User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jimmy Wales)
Jump to: navigation, search

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Internet Brands[edit]

Article has a "Controversies" section cited almost exclusively to primary sources. Some of the sources may say "Reuters", but are actually press release reposts. Despite our interest in the Wikimedia movement, I don't think a section cited almost completely to is an appropriate application of WP:WPNOTRS, which says that articles should be "based mainly on reliable secondary sources". WP:CRITICISM is also relevant in regards to a dedicated Controversies section. And it's common sense that losing one customer does not warrant a large devoted section.

I have raised the issue at COIN and it was archived without response. It was suggested that RSN may be more appropriate, so I went there and still no dice. It's especially frustrating because on the very same day I complained at BLPN about a dedicated controversy section on a BLP page on a topic where there was substantial secondary coverage and it was fixed in under 24 hours. This situation on a company page is much worse, given that the Controversy section is much larger and made up of primary sources, and I've been chasing it for weeks.

There has long been discussions about whether and to what extent BLP should apply to companies, but shouldn't we remove poorly sourced contentious material anywhere on any article, regardless of whether special policies exist or not? In a case like this, should a company post at BLPN and argue it falls under BLPGROUP? Why is it so hard for someone to get this kind of thing removed on company pages, but so much easier on BLPs?

I needed to vent/soapbox for a bit. Thanks for letting me use your Talk page for it ;-) PS - I am not affiliated with this company. CorporateM (Talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning at the end that you aren't affiliated with the company. I was about to ask. :)
I am not sure from what you wrote why you raised the issue at COIN - do you have a COI of some kind? I think you are saying no. So then, why don't you just make the edit?
In this particular case there is a good argument for WP:NAVEL as relevant. We often put too much information in when Wikipedia is in some small way involved, and we have to consciously counterbalance that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like a WP:COATRACK and I am far from convinced that the article should exist at all. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Internet Brands is a well known and pretty important Internet company. Unlike companies that are direct brands themselves, they are an "aggregator" or "rollup" of many brands. So - not that famous, but I think important enough to have an article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Prior discussion (and lack of response for some of these) at:
  1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Internet Brands
  2. Talk:Beneful#Controversy section
  3. Wikipedia talk:Criticism#Dedicated section for a lawsuit
  4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#Internet Brands
(that's for the ones I know of)
In the last of these listed prior discussions CorporateM declared to have "a very remote potential COI" (while prior to that I had thought his WP:COIN listing of the topic would have been inspired by all WP editors having some sort of COI w.r.t. the first subtopic of Internet Brands#Controversies, i.e. "... Wikimedia").
I think CorporateM has some legitimate concerns, but as for the Internet Brands "Controversies" section most Wikipedians (myself included) would probably not have many clues as to what this is about (to which I may add, the feeling that crept on me when reading the article's "Controversies" section was: pfui, IANAL, let's keep out of this... which I don't say in my defense). On the other hand, CorporateM's vagueness regarding their potential COI leaves me wondering who is defending what? So my first suggestion to that editor would be to give a bit more info as to the nature of the very remote potential COI, imho would make it much more likely other Wikipedia editors would respond to their requests.
A second recommendation involves the WP:RSN listing: the request was far from formatted in the "Source–Article–Content" scheme suggested on top of that page. Only the "Article" was clearly mentioned in the request, the rest was in the "here are some links, find out for yourself" format. There's no obligation to make a request clearer, but from my experience with that noticeboard, requests that aren't explicit on the suggested format more easily lead to non-response, and certainly when containing vagueties like "some possible COI but not really disclosed". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to say whether I should have edited myself or not, or if I should have even disclosed, when the COI is remote. However, I deeply protest to this idea that so much information is needed about the exact nature of my COI. Are you planning on making different edits depending on what it is?
Lets say in one example scenario (a), I use to work there many years ago and in another case (b) a close friend works there and brought the page to my attention. What is the relevance to whether this is case (a) or case (b)? What use does the community have for this information? The only use of this information discussed is "curiosity".CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. "this idea that so much information is needed about the exact nature" – none of the info is "needed", I was merely trying to explain lack of response (including my own), replying to your question "Why is it so hard for someone to get this kind of thing removed on company pages, but so much easier on BLPs?": I think that at least part of the answer to that question is that unclear situations may have kind of a natural "let's stay out of this" response. But, thanks for the additional info.
I'm convinced that the RSN posting would have had a more effective response when listing (quite dryly): "I have a problem with using <named source X>, <named source Y> for <content Abc>". There also, as already indicated, nothing of this is obligatory, just ups the chance on an adequate response, speaking from my experience with that noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM - I went to make the edit myself but realized that there is one reliable source (Noam Cohen, New York Times) and so it probably merits a sentence or two. I went to the talk page to read what you might be suggesting, and noticed that you haven't posted on the talk page. Wouldn't that be the right place to start? I am at Wikimania and thus quite short on time, so I don't have time to read Noam Cohen's piece and work out the wording of a shorter mention. If you'll do that, I am happy to read and confirm that your proposal is good and NPOV and make the edit. Before I do so, though, I'll also ask for review as to whether the community feels that I have a conflict of interest. (As I am trying to *reduce* the amount of negative information about this company, I think it's hard to make the case that there is a problem with that, but if anyone feels so, then I'll bow out and help you find another editor to make the edit.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's something fishy been going on here. I see there's one sentence about all the different websites this company owns, and they all have links; many of these were worked on by User:LoveWikis (now blocked for promotion/advertising) and User:LuvWikis (also blocked for the same). I don't really have the inclination for user investigations but I wouldn't be surprised if more can be deduced. Going forward, it might be best to merge many if not all of the sites back into the main article; you can then make the sections of that article be the different websites, and you can put stuff like the Wikitravel controversy under a ==Wikitravel== header instead of a ==Controversies== header. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I see it. There is one good source in all that mess. NYT, which is one of the best press sources around. I've taken a quick shot at summarizing it below.
I didn't participate on the article Talk page, because I would prefer they not know I was involved in their page. (though as a side-note, nobody has participated there in more than 2 years as well). Regarding the potential COI, I am not concerned about it personally and won't scream foul, so that depends on what you're comfortable with and if anyone else wants to raise a red flag. Making obvious counter-COI edits use to be one of the exceptions in WP:COI and it's not as if avoiding certain situations will result in you not being trolled - you will be trolled no matter what you do. CorporateM (Talk) 07:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. Wikitravel as a separate article or not: I have no opinion, but if it isn't merged as Wnt proposes, a similar attention might go to Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012 (and its references). The boilerplate notice of the Wikitravel article (linking to Wikivoyage) is maybe also a bit blatant?
The Community fork section of the Wikitravel article ends with a settlement in February 2013, sourced to C|Net – if there was a settlement, that might be useful to inlude in the Wikitravel section of the Internet Brands article too, of course referenced to the best available sources.
Further, for sourcing (general remark), I don't know whether it is needed to use this exception, but a section of WP:V, WP:CIRCULAR, second paragraph, allows to source information about Wikipedia, in article namespace, to Wikipedia and its sister projects (with caution etc...). Maybe this doesn't apply to the Wikimedia Foundation. Was just thinking about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
& more to be looked at: Wikivoyage, particularly Wikivoyage#History, and the boilerplate notice with a cross-namespace link to Wikipedia:Wikivoyage (and not linking to the non-Wikimedia related project). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The WikiTravel page seems to have the same problems and is probably where this originated. "In 2012, after a lengthy history of dissatisfaction with Wikitravel's host and owner Internet Brands" That is not quite a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, but it's a pretty strong one that requires a very good source, but instead it's cited to broken links to primary sources from WikiVoyage. "The dissatisfaction related to long standing discontent at poor hosting, poor site updates" again cited to WikiVoyage itself. One of the sources is literally a mailing list. I think this is difficult to fix, because Wikipedians tend to defend content that suits their interests and POV.
My take would be to mention it on the Internet Brands page and let it stand as a section, as it is now, on any sub-pages where more detail is appropriate. Internet Brands has about $100 million in revenues and they bought WikiTravel for $1.5 million. It's a tiny blip in their business history. CorporateM (Talk) 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty shameful; in comparison we have a very respectful article on Britannica even if we do compete with them. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


  • I've posted links to this talk page section at the talk pages of Internet Brands, Wikitravel and Wikivoyage (each of them had a discussion section relating to this where I could append).
  • I'm not particularly fond of having this discussion here, but per concerns expressed above this may be the best way forward (also, it's about three pages with similar problems on the same content, so best to centralize the discussion anyway, so why not here)
  • @CorporateM: (and whoever else is interested) I'd propose you post concrete rewrite proposals, with their references, and indicating which sections/paragraphs/sentences they could replace. If there's agreement here, and nobody else has done so yet, I'll update the articles accordingly (sorry for still not being interested enough in travel type websites to propose some rewrites myself, but I see the problems in these articles). Would that work as an action plan? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am also not interested in engaging in a large project to research and re-write all this material. What I would suggest is the following:
  • The Wikivoyage page is basically neutral and would be fine if we delete the first paragraph of the "Additional languages and migration" section, which has a bunch of criticisms cited to primary sources, and replace it with the NYT source with something like "After Internet Brands introduced advertising, many of its volunteer contributors started leaving, because they didn't want to be a part of a commercial site."
  • On Wikitravel delete up to citation 29 in that section (all primary/crowdsourced), and replace it with the NYT content I wrote above (minus the lawsuits, which are covered by the one proper source in that section, CNET)
  • On Internet Brands I think we can just summarize it in a sentence or two. They acquired the entire site for just over 1% of their annual revenue - it's a blip for them that is covered in greater depth in sub-articles. Something like "It acquired a travel-content Wiki WikiTravel in 2006. After advertising was introduced to the site, many of its volunteer contributors left the next year and forked to WikiVoyage, a similar website run by the non-profit, the Wikimedia Foundation. WikiTravel is now defunct." Also, the additional minor lawsuit in the section following it can probably just be removed.
CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, can work with that. Will implement when this section gets archived in a day or so, unless there are further comments and/or actions by others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikitravel is not "defunct" (sadly).
The proposed re-write for the Wikivoyage article is misleading, as it implies that the exodus was gradual and uncoordinated.
Oh and neither Wikitravel nor Wikivoyage uses CamelCase.
-- Powers T 00:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. The Wikitravel article was referring to something called Wikitravel Press, that is now defunct, not the main site. Of course anyone can make refinements using strong secondary sources, if there are other sources that indicate it was more coordinated than depicted in the NYT source. CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the NYT depicted it as uncoordinated at all. It clearly calls it a fork, which is almost by definition coordinated and organized. Powers T 00:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Confirmed that the source uses the word "forked" (not familiar with the term). It says Italian and German editors left in 2006. The article is dated for 2012 and indicates the WMF forking was ongoing at that time. At the time of reporting it says 38 out of 48 of their best editors had moved over. I don't have an interest in debating the finer points though - feel free to edit away. CorporateM (Talk) 07:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: See Fork (software development). Wnt (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC[edit]

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. There was a bit of a blowup a few years back and you said something that reminded me of the "no big deal" concept. We've promoted a total of 146 administrators between 2011 and 2015. In comparison, we promoted 121 in 2009 alone and 408 in 2007. I think one of the major reasons is that we've moved away from the "no big deal" concept. By making the administrator user-right "easy come, easy go", however, we can move back towards "no big deal". That will in turn lead to more thoughtful, kind and welcoming administrators. At the same time, we must do so in a way that does not humiliate those who have put so much work into the encyclopedia. I believe that this proposal strikes the balance well, making it easier to remove the sysop bit, but in a "humane" fashion - while focussing on the tenets of the Wikipedia, such as it being community driven, open and transparent. I'd love to hear your thoughts. WormTT(talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem has always been coming up with a process that does not encourage grudges, mob mentality and offsite solicitation. It would be better to have a subgroup of ArbCom like WP:BASC who can quickly say desysop, no action or confirmation RfC. I have an abhorrence of committees and structures in Wikipedia, they encourage bureaucracy. We already have ArbCom, they can already do this, and the number of cases where it's likely to be legitimately required are absolutely tiny. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have one process that encourages grudges and mob mentality. Its called WP:RfA. We don't need another. I am very sympathetic to the concept of "stage one, decide whether we want to do this, stage two, work out the details" but I think that there are a bunch of people who will answer "should we do this? It depends on the details." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The process would stand on its own as it is, there is enough information to see what the process will look like roughly, it's just not the best it can be. Working out the details and improvements is only going to work if people are actually invested in the process in the first place. In this case, it appears people are seeing it that way. WormTT(talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy, having served on Arbcom, I believe that as a committee, it has its fingers in too many pies. You cite BASC like it's a formal decent process, well it wasn't when I was on there. It was whichever Arbitrator had time to deal with the torrent of emails and highlight the less frivolous to the rest of the committee. There was no structure to that. WormTT(talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's why they formed subcomitees like BASC and AUSC. If ArbCom is so overworked they can delegate. It's as simple as that. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a rapid, regularly-used, functional desysopping process as an alternative to drawn-out ArbCom proceedings: ArbCom. In 2014 we had at least two admins swiftly desysopped by ArbCom motion. We had another one in May of this year.
  • Secret, which took 15 days from the misuse of RevDel to posting of the final motion to desysop.
  • Toddst1, which took 5 days from the first request on the ArbCom case page to the posting of the final motion to desysop.
  • AntonioMartin, which took about 7 days from the first posted complaint on AN/I to the posting of the final motion to desysop.
At least four admins resigned "under a cloud" in 2014: Eloquence, Nikkimaria, Kaldari, Hahc21. Presumably they were capable of reading the writing on the wall during the various noticeboard processes, and could see the likely outcome of a likely, imminent, requested, or (in the case of Eloquence) in-progress Arbitration case.
Indeed, in 2014 only three admins were desysopped through a full ArbCom case (Kafziel, Nightscream, DangerousPanda) and closure. Time-consuming Arbitration cases represent a minority of desysoppings, and have for some time. Cases tend to only be opened where there are complex issues involving multiple editors, and/or where the consensus of the community is decidedly murky—the sort of situations where any 'streamlined' process would be unable to function fairly and effectively anyway. I'll even suggest that the ArbCom doesn't like to open unnecessary cases, and generally prefers to dispense with as much business via motion as is reasonably possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the AntonioMartin situation, but in that case the admin was found to be socking at ANI. So I really was let off easy, as any ordinary user would have been blocked. I think you may recall the discussion that we had at the time, how ordinary users get blocks for 3RR and here we had an admin not be blocked for something far more serious. Were it not for the socking, the consensus was that he would not have been desysopped purely on the competence issues raised. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to dig out and examine the old discussion(s), but I would ponder whether or not the 'consensus' of the random passers-by (and axe-grinders) at AN/I actually reflects what would have happened had the issue been brought to ArbCom. It also occurs to me to wonder how, in case the consensus of the community genuinely was that desysopping was unnecessary, having an additional desysopping process would be beneficial.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Here it is, the bizarre story of an admin repeatedly adding unsourced information to BLPs, and the general feeling that his tools were not in danger - until he was found socking. An extremely good example of why the new proposed process, or some other process with a similar aim, is needed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand your argument. I'm not going to slog through the discussion(s), but I'm going to (arguendo) presume that you're accurately reporting the community consensus that desysopping was not warranted. And neither you nor anyone else requested an Arbitration case or motion. And on the basis of one discussion that purportedly reached a consensus against desysopping, and a failure to even try the existing process, you're arguing that we need a new process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. It's an example where an editing restriction was warranted, and in any ArbCom case leading to such a restriction the question of the compatibility between that and adminship would have been raised. Something happened once that you think was not dealt with well, so you want an entire new process, of a kind that has been repeatedly rejected in the past? I am unconvinced. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not being too familiar with admin/arbcom-type issues, I would be concerned that the number of disruptive editors an admin blocks could quickly out-number the number of disinterested participants in a discussion and result in a very poor "consensus". Adding it as an arbcom power seems more sensible. CorporateM (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That's largely why it's been rejected multiple times before. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you just block an IP address[edit]

Hi, just want to know a question, can anyone block an IP address of a person that doesn't have a Wikipedia account? Dylan Keane (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Admins can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, admins can block IP addresses, and entire ranges, and can choose whether the block also affects logged-in users using that address. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be fun to block everyone on April 1 :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Define fun. Define April 1. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Don't worry, it will take a while before ET can edit Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, and for example Montgomery County, Maryland schools and library ip is blocked until 2017. it's an amusing form of collective punishment. apparently escalating blocks don't work against proxies; perhaps a rethink is in order. (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not punishment. It is merely protecting Wikipedia from damage. If a certain IP address is used persistently to vandalize Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense to soft-block that IP - it protects Wikipedia while still allowing constructive registered users to contribute. Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate for anyone reading this who is not a Wiki(m|p)edia insider, shared IP addresses, such as those used by schools, if they are blocked, are typically "soft-blocked", which only prevents edits from that address by users not logged into an account. Sometimes you can still create an account while using the address. If account creation is disabled, and you don't have access to any other IP address, you can request that an account be created for you. -- (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania video[edit]

Are there any plans for the Wikimedia-Mexico copyright owners to put up video of Wikimania keynote speeches this year, or are they going to limit themselves to clips of ethnic dancing and demonstrations of translation software without audio? (It's phrased sarcastically but it's an honest question. The better question is how WMF let this unacceptable situation develop...) Carrite (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder... Perhaps it's a conspiracy to stop those of us who did not attend from knowing the cabalistic machinations of the undecennial caravansary based event. (I had thought it was going to be held in the Biblioteca Vasconcelos so I suppose I would have been disappointed.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Looks more like basic incompetence, but your mileage may vary. I see that Andrew Lih has a couple videos that he apparently produced up on Where was WMF??? Carrite (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Mexico city??? I would worry more about the air pollution there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Lee[edit]

Hello Jimbo & others! Nobody wants develop this article, as I see (Bruce Lee). How to place information that Bruce Lee was a personal hero of .... Mao Zedong? Kind Regards! Fighter Lion (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Being the "personal hero" of someone doesn't mean the subject of that idolation has to be included in the biography. With such a figure as Mao - it seems that this is more or less a bad idea for obvious reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is encyclopedic information. Mao is a powerful figure in the world history (great meaning, he is not "someone"). Fighter Lion (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In your view. Which you could demonstrate by providing reliable independent sources discussing this as significant to Lee's life and work. Otherwise it's just indiscriminate information, and Wikipedia is not a collection of that. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In your view. Which you could demonstrate by providing reliable independent sources discussing this as significant to their life and work. Otherwise it's just indiscriminate information, and Wikipedia is not a collection of that. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting David Rumsey Historical Maps collection to donate their maps[edit]

I will be doing the soliciting, but I wonder whether we have enough space on our discs. They will have to donate in jpeg though if we don't support the native MrSID files.

Thanks, Logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos112 (talkcontribs) 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you meant this as a question solely for Jimbo, but I will just jump in here to opine that the Wikimedia Foundation has more than enough disc space for anything that might be required. So that should never be a concern. I know nothing about the MrSID format other than what I just read in the Wikipedia article about it, so possibly someone else can comment on whether and how it is supported. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I had meant to respond in a similar vein to Arthur goes shopping, after looking at their site. If you need help uploading the content contact me, or USer:Fae, or ask on Commons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Man Up: The GamerGate Controversy Article[edit]

Jimbo, when is Wikimedia foundation going to man up and intervene on the entirely toxic nonsense that is the GamerGate controversy article, which still persists upon being nothing more than a squatted soapbox for a single point of view and a forum for certain individuals to discuss their individual viewpoints on the topic? It's time that those with some degree of authority to get to grips with this persistent problem. (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly Jimbo and Wikimedia's hands are tied on this. They play a dangerous game any time they wield their authority to settle content disputes. It is indeed appalling for just how long that article has stood as little more than a propaganda piece for people opposed to the movement. We’ll be soon approaching an entire year now of Wikipedia being abused to libel tens of thousands of people in a movement as serial misogynists, harassers, and general scumbags. The core problem with it seems to stem from heavy administrative bias against editors on one "side" of the controversy. If you have a look at the list of sanctions applied around the topic area maybe 90% or more of them have been against so-called “pro-GG” editors. Until the administration corps grows a spine and learns to deal with bad actors impartially (and those with a bone to pick in this conflict step down and let truly uninvolved admins take over), this site's credibility will just continue to be tarnished by that joke of an article. Already this past year I have noticed a marked shift in attitude towards linking to Wikipedia articles in many of the online communities I visit. People like to pretend that video game enthusiasts exist in a vacuum and can just be bullied and pushed around as they please, but the game generation is all grown up now and many see no reason to trust Wikipedia in other areas when what has happened on that article has been happening for so long in spite of huge amounts of attention.
Here's my analysis of the situation. It has always been apparent to me that video game articles on Wikipedia (and perhaps some other entertainment industry topics) occupy a bit of a separate article space with lower standards than other articles. After all, it’s just something people do in their free time to have fun... Does it really matter? Surely not as much as sociopolitical, historical, or science topics? Ultimately I think what's happened on the GamerGate article is an intersection of two cultures that don't normally come together: people who don't really care for video games much or get their culture vs. video game enthusiasts. And as neither of the two groups together respects the medium much when it comes to writing articles on Wikipedia specifically, the former (which writes articles on more "prestigious" topics than video games) has managed to dominate the latter.
So I think the site’s users need to earnestly ask themselves a question now: What place should video games have on Wikipedia? Should they be relegated to a dark corner of the site--a set of trivial articles of no consequence that nobody really respects and few really care about except the hardcore enthusiasts? Or is it time to give video game topics the respect and professionalism that most other topics on Wikipedia are already afforded? (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there are three main issues:
  1. Lack of traditional reliable sources on the GG side - largely because many of the targets were the gaming media
  2. Some significant number of established editors who appeared to take an anti-GG stance
  3. A bunch of not very clever pro-GG editors who stomped on everything with size 10 boots and
I am not minded to contribute much to this area, because the cost-benefit ratio is pretty bad. When the history of the event is written and there are more and better RS to quote I suspect the article will evolve in a manner less likely to rile random GGers.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
A very reasonable take... Carrite (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This is about the only take. ArbCom did as much as they could. Admins that didn't toe the anti-GG line have been driven off, even site-banned and there are no uninvolved administrators willing to curb the vitriole. GamerGate is where a number of various social factions coalesced into two factions: pro and anti GamerGate. While we cover the various aspects of anti-GamerGate including the harassment of game developers, tropes in gaming and various other progressive views, we treat pro-GamerGate aspects as a mob of faceless misogynists. Even when sources are available they are dismissed. This is, of course, not reality but the current climate precludes any other viewpoints. --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate article today follows the consensus of reliable sources. That consensus is unfavorable to Gamergate because Gamergate’s chief notable accomplishments to date are (a) its widely reported efforts to harass female software developers by threatening to maim, rape, or murder them, and (b) its also widely-reported efforts to use Wikipedia to improve its public reputation and to further harass its targets by using Wikipedia to discuss their sex lives. This is the way the sources now stand, and Wikipedia will continue to reflect the sources; in many respects, the current article errs by extending Gamergate too many benefits of too many doubts. This excess of charity had led to many evasions and much weaseling to satisfy Gamergate and the many new and zombie accounts it recruited in order to take over the page and to drive its opponents off wikipedia -- an effort that, to wikipedia's shame, has been largely successful. Were Wikipedia to actually deviate substantially from the consensus of the sources, the public outcry would surely provoke a swift return to good sense. If Gamergate desires more favorable coverage in Wikipedia, they first need to accomplish praiseworthy things and seek praise in reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

.............and you should be off the article. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The simple truth is that the article reflects the reliable independent sources, and those sources which fall outside the gaming industry tend to take a dim view of the atrocious behaviour of GamerGate activists. Harassment, doxing and threats of physical violence are completely out of proportion to the trivial supposed wrong inflicted by their targets. As time passes, I think it is unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will view the GamerGate activists any more sympathetically, and it is extremely unlikely that any article that passes Wikipedia's foundational policies will ever be to their liking.
I could be wrong about this, of course, but somehow I doubt it. Much of what the GamerGate activists try to insert into Wikipedia is essentially revisionism, trying to retrospectively excuse vile behaviour by reference to high principles which somehow never stand up to independent scrutiny.
In short, this is going to be like homeopathy or intelligent design: any article that is neutral and complies with core policies, will be despised by a small group of activists and will remain under relentless attack in perpetuity. The best they can hope for is a neutral description of their beliefs, alongside the documentary evidence that they are wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The People's Operator logos[edit]

Jimbo, are you okay with the following logos appearing on Commons?

It appears that User:Coentor has submitted them as his "Own work". Can you confirm that Coentor is entitled to claim these logos as his own, and/or confirm that these are even associated in any way with The People's Operator? - (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Own work or not, they are too simple to be copyrighted so what's the issue?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So, a simple copy of a corporate logo can legally be released into the public domain, as these logos were? I didn't know that! - (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's more complicated than that. The logo has to match this condition: "This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain." --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that even if a logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, it is still protected by trademarks. I don't think any logos can be hosted on Commons for this reason. @Justlettersandnumbers: does a lot of work on copyrights and might be able to confirm. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, you can check this yourself. Go to a company article and it's likely the logo is hosted on Commons. --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
See, e.g., commons:Category:Logos of companies. -- (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Awww, yes. Poking around at a few of them seems to confirm that they are trademark-protected, but also that Commons allows trademark-protected images. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The rationale being that uploading trademarked logos to Commons isn't a trademark infringement, whereas uploading a copyright logo can be a copyright infringement.--ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)