Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
A question for Jimbo about the constant never ending argument about subject specific guidelines
In AFDs and elsewhere there are always some who stubbornly insist that the subject specific guidelines don't matter, only the general notability guidelines do. I think WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It can be one or the other. Otherwise the subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist. But some do stubbornly keep arguing otherwise regardless. How do you feel on this? Could it be written even clearer than it is now somewhere to avoid constant pointless arguments and bad nominations for deletion? DreamFocus 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to go and amend WP:NOT to remove the line "Wikipedia is not a directory". GNG defines what can be sourced by reference to reliable independent secondary sources. SNGs as I understand them describe the sort of subject likely to meet GNG. SNGs as you define them aim to completely cover all subjects of a specific class, regardless of the existence of sources (because if they met GNG there would not be a problem). So: asserting that X is notable if it meets A, B and C criteria regardless of the existence of reliable independent secondary sources is a direct conflict with WP:NOTDIR and also, in the case you're involved in right now, invites the creation of biographies of living people sourced from a single results list and nothing else. Guy (help!) 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what the rules say. I hate having this same argument with you and others constantly so I want clarifications. As I recently explained to you, when the notability guidelines were being discussed and created years ago, it was determined what would qualify things of being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Just getting covered in a couple of random news sources was one way. Scientists are notable for their accomplishments, musicians for how well their songs sold, actors for how notable their films were they were a significant part of, etc. Whether or not you did a lot of interviews or were interesting enough for people to write about, is irrelevant, Wikipedia isn't just popular culture. DreamFocus 19:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is static and expectations move on..SpartazHumbug! 21:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, what role do you think the word "presumed" plays in the guideline? --JBL (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether or not you did a lot of interviews or were interesting enough for people to write about, is irrelevant" You should stop and think about what "notable" means. It means that people took note of something or someone. Like, literally. If something wasn't "interesting enough for people to write about", it isn't notable (and obviously there would be a lack of sources for a decent article here). Bitter Oil (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, The "rules" say that Wikpedia is not a directory and doesn't cover subjects unless they have been the focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources.
Here's a challenge for you: my childhood swimming coach Bill Thornton medalled in two different events in at least two games. See if you can find any sources beyond namechecks and listings. Guy (help!) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good example. And one of the problems with the term 'notability' (which might plague any term) is that it can feel demeaning or insulting to say that someone isn't "notable". Bill sounds great and interesting to me but we can't possibly write a biography about someone about whom there is too little public information. In some cases, if someone bothers to do the work, local news reports could very well be enough. But not always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are currently debating whether being in the Olympics is enough to quality for a Wikipedia article or not at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Change_to_WP:NOLY. Then you got AFDS like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination) where even though most people said to keep the article, that the person passed the subject specific guideline for entertainers at WP:ENTERTAINER "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." by having over 645 million YouTube views, and media mentioning him as a "internet idol." and other coverage, it still got deleted. Sometimes passing a subject specific guideline results in an article being kept, and sometimes its deleted anyway even if there is a proper article already written, not just a stub. And of course if anything doesn't get deleted the same nominator can just send it to AFD again less than a month later and try again as happened here and many other places in the past. The results are always the random opinion of whoever shows up to argue in the deletion discussion and the person opinions of the random administrator who shows up to close it. How about some clear rules that get enforced always instead of the nonstop relentless arguing over the same thing all over the place where people can just argue that any notability guidelines they don't like don't count, and only the one they do counts instead? DreamFocus 12:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, the problem is that SNGs are often written in a way that implies membership of certain categories is automatically grounds for inclusion, when Wikipedia core policy says it's not. You can't fix this by writing repudiation of core policy into the SNG, as Jimmy says. Guy (help!) 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere or other (ANI?) I saw someone suggest the use of list-type articles for this purpose (Turkmenistan in the 2004 Summer Olympics or what-have-you). This seems like a really good compromise: an article on an unquestionably notable subject that can include whatever information is available about less obviously notable individual competitors. --JBL (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I do think people are misunderstanding "presumption of notability". It's just an acknowledgement that, for some classes of articles, sources probably exist and they might be hard to get at, so we can afford to lay off insta-deleting them right away. It's not an automatic entitlement to a shrine, and it's not a permanent exemption from WP:V or WP:N. We do eventually expect to see sources. For obscure sportspeople, where the only sources are that they competed at such-and-such event, list articles are a better way to present information like this than a cloud of substubs. I've suggested similar things before, and got my head chewed off for it, which just means I must be on the right track. When you have a bunch of purely statistical information, present it as a list or sortable table. The benefits are that the reader doesn't need to scuttle from page to page looking for tiny scraps of info, being able to compare similar entries at a glance adds utility that individual articles don't have, and you don't fall into the trap of claiming more than the sources do in the attempt to bloat stats into prose. ReykYO! 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, I broadly agree. The problem at the moment is caused by the rapid creation of vast numbers of articles whose only sources are results lists. This would also be better handled by a list article, and splitting out as more sources become available. Either way, list articles should be a great starting point, and full articles without sources should then be unnecessary. Guy (help!) 22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales, Bill Thornton was a top bloke and very inspiring both to me and to my late sister, who became a lifesaver and competitive swimmer. It's a source of great regret to me that I cannot find the necessary sources to write an article. Guy (help!) 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the deal with SNGs, in my view. Some are just guidelines that are superseded byt the general notabilty guidelines (WP:GNG), , while others de facto supersede the GNG and denote notability by themselves. It's a political issue, and that's fine. Humans are political. Politics can be toxic, but here's it's benign and functional.
For baseball, we have an SNG which says that anyone who has appeared in even one major league game gets an article. This we have articles on people where we don't even know their vital dates and all we have is bare statline from the baseball encyclopedia -- Ed Brown (baseball) for instance. (Railroad stations, chemical compounds, and various other subjects get the same treatment.) It's fine. Those articles aren't hurting anyone. They're not breaking out thru people's monitors and ordering pizza on their credit cards. It's OK; relax.
The reason for this is that baseball is very popular. There a lot of people who are really interested in baseball, both editors and readers. And they're completists, a lot of the ones who are particularly interested. These people form a strong political faction. Again, that's fine. That's life. Popular subject, strong faction -- why not?
So if you try to delete an article such as Ed Brown on the grounds that he doesn't meet theGNG and that should supersede WP:NBASEBALL, you will get pushback. You will be outnumbered. You will be given the argument that treating WP:NBASEBALL as as top-level notability guideline that supersedes the GNG rather than being subsidiary to it gives an objective measure that prevents a lot of useless squabbling about whether of not this player meets the GNG and that player doesn't, which is a reasonable argument. You will probably fail in your attempt to delete Ed Brown (baseball). That's politics.
On the other hand, if you try to delete an article about a very obscure person who meets WP:NCYCLING but not the GNG, you probably will succeed. Cycling not a big deal in the English-speaking world. There's much less political strength around it. Thus WP:NCYCLING is treated differently then WP:NBASEBALL.
You can call that politics, or you can call that popular subjects properly getting more coverage. What's wrong with that? If there's some rule somewhere that says that says WP:NBASEBALL shouldn't be treated as it is, so what? We are not rulebound here. Twelve people got together in 2009 and made a rule, so what? The river of people that is the Wikipedia can't be constrained that tightly, and shouldn't be.
We're not running out of paper. We're not losing readers because articles like Ed Brown (baseball) or Cape Boothby or Vendomyces exist even if they don't meet the GNG. we're not offending people, or getting flak from governments, or getting negative publicity, because these articles exist. Relax. It's OK for politics to play a role in what we cover. It's alright for some SNGs to be treated differently than others. Herostratus (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, a SNG cannot override policy. GNG supports policy, including WP:NOTDIR. We should not have "biographies" with one watcher that are drawn from a single results list in a single event. Guy (help!) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My post
Hi Jimbo, An article about me was rejected by a wiki editor. I am running for President of the USA. <website redacted> is my core website of 9 pages of issues and issues. I don't understand as other political candidates have pages, and their volunteers upload information as it changes, so do elected officials. Any hep would be appreciated. His Peace to you, Kyle <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleKenleyKopitke (talk • contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleKenleyKopitke: Being a candidate is not sufficient. At the point of this writing, there are more than 1,000 candidates registered with the FEC and most of them have no article. Wikipedia is not an election guide and there is no right to be represented here unless the candidate meets the threshold for notability. Focus on your campaign outside Wikipedia, I promise, if you become president, there will be an article made about you. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KyleKenleyKopitke, Wikipedia only includes biographies of people who have been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I can find only a very small number of sources about you, mainly focusing on fraud, e.g. [2]. I am not sure any of these rise to the level of non-trivial reliable independent coverage except maybe this. Guy (help!) 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I'm almost impressed: after two presidential and one vice-residential campaigns and one senate campaign (that I found in searches of primary data, there may be more), over more than two decades, he has nonetheless failed to be covered even as a joke candidate.
Consider the coverage Jimmy McMillan achieved as a perennial candidate. Or Bill Boaks. Apart from local press stories about the frauds, I cannot find anything at all. He got about three times as many votes in 2016 as Jerry White, but I cannot find a single non-trivial RS.
And that's despite some notably eccentric positions such as stating that as President, he will stop teh chemtrails (yes, seriously). And my personal favourite: "[a]s you must be aware, the Democrats and Republicans who support a move towards a One World Government, have molded the United Nations to purpose a “Global Internet” that is not controlled by the United States of America, but by a “Globalist agency.” As President Kopitke, I will protect and preserve the sovereignty of the American Internet."
Remarkable stuff, but no RS, sadly. Guy (help!) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about something relating to the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board, and since you are, to the best of my knowledge, the only member who does any on-wiki communication, I figure you're the best person to ask.
The public agenda of a WMEAB meeting that happened a few weeks ago (kudos to the WMEAB for posting those publically, btw; I wish more off-wiki groups were as transparent) mention 35 minutes being devoted to the WMF's Rebranding effort. (I assume you're aware of the ongoing uproar about the rebranding proposal, with 92% opposing it at the first consultation, and then 91% of the 336 commentors in the current RfC opposing the WMF & co appropriating the Wikipedia brand, and many particularly upset about the misrepresentation of community opinion by the WMF.) My question is, why is the rebrand proposal a topic of discussion for the WMEAB in the first place? Does it influence WMF decisions on things like this? Does the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board hold a position of general importance/influence on Wikimedia Foundation decisions? Or was this just a general "Keep up with what's going on, in order to be able to make more informed decisions on the Endowment"?
Hi Yair, great question. The Endowment board members spend a lot of time pitching companies and very rich people to give us money, to leave us money in their wills, etc. What we often find is that there is a big confusion at the start - you can try it yourself - go up to someone who you know but who doesn't know about the Wikimedia Foundation and ask them: "Would you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation?" versus asking "Would you donate money to Wikipedia?" To me it is rather obvious that there are good reasons to abandon that distinction and I would think most opposition to it might come from projects like Wikidata, Wikinews, Wiktionary, etc., out of a fear that they will be neglected going forward.
I most certainly hope that the WMF Endowment board has "influence" on WMF decisions, just as you do, just as everyone in the movement does. The question of how the Wikimedia name may impact fundraising is one important factor in the overall decision. But obviously the WMF Endowment board is completely not the decider on things like that, nor do they wish to be or think they should be in any way. These are experienced thoughtful professional people who are donating their time and personal connections to raise money for our longterm future.
And yes, in addition to giving advice, it was also a discussion to allow them/us (endowment board members) to "Keep up with what's going on in order to make more informed decisions".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just now hearing about this, but has the board considered "Wikipedia" for the websites ("English Wikipedia, French Wikipedia", etc. as needed) and "the Wikipedia Foundation" (WF? See [5]) for what we now call the WMF? That might be a lot more acceptable to those who oppose the WMF calling itself "Wikipedia" while still reducing donor confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Wiki Foundation" is unencumbered by trademark registrations and would achieve all of the stated rebranding goals without introducing confusion. EllenCT (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would be a lot of confusion. "Wiki Foundation? So you run Wikileaks, Wikihow, and the Minecraft Wiki?" --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an actual anecdote or an imagined anecdote? EllenCT (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLeaks Is Not a Wiki: "Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee mistakenly denounced Wikipedia in 2016 for the leaked Clinton emails.".
That template has been fighting a losing battle since 2010.[6]EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That graph tells us nothing about when Wikipedia is abbreviated as wiki. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Personally, I think having to explain the WMF's status to donors is a feature, not a bug. The WMF isn't Wikipedia, people aren't donating to Wikipedia, and asking for donations for "the organization which supports Wikipedia (among other projects)" is a lot more accurate and informative.)
Thank you for the explanation. --Yair rand (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo or Lgruwell-WMF, may we please see the investment update presentation? EllenCT (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lgruwell-WMF: also, where are the Morningstar sustainability criteria? [7] cites the dead link [8] on page 6. [9] is the latest working Wayback Machine link, and only discusses aggregation methodology without regard to criteria. Do they include employee commuting fuel? Goods delivery fuel? EllenCT (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, would you please reach out to Michael Jantzi if we don't have this information? EllenCT (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A concern troll is someone who disingenuously visits sites of an opposing ideology to disrupt conversation by offering unwanted advice on how to solve problems which do not really exist." Do you think I am opposed to the ideology of sustainability assessment? Do you think I have offered unwanted advice? Which specific problem do you believe does not really exist? EllenCT (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do think you are a concern troll. I may be wrong, but that is my considered opinion. Pretty much anything that gets posted on Jimbotalk gets a comment from you "expressing concern". You have made 1,459 edits to this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using the definition you cited, then do you have answers to my questions? Concern trolling is completely different than expressing concern. I am sincere. Might I remind you of the first of the current set of strategic goals? EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not going to debate you. I have expressed my displeasure with the fact that pretty much any time someone posts a comment here (in this case about the endowment board and WMF's Rebranding effort) they get a response from you attempting to hijack the discussion into some other area that you are "concerned" about (in this case the endowment board's investment strategy). You won't let anyone discuss what they are concerned about without using it as a coatrack for an unrelated topic that you are concerned about. I believe that I have correctly identified your behavior pattern. If Jimbo wants to allow this behavior, it's his talk page and that's his business, but I think you either should be limited to X comments per day on this page or limited to new sections that you create.
I will now resume ignoring you according to the basic principle of "Don't Feed The Trolls." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know that my request for transparency in the endowment's constituent investments is longstanding. Do you share it? EllenCT (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop hijacking discussions by diverting them to what you are concerned with. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, do you believe the German VGWort model of compulsory literature royalties is an appropriate model for the United States to adopt? It has served them for well over half a century. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy to speak at Coin Geek London Feb, 20-21
Hi Jimmy,
Please see [10]. I asked about a similar speaking engagement last year and was perfectly happy with your reply -IIRC that people wish to pay you to speak and that you just go and speak your mind freely, and that they know about this ahead of time.
But in advertising this speech, they kinda suggest that Wikipedia might possibly consider using Bitcoin SV in micropayments for contributing to Wikipedia. I'll suggest, if I may, that you completely disabuse the audience of this notion. It's your call of course.
Micropayments in wooden nickels would be completely unworkable and, if the wooden nickels were actually worth anything, completely against your "bright line rule" about paid editing. If everybody was paid to contribute, nobody would be left to edit the article pages!
Don't worry. I'll address the issue head-on. I haven't read that press release yet (will do so in a moment) but if it appears to imply some endorsement of such a notion by either me or the Wikimedia Foundation, I'll complain. Suggesting such a surprising and obviously wrong thing seems likely to me to backfire on them, as it may inspire journalists to ask me about it, and I'll end up generating headlines smacking it down, having the reverse promotional effect they may have imagined.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love the whole "yes you can pay me to give a speech but what I say in that speech is not for sale" aspect of all of this.
The actual speech -- in the middle of nine and a half hours of a livestream starting with nine and a half minutes of their logo. (It sure would be nice if there was a YouTube video with only the Jimbo bits...)
Actual start of the speech. Jimbo is rocking that exoskeleton, don't you think? :)
OK, back to that press release. I quote:
"Especially now in the era of increasing fake news, Wikipedia seeks to offer a place where genuine and transparent information can be accessed. Blockchain technology has the ability to both incentivize (through Bitcoin micropayments to users) more reliable information, and create a transparent record of changes to what has been written before. Until the emergence of Bitcoin SV (BSV) to reclaim Bitcoin's original design, no blockchain had the scalability to power micropayments to efficiently reward better user information and handle the staggering amount of data Wikipedia carries. CoinGeek is, therefore, thrilled to have Jimmy Wales as a keynote speaker and looks forward to hearing his views on combating fake news, improving the quality of online information, and how Bitcoin technology might have some of the answers."
Wow. Big claims for a speech where they don't know what is going to be said.
It will be interesting to watch Jimbo give a speech where I suspect that he will say:
Wikipedia does not need need micropayments because we don't believe in paid editing,
Wikipedia already has a fully functional transparent record of "changes to what has been written before" (our page histories) with no blockchain needed, and
Not only does "Bitcoin technology" have zero answers to the problem of fake news, but that a lot of bitcoin fans are generators of fake news.
Rand Paul has named on the Senate floor the person who, he acknowledges, is speculated by right-wing media to be the whistleblower - something the Chief Justice twice refused to do during the Senate trial.
Some sources cover this, though almost always without mentioning the name, you have to go through the source and watch Paul's Senate speech to get it. Some Wikipedians are asserting that this is now coverage in RS so we should allow inclusion of the name on Wikipedia and remove Special:AbuseFilter/1008 which prevents addition.
Good idea or bad idea, in your view? Guy (help!) 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Rand Paul can be sued for what he says on the Senate floor, but I'd guess we could be (maybe "reckless endangerment"? IANAL). We might as well wait until at least one of the following publish it: The NY Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snap! Yes, reckless endangerment sprang to my mind, as well. Esowteric+Talk 20:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, either it is unreliable information (i.e., how does Paul know this?) or it is true & puts the person's life in danger. (There have been death threats against critics of the current administration, although I suspect a large share of them are employees of the Internet Research Agency). In either case, let's not print it. -- llywrch (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, there is no hurry. I think history will know the name. But we are not a newspaper. Let's wait to see how RS handle it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.png)