User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets[edit]

An article about Wikipedia's struggles from the SPLC: [1]. That's been mentioned in a couple of places but might be of interest here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Maunus has always been balanced, seeing everybody's viewpoint. When Doug Weller and KillerChihuahua were accused of being sockpuppets in early 2013, it was quite funny, like the theatre of the absurd. (You probably remember it.) But not most of the time. Mathsci (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
...because according to the SPLC, far-left editors, vandals and sock puppets don't exist. I will just leave this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
"Otherstuffexists", much?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Guy, that article says that the SPLC frequently covers left-wing/antifa violence and condemns it, so I don't think it supports whatever false equivalence you were trying to create. Love or hate the SPLC, I think we can agree that racist pseudoscience should probably not be welcome here. (Sorry; yes, Guy, people who punch Nazis are also a problem, and let's never ever forget that).

John, thanks for posting; and we should all give Doug Weller and Maunus a pat on the back and buy them free drinks for their good work. Here's an idea: let's all take 10% of the time we spend finding reasons to give tendentious editors a fifteenth "last chance", and apply it to helping people like Doug and Maunus out instead. MastCell Talk 07:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You need a pair of reading glasses MastCell. Cohen says that they condemn antifa violence, not The Washington Times. The Washington Times hasn't taken a stance on either side. Most of the article is quotes, and one of the few things written in the authors own voice is: You can find conservative policy centers like the Family Research Council on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” but not the violent left-wing extremist group antifa. Certainly does not say what you are suggesting it does. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps because "antifa" is neither "a group" nor a "hate organization" under the definition given to those terms by SLPC?[2] (which you may or maynot agree with, of course but that is just like your opinion man) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
What opinion? I haven't provided one. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused you with Guy Macon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I’ve actually already got a pair of reading glasses, although I don’t like to wear them because I think they make me look old. Let’s stipulate that you think I’m wrong about the ‘’Washington Times’’ piece, and that I think anyone who spends more than a few seconds thinking about that newspaper is a fool. Are you on board with the rest of what I said? You know, the stuff about not promoting racist pseudoscience, and about supporting editors who help maintain the integrity of the project? MastCell Talk 09:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
MastCell, I meant figuratively. I addressed the issue I had with what you said. I'm obviously not going to sit here and defend the propagation of racist pseudoscience... I'm against it. I don't like the SPLC either, they have a history of labeling people as extremists who are undeserving of any such label. E.g. Maajid Nawaz. The guy who participated in a debate against Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray defending Islam as a religion of peace. Yes, that's the guy we should be freaking out about. Rubbish. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The SPLC piece is deeply researched, addresses an important project-level issue, and contains interesting insights from two experienced editors (Doug and Maunus; there are few people who have done more to uphold the project's integrity and to keep us from turning into a vehicle for racist pseudoscience). So far in this sub-thread above, I see absolutely zero effort to engage, either positively or negatively, with the substance of the piece itself. (Yet people are willing to expend the effort to lodge a bunch of unrelated complaints about the SPLC). No matter how low I set my expectations for thoughtful dialog on this page, they are always disappointed. MastCell Talk 15:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Why'd you ask then? I've answered your question and commented about the SPLC as an entity. I am not inclined, let alone obligated, to meet your expectations. I read the article. It didn't strike a chord. It got the policy aspects right (as I recall at least), and the highlight was their simple explanation of civil POV pushing and how it causes problems. Otherwise, it dealt with the issues superficially and only to limited applicability of their interest area. This isn't a problem in itself, but it saw the outcrop and not the mountain. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of interesting articles about WP, here's one from Haaretz: Without Women or Evolution: 'Ultra-Orthodox Wikipedia' Is Literally Rewriting History Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting article which illustrates the tension between NPOV/BLP and FRINGE. We see this in articles on quacks and antivaxers, too. Some of the issues are hard to fix. Fringe figures tend to attract little mainstream coverage, and sometimes historical figures have contemporaneous coverage that falls well short of modern standards on race and other issues. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it a Wikipedia site (see List of Wikipedias), or is it a website somewhere which happens to be a wiki, like Conservapedia? (I have to repeat that question from WP:FTN because this is a well-watched page.) Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Johnuniq, the later: There's still a lot about WP in the article, they used a lot of hebrew-WP content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
This article in the Washington Post appeared today [3] and merits investigation. It appears that 1924 Democratic National Convention has been used for a bit of gaslighting. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We should thank the SPLC and our two editors who commented there for a very good article. I suppose that many Americans might think that our editorship in general leans a bit to the left, but I think that's because we have many UK and other European editors here who are in-line with their countries general political views. Seeing the effect of an organized right-wing group on WP shows up one of our usual problems though, an organized group which targets particular articles can have an undue influence on that article, often evading our rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that. Given the strong positive correlation between educational attainment and adherence to "consistently or mostly liberal" views even in the U.S., it's probably inevitable that a project like this will skew a bit to the left. Nevertheless, we have no shortage of very tenacious conservative / right wing editors. My impression is it mostly balances out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The interesting trend in those graphs is that from 1994 to 2015, the US college and postgraduate population who hold mixed views has roughly halved. 45% to 27% for college graduates, and 38% to 22% postgraduates. Consistently conservative views haven't changed much at college (9% to 11%) while consistently liberal views have almost quintupled (5% to 24%). Republicans also appear to be more consistent in their beliefs regardless of education. E.g. for the question of "Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient" republicans actually get slightly more entrenched in that belief (73 to 78%) as their education improves, while democrats plummet (48% to 25%). There's only two questions where democrats and republicans drift in the same direction as education improves: immigration (surprisingly) and homosexuality. No surprise then that the ideological gap is widening. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am apolitical -- neither conservative or liberal -- on the theory that the ability of politicians, political parties, and special interest groups to deceive all of us greatly exceeds our ability to detect deception. Nonetheless, I object to the oft-repeated view that mostly one political side is represented among Wikipedia vandals, sockpuppets, POV pushers, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I should note that the Southern Poverty Law Center has come up as the source of unfortunate rhetoric itself. For example, after a violent attack, professor Allison Stranger blamed (in part) the SPLC for misrepresenting the speaker she invited:

...some of my own students and advisees — concluded that Charles Murray was an anti-gay white nationalist from what they were hearing from one another, and what they read on the Southern Poverty Law Center website. Never mind that Dr. Murray supports same-sex marriage and is a member of the courageous “never Trump” wing of the Republican Party.

Now to be clear - as I would also say about some racist groups - the SPLC is not responsible for what thuggish students do that believe them. An anti-gay white nationalist also has the right not to be assaulted. But the disconnect between those who assume they have to be all good and those who have been on their bad side will inevitably amplify the degree of polarization in our society beyond even the extreme point that is inevitable when some people are against discrimination and others are batshit crazy. We must not give anybody, SPLC included, a badge and a gun and a remit to impose 'corrective' bias on Wikipedia. One by one, as free and individual editors, we must challenge and seek the truth as equals. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the individual is responsible for making his own conclusions and nobody should be considered to be always right in their criticisms of Wikipedia. OTOH, everybody is free to criticize Wikipedia, and if we approach criticism in a positive way, we'll benefit from it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Maunus is a fine editor and I've seen him being reasonable editing the intelligence articles (unlike WeijiBaikeBianji), but I really doubt "race and intelligence" is among the most important things for any far-right group now. That's so early 2000s. Most of the involved academics are dead. Besides, the whole intelligence topic has a lot deeper nature vs. nurture fight behind it, and while some of this intelligence research has pretty clear far-right undertones, there are academic activists (mostly anthropologists) who consider pretty much all intelligence research as questionably racist, too. This SPLC article also implies there is something inherently wrong in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence - why? They shouldn't use the "fight against the far-right" as a pretext for pushing their own views in the general topic. Anyway, "civil POV pushing" is just an essay and we all have our point-of-view. If, say, a person is contributing negative/critical information from reliable sources about immigration despite the fact it could "play into the far-right narrative", that's completely acceptable and welcome in Wikipedia. The only problem is balance, and we don't have enough editors in most topic areas anymore to guard this balance. --Pudeo (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Among the problems with that statement is that its claim to representing the mainstream view was tenuous, and that it basically sought to establish it as a mainstream fact that the lower test scores for black americans are likely to be caused largely by genetic reasons - which was a highly controversial then, and which is still not a mainstream view at all. It basically sought to high-jack the psychological mainstream for the hereditarian viewpoint.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Why specify an example that plays into the far-right narrative? Was it simply because that's what the SPLC did, because that's what the biased title of this comment section implies, or is there an implication that there are somehow fewer examples of someone playing into the far-left narrative? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the far right are the ones currently destroying society throughout the developed world? Just guessing. Let's not fall prey to whataboutism. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You're kidding me Guy? Have you set foot in Europe in the past year? I walked past armed soldiers (not police) in France; my bus (and every other bus tbf) was stopped and searched in Germany; border police gave me suspicious looks in Croatia, despite my Croatian heritage, because of where I was coming from (hint, hint). They weren't looking for Richard Spencer, or David Duke. Most of the "developed world" has bigger problems than sad American muppets parading with tiki torches yelling "the Jews will not replace us". Let alone that which is developing. The only place I visited where nobody seemed to be concerned was Bosnia (refer to that "hint, hint" provided previously). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No point arguing. He is blind to the left-wing elements that are also currently destroying society throughout the developed world. Of course we also have the religious elements that are currently destroying society throughout the developed world, and I am sure that we have editors who are blind to that as well. Those who argue that the left can do no wrong are just as stupid as those who argue that the right can do no wrong and those who argue that members of their race/religion/ethnicity can do no wrong. Anyone with a working brain can see that we have a wide variety of POV pushers here on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
One advantage of being older is that things that appear to be new to younger people can be recognized as not being new. "The real struggle is not between the right and the left [...] but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum have a monopoly on either of those qualities." That's a quote of me, if the Internet is to be trusted, in 2007, so more than 10 years ago. It was ever thus, and I think ever shall be. What I think is important for us at Wikipedia is to turn away from the battleground mentality about the right versus the left that you can find so easily everywhere. Wikipedia is not, or should not be, a battleground. My dream for Wikipedia is that we can work with people with whom we disagree about this or that, but about whom we retain high regard due to our confidence that "disagreeing with me" is not proof positive of idiocy or bad intent. Heck, sometimes I might be wrong and learn something myself. And even if I don't, I'm far more able to persuade others by not adopting a battleground attitude but by simply and plainly explaining myself and pointing to evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There is the ideal wikipedia which is a beautiful space where ideas can be rationally argued, and there is the actual really existing wikipedia which is partly that beautiful space but also in fact a battleground where people with political agendas try to control the prepresentation of the world, and sometimes succeed because there are more of them. It would be great if you could also address the concrete issue of organized POV-pushing and the way that it makes it very hard to achieve the ideal of an objective, neutral and representative coverage of some areas of knowledge.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Ugh, I wrote some beautiful words (trust me, Shakespearean!) that resolved this issue perfectly for all time to come. Lost to bad wifi. So I rewrote, this time some plodding sentences sensibly addressing the topic in an incomplete and unsatisfactory way. Lost to bad wifi. Now, I'm just going to give up and try to answer another day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Manuscripts don't burn
Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Red flags fly - 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 - especially when our readers feel persecuted by what they're reading in a WP political article. Several years ago, The NYTimes published the following statement...When Wikipedia and Google purport to be neutral sources of information, but then exploit their stature to present information that is not only not neutral but affirmatively incomplete and misleading, they are duping their users into accepting as truth what are merely self-serving political declarations. Criticism helps pave the way to positive change. It doesn't matter which politician or political party is denigrated in WikiVoice in the name of NPOV, especially when it's based on a logical fallacy. It reflects badly on the project, not the editors who included the weighty, noncompliant material. It's one thing to publish a well-balanced, properly weighted NPOV article for public dissemination but when the material comprising the article is cherrypicked garbage that supports a one-sided POV, it's just plain wrong. Some of the issues stem from the keywords we use in our Google searches which tend to produce results that accommodate our respective POVs. Try using the keywords that represent the opposite of what you hope to find and notice the difference. If we continue on the road to relentless BLP Coatracks and attack pages for political public figures (typically conservatives), we'll lose our bragging rights to neutrality. Atsme📞📧 02:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One need only to read the snide comments, hostile personal opinions openly stated and hostile efforts to do nothing but openly coordinate and filibuster via "consensus" a menagerie of bad news issues on the Donald Trump page, to see that this website is nothing close to being under siege by conservatives. It would be preposterous to read the overt hatred and loathsomeness displayed there about that subject and then expect the article itself to be anything close to following NPOV and especially the undue weight clause of that policy. There is nearly no sense of moderation and almost all direction seems to be an overt effort to malign this person coordinated openly right there on the talkpage. I once fought a long battle over a collective of George W Bush hating editors hell bent on adding the ridiculous notion that Bush was a "dry drunk"...meaning, a former alcoholic that had not undergone a respected alcohol treatment program. The notion of this fantasy was perpetrated by a couple of books written by psychiatrists that I had to spend a month demonstrating that they had deep seated dislike themselves for Bush and that they had violated their own credo since they themselves had only analyzed this matter from afar, not by way of any normative psychoanalytical method. Eventually, even some of those supporting the inclusion of this "garbage" also opted to not do so. We see the same now on the Trump article...only I think this has gotten far worse. The last time I saw an American political figure treated in what I felt was a fair manner was when I participated in the FAC review for the Hillary Clinton article. The Hillary Clinton article provided at that time a well balanced treatise on the subject and I supported the promotion of that article to featured level which was accomplished before her last Presidential bid. I've read over countless talk archives on the Trump article and comparing them to the Hillary Clinton article, I see nothing remotely approximating the level of hatred displayed. I get it...many are angry or hate Trump, but if that's the case, avoid editing the article. How on earth can someone filled with so much hatred possibly edit such a BLP neutrally? I mean, they hate Trump so much I wonder if the Secret Service isn't monitoring the page to see if anyone is stupid enough to make a death threat. If the conservatives were all trying to bring down this website, where were they when the Clinton article was at FAC? Conservatives trying to destroy this website is a preposterous myth backed by but a few mentions in that linked page above and spoofed to their target audience to incite further support for their own missions.--MONGO 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't buy it. I have looked at the same talk page archives and I can clearly see both Anti-Trump NPOV and anti-Clinton NPOV. If you only see NPOV from one side please consider the many editors who only see NPOV from the other side and the fact that they are just as convinced that they are unbiased as you are. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
My participation in the Clinton article was a mere few copyedits and comments on the FAC itself. My participation on the Trump article is near zero. I avoid more than a very token participation in such articles because I know I have a bias. I even went to the Clinton FAC and expected there to be a whitewashing of known controversies but there was not. That article was balanced, the Trump article is a piece of garbage. The conservative hordes so preposterously assumed to exist could have sure done a lot to filibuster against the Clinton article from being promoted and yet, this alleged deep concern never arose. At no point do I see the same overt efforts to impune the character of Clinton carried out to the point of NPOV violations as is being done at the Trump article right now. A coordinated and explicit effort to impune the character of this person by a collective of Trump loathing zealots, who openly refer to Trumps Presidency as "his reign" who openly state their dislike of the subject and then do all they can to dig up as much shit as possible. Maybe they would be happier working at a news source but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place to take a giant shit on our BLPs.--MONGO 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be helpful to give readers the context for that "NYTimes" quote, Atsme - it's not from a news article or a staff editorial, but rather from an op-ed written by the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, who was extremely mad online that this site (and thousands of others across the Internet) helped stop a massively-destructive and deleterious pair of bills which would have devastated online content providers (such as this one) and weakened free expression on the Internet. If you're holding up the CEO of RIAA as a shining example for us to follow, you should not be surprised when very few Wikipedians decide your path is the correct one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I wasn't clear in my comment, NBSB; my purpose was not to debate failed legislation, or argue the motivation behind that NYTimes piece. I'm of the mind that damage control should be done with a wide-sweeping broom, not a discriminate one. The point I was trying to make was focused on how some of our readers feel when they read our political articles. I just grabbed those 2 sources to relay a general sense of how the average reader may feel when reading a WP article about their choice of political leader/party. I doubt the bulk of our general audience actually cares whether the cited source is an op-ed, a breaking news report, or a book. The criticism is wide ranging, some involves circular reporting - and even RS get it wrong from time to time which contributed to the growth of fake news sites. There's also a serious waning of journalistic integrity because of the need for bait&click revenue and the public's attraction to sensationalized/propagandized material. Jimbo already knows that, which may explain why he launched WikiTribune. Our political articles are being spun in a whirlwind of WP:NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and it's hard to deny SOAPBOX and ADVOCACY aren't also at play. I recently read somewhere on a user's TP wherein editors were discussing the potential of Russian infiltration in WP. Well, I guess if they can hack into the DNC, they can certainly team-up at a WP political article, don'cha think? Trump derangement syndrome appears to be somewhat of an issue in the Trump series articles (and there are LOTS of 'em). When editors argue that a Coatrack is NPOV, it's becoming a serious problem. It's not a new problem by any means - read the last paragraph in the lede of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has been criticized for allegedly exhibiting systemic bias, presenting a mixture of "truths, half truths, and some falsehoods", and, in controversial topics, being subject to manipulation and spin....where there's smoke, there's fire. It's time to step back for a bit of introspective and realign with WP's original purpose. If you get a chance, review some of the sources in a few of the MANY articles in the Trump series (after only 1 year in office *sigh*) - like Racial views of Donald Trump, and Trump-Russia dossier. Notice how many op-eds and social justice sources are cited and see if you can get a count on how many conservative sources were cited. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 18:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
What in the world are "social justice sources" (sic)? And in regard to your comment above where you say "especially when our readers feel persecuted by what they're reading in a WP political article" - was that meant seriously? Our readers "persecuted" ... by our articles? Sigh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • SPLC - see their "About" page: The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society.
  • The Nation - see their "About" page: ...never faltering in our editorial commitment to what Nation Publisher Emeritus Victor Navasky has called “a dissenting, independent, trouble-making, idea-launching journal of critical opinion.”
  • As for use of the word some of the political articles you've contributed to, and keep in mind that every occurance of a contentious label used to describe a politician and/or their constituency is a form of persecution because it screams hostility toward readers who may disagree with what is written in WikiVoice, especially when it involves race, politics or religious beliefs. The Trump-related articles are weighted heavy to one side, unlike any other article we have about a US president...and this is only the first year of his presidency. It's noncompliant with policy to include contentious labels in WikiVoice. Right or wrong, agree or disagree with an ideology, a political position, a religion or a BLP in general - we should not use contentious labels in WikiVoice. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:SOAPBOX. But you already know that, VM, so why do I have to keep repeating it? Atsme📞📧 04:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
So... "social justice sources" (sic) are any sources you don't like? Your quotes don't actually explain what these "social justice sources" are suppose to be.
And you claimed that our readers were being "persecuted" by our articles. That claim is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Meh! You just didn't like the answers. 🍺 Cheers. Atsme📞📧 04:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 
Well, no, they were silly answers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

All of us would benefit from reading and reflecting upon meta:MPOV. Of course, those who would benefit most will be certain that it does not apply to themselves. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So apparently YouTube is gonna be linking here soon...[edit]

You've probably heard about this already, but just in case (and because I think a discussion should be started here regardless)... "Earlier this week at South by Southwest, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced that the video site will use excerpts from Wikipedia to counteract videos promoting conspiracy theories." Is this good news for us? I know the Foundation put out a slightly positive statement about it and I wanted to know what Jimbo and the myriad other watchers of this page thought. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a bot to tag the talk pages of the articles YouTube references and add them to a new category? I predict a flood of YouTube commentators showing up to "fix" the Wikipedia pages that get referenced by YouTube. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suspect our rampant use of templates deters many POV-warriors from slanting more pages. Even the common infobox templates might scare some users from "fixing" pages linked from YouTube. However, many pages are infested by numerous templates, beyond paragraphs crammed with a dozen tedious wp:CS1 cite templates ("publisher=" & "archivedate="??), so those pages seem written in "wp:templatespeak" as wikitext almost unintelligible to new users.
The numerous templates can be an unfortunate barrier to major updates, but also a protective layer which deters drive-by slanting of text. If users don't have time or patience to learn peculiar templates, then they almost certainly lack patience to fully research and link sources to properly update text. That's why we see many clever insights suggested on talk-pages but not tediously woven into live articles. Updating pages is fairly difficult. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See archive 227 Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What YouTube really needs is somebody to comment on new conspiracy theories, e.g. that students from Douglas HS who were interviewed on TV were supposedly anti-gun activists paid by George Soros. I don't know how long those YouTube videos were trending, but I'd guess for about as long as the time it would take us to get a reasonable article on it. Sure we've got articles on the supposed moon landing hoax, but would that really matter to the few YouTube viewers who might be taken in by a 50 year old hoax? The mechanics of us responding to new hoaxes in anything like real time don't look promising. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Variation of WP policy across the various language editions" question at the Teahouse[edit]

Hi there Jimbo, I'm not really sure where to ask this. A user recently asked a rather interesting question at WP:Teahouse about the early days of Wikipedia. (Rewording a bit) They asked if there are common/base policies that all language Wikis must follow and to what extent. I stated that the individual wikis have control over their policies and guidelines, but am not sure if that is entirely the correct answer, and Kudpung suggested that I ask you here. (Special:Diff/830996770 section heading "Variation of WP policy across the various language editions"). I would email the WMF itself, but the info@ address is community driven and the press address is strictly for the media.

All the best and thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll guess that NPOV is set across all Wikipedias; Copyright policy is very similar, except for provisions of fair use, and Paid editing disclosure has a set of minimum requirements, unless a project specifically opts out. These all come from WMF pronouncements. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles predates even the Five pillars. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The founding principles as listed on Meta are also relevant. Graham87 10:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
There are certain WMF Resolutions that all projects must observe. Through them, some principles like BLP are essentially universal. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My observations of various other wikipedias is that one of the big divides is between those like English which support multiple spelling versions of the same language and ones that adopt one approved version of their language. Other divides are cultural or maybe even random, so on English we don't assume you must be dead unless you would otherwise be the oldest person alive today. Others like, I think French, take a more pragmatic view of sports people who retired 80 years ago at the age of thirty. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Is enforcement even across all Wikipedias? From what I'e seen, it isn't. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
OP of originating thread here. Thx for the responses. WP:NPOV cited in WP:SOP Principle 1 is an 'English WP policy’. Was the intention to have a separate NPOV policy for each WP language edition? What governs consistency across those policies? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)