistake. I don't think we have to worry about having the participation of 124,000 editors in any discussion (what an accomplishment that would be!). I think the importance of this issue makes it even more important to gain consensus for the change. Furthermore, if we are seriously considering changing the way in which we make decisions such as this, we should be explicit about it. If we are abandoning the principle of consensus, even if only in this case, that should be clear to everyone. Maintaining the illusion and terminology of consensus, when the decision is in fact being made by majority vote, is disingenuous and wrongheaded, not to mention harmful to the project. Revcasy (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
While I do appreciate your comments I disagree that this is such an important decision, its a simple tool that has been working and did not make the wheels drop off. The tool is being developed to aid Wikipedias progression as the project develops and grows and old systems and methods of editing and protection become unable to cope or outdated with the foundations goals. There has been mountains of discussion and there will likely be more, the levels of support required to continue attempting to improve tools to help in this continued expansion of the project should not be excessively high and the idea that this issue is a change in the way we reach consensus or that it is in any way harmful to the project as you claim is undue indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
How can we make a decision based on a straight vote, while at the same time claiming to be a consensus-based project? At the very least, the importance of any future votes should be made clear to the community so that we have an appropriate level of participation in the poll. Many editors will no doubt not understand the importance of a straw poll that purports to be part of a consensus building discussion, when it is in fact a straight majority vote and an end to discussion. Revcasy (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see the issue, as I have seen nothing ends up as a straight vote round here, discussion along with compromise wins out in the end as it is doing here now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That is an interesting interpretation of what happened with the last straw poll. Well, I won't beat a dead horse as I feel that I have said clearly what I intended to say. Again, I respect the intentions and good-faith efforts of all involved parties, even the ones I disagree with. =) Revcasy (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)