![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 170 | Archive 171 | Archive 172 | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | → | Archive 180 |
(restoring thread that was archived by bot error).
In two threads today (4 September 2014), Jimbo Wales has said: "In the old days some people would have been banned by now for that kind of behavior. It is a shame that we tolerate disruption - it costs us a lot of good editors." and "I'm hoping we can move to an understanding that we don't have to put up with people who have nothing useful to offer other than rancor." Does Jimbo have any suggestions as to what individual editors, the English Wikipedia community, or the WMF can or should do about his concerns? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate this statement: "Producing good content" does not give one a free pass to abuse, insult, or harass others through uncivil behavior. Simple enforcement of that principle, which falls under
WP:5, would do much to improve the editing climate.
It is not true that "uncivil" is hard to define; it means rude, or, as the OED defines it, Discourteous; impolite. WP:5 succinctly describes the kind of behavior that should be required of all editors:
Unfortunately, as Deltahedron points out, "behaviour will be tolerated from certain editors which would not be tolerated from others." That would be remedied if the basic principles of Wikipedia were evenly applied. Yopienso ( talk) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant material |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For background, I will explain one of the reasons why I chose to ask Jimbo Wales to explain his two comments on disruptive editing. There is an apparent contradiction between the tone of his comment and his role in Wikipedia. He said: "In the old days some people would have been banned by now for that kind of behavior. It is a shame that we tolerate disruption...." From any other editor, that comment would have simply been an opinion, that behavior is now being tolerated that previously would not have been tolerated and should not be tolerated. However, Jimbo is not any other editor. He is the founder of Wikipedia. He says that some people would have been banned in the past for disruptive behavior that is currently seen. I agree, but would add that Jimbo Wales still has the reserved power to ban users. He chooses not to use it. The fact that he chooses not to use that reserved power implies that he has other reasons, such as the desire for the English Wikipedia community to be self-governing.
Jimbo, and probably the WMF, appear to have objectives that, unfortunately, at least for the time being, work against each other. They have editing workplace objectives, such as civility, an electronic workplace that is welcoming rather than intimidating to new editors, and the minimization of systemic bias in the makeup of the editor community. They have content objectives, such as the minimization of systemic bias in article coverage. They also have procedural objectives, including allowing the English Wikipedia to be self-governing, which is currently done by consensus, especially at the noticeboards. Consensus at the noticeboards is noisy, and represents those members of the community who can tolerate the noise at the noticeboards. The procedural objective of governing by consensus at the noticeboards does not appear to be supporting the workplace and content objectives. Jimbo and the WMF have a seeming contradiction that is actually a tension between objectives. How can they achieve their workplace and content objectives if those objectives are not the objectives of the loudest members of "the community"? Which objectives prevail, and how? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Another relatively non-controversial thing the Wikimedia Foundation could do would be to advertise or encourage more civil relations through it's ability to advertise at the top of pages. If wikiprojects like taking photos can be advertised, why not the fact that civility is a terms of use and civility is a good thing in it's own right. Do it in a lighthanded way, maybe with some fun GIFs. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't see any civility/offensiveness problems on Meta-filter. They have hired tech-savvy community management people to act as moderators--I have been able to identify about three. — Neotarf ( talk) 03:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to highlight and respond to a comment that has already been archived:
1. I think the WMF can do little directly. It would be pretty difficult for them to get directly involved in banning uncivil users, and hard for them to do a good job of it. One reason for this is that extreme cases are quite easy and the community does a good job of bans. The difficult cases are people who go around causing disruption and abusing people but who have some kind of support network and produce good content. In these cases, community opinion often ends up divided. It would be hard for the Foundation to know what to do.
2. The Foundation could help us by doing more studies on what causes people to leave the community. I think what is often lacking is the empirical evidence needed to convince some fence-sitters how much damage some people are doing. If you write 3 featured articles but chase away through your incivility 10 potentially great editors who would have written 30 featured articles, then you are a net loss to the project. I think that's often the case with some of these characters, but we have no way at the moment to empirically demonstrate it.
3. The English Wikipedia community can beef up policies in various ways to make it clearer that "producing good content" does not give one a free pass to abuse, insult, or harass others through uncivil behavior.
4. I recommend that people who care about this issue work hard to think about how we might improve our ArbCom processes so that more cases can be handled and in a quicker fashion. Barring that, I would say being careful to elect "civility hawks" to the ArbCom would be useful. When a user who has a long history of uncivil interactions with others comes before ArbCom, it should often be a simple open and shut case. For a variety of reasons (including that policy isn't strong enough in some areas so ArbCom can feel constrained) that sometimes doesn't happen, and this has follow-on repercussions with behavior across the site as uncivil people feel safe to carry on.--Jimbo Wales 10:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have opened an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is an issue of civility, the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to weigh in. Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Lightbreather ( talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, webreflinks is a tool that automatically fixes up all citations within an article. All you have to do is past the title in a box and click Enter, and when the program completes, copy the output to the article. Simple as.
Since this tool has been blocked, or whatever happened to it, I have seen the level of citations decrease rapidly everywhere on Wikipedia. We desperately need either this tool or another one that does a similar thing.
P.S. Oh and once we do we need to make sure all newbies know what it is and how to use it. I'm working at WP:AFC atm and I can't take the horribly formatted references anymore.-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, if you check the article traffic stats for just about any article in the English Wikipedia, it appears that September 3rd there was approximately an 80% to 100% spike in page views. The spike only persisted for that one day. Do you (or any of your loyal JimboTalk followers) have any idea if this spike was real, or was it just a quirk of the measurement tool? - 2001:558:1400:10:8165:67BB:738F:E52B ( talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikiviewstats shows no spike at September 3, all OK. BTW, do use meta:User:Hedonil/XTools, it's a fantastic tool! -- Atlasowa ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. You earned a lot of respect, IMHO, when you brought up the WP:SOPA issue and galvanized the community to take a stand. I am curious why didn't you feel necessary to do the same thing with the Internet Slowdown Day action? Also, do you know why WMF has taken no interest in this (during SOPA they issued several press statements and such...). Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Unverified request |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear Jimmy, I am looking for feedback from Wikipedia editors about the “MediaViewer scandal”. I would be very grateful if you could publicise this message internally throughout Wikipedia so we can get responses from a broad range of editors. From the advice I have been given so far, it seems it would be beneficial to engage in particular editors involved with the MediaViewer “RFC” and “Wikipediocracy”. Yours sincerely, Jane Investigative researcher BBC News
BBC News is interested in investigating a story about the “MediaViewer scandal”. We believe that the breakdown between the Wikimedia Foundation and the editors upon which it relies is a fascinating story that is almost unknown to our readers. We would like to invite editors to provide their accounts of this breakdown. Firstly, we would like accounts of what has happened. Secondly, we want to know how this has affected editors. Our readers are mostly very familiar with Wikipedia, but do not have the opportunity to see what happens “behind the scenes”. You should submit your stories on the general submissions page here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10725415 Any personal information can be made anonymous if requested. It is critically important that the line “Wikipedia MediaViewer scandal” is inserted as the first line in the “Comments” box. BBC News receives thousands of comments from readers every day and in order to receive your comments we will filter by this first line. If the line is not included, then your comments might not reach us. We welcome comments from all kinds of Wikipedia editors and encourage as many of you as possible to share your stories. We are also interested in looking at other internal Wikipedia topics for further articles. Ideas that have been suggested so far have included the following: - Harassment of women editors on Wikipedia - Contacting banned editors’ employers - Political correctness and “JZG abuse of process” at Sarah Brown’s (Gordon Brown’s wife) article - Administrators engaging in paid editing for commercial purposes We welcome comments from editors about all of these topics and any other internal Wikipedia topics that our readers might find interesting. We thank all of you for your time and look forward to hearing about your experiences. Yours, Jane Investigative researcher BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.212.16 ( talk) 13:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
|
![]() |
The Real Life Barnstar |
Thank you for completing the interview with me Jimbo. I really appreciate how you took time out of your day to talk with me! Mirror Freak 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
I have made a proposal that I would think would help close the gender gap in WP's administrative corps. I think this is necessary because, speaking from observation and personal experience, WP's RfA process has a lot of serious issues. Cla68 ( talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It would have worked. Editors running for Admin would all have self-identified themselves as female regardless of their real sex, so the gender gap would have vanished. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"why don't you dine on the swine?" Are you soliciting me for something? — Neotarf ( talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project.[5]. You've made similar statements elsewhere. I'll not waste my time collecting them unless needed. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 19:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
What? The Anita Sarkeesian links I dropped on the gender gap talk page? Is that what you're upset about? No, I don't think the links should be passed to some RS group for evaluation, where there are likely to be few women. I meant them for the gender gap group, and I'm sure the group is perfectly competent to evaluate the gender implications for themselves.
I can't help but note that although you were just blocked for disruptively archiving the gender gap talk page, the first thing you did when your block expired was to rush right over to the gender gap talk page, start reverting SlimVirgin's archiving, and start ordering her around. I also note that, like the guy who has a swastika sig when he welcomes people at the teahouse, when you go over to the gender gap project, you now have a sig that says "Makin' Bacon". — Neotarf ( talk) 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I find this whole discussion very disturbing. This is not the place for it, and someone should have told Cla68 that instead of stoking this fire. However, the worst thing about it is the deeply-entrenched sexism that is evident from some of the above comments, not to mention the attempt to "out" Cla68 by referring to off-wiki events. The fact that a majority disagreed with the proposal does not make it insincere and certainly does not make it trolling. These are wild accusations from undisciplined contributors.
Deb (
talk)
10:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This all seems rather misguided because of the editors that are attracted to multiple, but orthogonal issues. The "gender gap" is a metric. It is a metric of inclusiveness and also interest. An editor gap task force goal must be to make the experience of being an editor more inclusive. It is not a goal of that task force to create or recruit more viewpoints from different perspectives - that turns WP into a forum, not an encyclopedia. More viewpoints may indeed be a result of being more inconclusive, but that is not the goal of editor gap. It is antithetical to the very nature of WP to presume that recruiting viewpoints that are appealing to subsets of underrepresented editors will improve the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. Rather, the appropriate way is to understand what barriers or enablers are creating variance in participation. This must be done in a very broad sense and not narrowly focused to just increasing numbers by whatever means necessary. The first thing that must happen is to completely delineate content focused issues such as "Countering Systemic Bias" from inclusiveness issues such as "Gender Gap Task Force." The presumption of overlap is very misplaced and blending of these two very separate issues is detrimental to the objectives of each. They are orthogonal to each other. I'd submit for consideration, from an outside perspective, that those who feel strongly there is no systemic bias and therefore there is no need for a gender gap task force do not understand they are different topics and those editors are most likely unsuitable to participate in either. Likewise, I'd submit for consideration, from an outside perspective, that those who feel strongly there is a systemic bias and therefore there is a need for a gender gap task force to counter it are also equally unsuitable to participate. There will be many that strongly agree with one of my statements and strongly disagree with the other - and that is what leads to the agenda driven conflict. There are other issues just as orthogonal to the two I mentioned and editors with strong feelings of overlap (in either direction) are hampering solutions. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just curious given the newly released documents regarding Yahoo's lawsuit against the US Federal govt's NSA "requests" for user information what your opinion would be, and what possible courses of action are open to you personally, should the Wikimedia Foundation ever receive such a "request" and subsequent threat of a $25,000 daily fine if the WMF declines the request. Secondly I'm curious if you've ever been asked, or if you have asked, to present testimony to any Congressional committee hearings on such topics of internet privacy and such government requests. Camelbinky ( talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Articles about controversial current events seem to attract editors with a bias. I have the impression that Wikipedia's influence on public opinion for these subjects is negligible compared to the influence of the news media, so that the only thing a biased editor could accomplish is to influence readers that Wikipedia is biased. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, you and your WMF win by ignoring more than 800 [6] votes. As Lenin said: "They voted with their feet". After some 30.000 Edits in 7 years i quit as WP:supporter So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
hi sorry to bring this to your attention, however I've been trying to give an opinion in regards to the latest ebola outbreak on the talk page for "ebola virus epidemic west Africa", however I keep getting the runaround. At issue is the recent publication,,,,,,, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/ ,,,& ,,, http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395 the latter being a scientific journal which on page 45 (pdf) makes a direct relation between the west Africa and Congo outbreaks on its map. I believe this warrants (1) Congo's inclusion into the "cases-table" for overall case amount and (2) a better written Congo part; more connected to the overall ebola outbreak in Africa.I, aside from noting the above on the respective "talk page" have also brought it up with "Gandydancer" one of the principle editors, on this persons talk page, but have gotten little discussion.I believe everyone should be equal in opinion, without "page ownership". How should I proceed in your opinion?,,thank you
P.S.....W.H.O. itself has used west Africa and Congo together to show total cases (page 4 ) as I requested in article,,, ( http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... .-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My two cents, in reply to a section that appears to be currently in an edit war, but on the general subject of paid editing. It is unlikely that any incidence of someone editing a page with a username that resembles the page subject (be it an individual, company or organisation) is a gotcha moment. It means they don't know the policy (if they did, they wouldn't be using such an obvious name). To me, of greater concern, is editing that policy does allow, such as PR reps who declare WP:COI on less traveled talk pages and then go ahead and edit (on the basis of no talk page objection. eg. [8]). I'm against paid editing but I don't think hounding the ones who don't know policy on this talk page really achieves much. AnonNep ( talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
|
NB: Hat edit summaries are more useful when neutral and don't lash out any anyone involved. [9]
![]() |
Dear Jim,
I am lodging a formal complaint against a page which I view as damaging. The predescribed page is labelled ' Suicide Methods' and provides such content in intricate detail, citing (helpful?) resources. This page is easily accessible via a simple google search( 'suicide') and thus has HIGH potential for misuse. For this reason I am attempting to contact you directly in a bid to remove such pages from existence. Whilst the page entitled 'Suicide' is not explicit or clumsily written enough to warrant deletion, the aforementioned is. I hope this comment isn't lost amongst a sea of those by other users, Yours Sincerely, |
Hi, User:Jimbo Wales, why did you block Mutter Erde? Lotje ( talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
So really what your are asking for the ban on User:MutterErde to be lifted. The relevant policy page is WP:UNBAN although it is a little unclear how bans imposed by Jimbo can be lifted. I would start by the user making a case for why the ban should be lifted on their talk page: User talk:MutterErde. The appeal should address the two main reasons the ban was imposed WP:COPYVIO and WP:SOCK. Note ban and blocks are different things, bans which MutterErde has are more serious. See the reason for the ban at WP:BANLIST.-- Salix alba ( talk): 08:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we need an automated process to randomly delete stuff from Wikipedia. We could start with empty sections. They are so evil [10]. Stubs should be next, particularly those with zero refs etc. Then we could have process by which we automatically delete sourced material too, particularly if admin disagrees with it. Most sources are known to be unreliable from time to time. So DELETE all of them, just as a precaution. JMP EAX ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jimbo: This case seems to be a bit strange. As far as I can see MutterErde's "last words" are placed on YOUR talk site - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=23835406#Have_you_seen_this_.3F . They are a complaint or even a request for help, which you didn't answered with a link to the new fair use rules/templates of these days in September 2005, but with a ban of this productive author. Right or wrong? 91.65.74.2 ( talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely there are virtually no editors who really need to stay blocked for nine years or more. It's ridiculous that such long-term bans remain in effect long after everyone has forgotten about the situations in question. Everyking ( talk) 04:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize that there has been previous discussion of what the WMF can do to foster civility in the English Wikipedia. That discussion here has been archived. I would like to repeat one suggestion in particular. There is a major discrepancy between the stated views of the WMF on civility and the positions defined by "community consensus" at the noticeboards. In particular, civility is a condition of the WMF's Terms of Use that govern all WMF communities, and at least one member of the WMF board, the owner of this talk page, has expressed concerns about the lack of civility enforcement. On the other hand, civility is not enforced at the English Wikipedia noticeboards unless it rises to the level of personal attacks, and not always even then (e.g., the allegation of brainlessness). There is a disconnect between stated overall WMF policy, and its restatement by the owner of this talk page, and its application at the noticeboards. My question is: Where does the disconnect lie? There are at least two explanations. First, the views of the WMF are out of line with those of English Wikipedia editors as a whole. Second, the views of English Wikipedia editors are not properly represented by the editors who take part in discussions at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What the WMF can and should do is to survey the extended English Wikipedia community. A neutrally worded survey should be composed, and posted on project talk pages and sent by email, with mechanisms to prevent stuffing the box. The survey should ask whether editors think that the current level of civility enforcement is appropriate, is too strict, or is too loose. It should also include other questions, such as questions about editor retention. Responses should be stratified as well as possible, such as by gender, by length of time of editing, by frequency of edits, by how frequently they would like to edit, and by other information, some of which can be collected by automation, and some of which can be self-declared (taking into account the uncertainty of self-declaration). If the WMF doesn't have available technical resources to conduct the survey with sufficient detail and stratification, it should consider the reassignment of technical resources from questionable projects such as Flow. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If the survey finds that the larger community of editors is consistent with the community of the noticeboards, then the WMF should drop or downgrade its emphasis on civility, and recognize that the current civility climate is what the larger editorial community wants. If the survey finds that the "community" of the noticeboards, that largely ignores civility, does not represent the larger community of editors, then some sort of WMF intervention, in the least disruptive possible form, is needed. ( Jimbo Wales has recognized, correctly, that introducing "community organizers" as administrators would be disruptive and would make the situation worse, for instance.) The suggestion of the involvement of a small group of mediators has been made, which would be a good idea if care is taken to avoid the fallacy of moderation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(The gender gap is a special case. Even if the larger editorial community thinks that the disproportion of male editors over female editors is not a problem, it is true that the ratio of male editors to female editors is not representative of the technically literate population. Some action on the gender gap is needed in any case, but, at the same time, disruptive action on the gender gap, like on civility, would backfire.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Either the WMF has a handle on the views of the larger editorial community, or it does not. A survey is needed, and either action or inaction. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the many problems with civility enforcement is related to the famous Potter Stewart comment. When asked if he could define pornography he responded, "I know it when I see it". While many would agree that they might struggle with a formal defintion of civility, they beleive they have no trouble identifying examples of incivility. I don't doubt this, however what some may miss is that many of these identifications will not overlap from person to person.
That leaves us with a dual problem: it is hard enough to codify a set of rules when one has difficulty defining the terms but add to that the likely fact that different members of the community have very different opinions on what type of responses are considered incivil.
The community claims it wants a civil environment but when it comes to actually enforcing this, it becomes very difficult. If we do draw everyone's map of incivility would be a set of overlapping Venn diagrams with a rather common overlap. That means we have a relatively small number of sanctions for civility in which there is little disagreement. We have a large number of attempted sanctions where a significant portion of the community disagrees.
This leaves an outsider observing that there are relatively few sanctions that stick and quite a few items of perceived incivility that go on challenged leaving an outsider to think that Wikipedia is not particularly interested in enforcing civility.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Carrite and I may disagree as to whether there is a civility problem in the English Wikipedia, but we agree that a survey would be informative. Either the "community" at the noticeboards is not representative of the larger community of editors, and there is a disconnect between the noticeboard community and the larger community, in which case some sort of action by the WMF is in order, or the larger community does not perceive a problem, in which case inaction by the WMF is in order. I agree with Carrite that hiring at least one person with real experience in surveys and statistics would be a good idea. Carrite refers to "not good ol' boys". I am interested in who he is deprecating. Carrite proposes that the survey also include former editors. I agree. Both current and former editors should be surveyed. I agree with the comments of User:Sphilbrick about the complexity of defining civility, and think that a survey could help to clarify what the varied opinions of editors are. I think that Sphilbrick and I are in agreement that there is very little enforcement of civility except for actual personal attacks. (I would add that, in my opinion, some personal attacks go ignored also.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Carolmooredc proposes what appears to be an entirely different type of survey, of WP:ANI threads. I don't understand what she wants well enough to comment one way or the other, but that is an entirely different survey than I was proposing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is (still) an issue of civility, and the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to participate. "Avoiding personal attacks". Sincerely. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
[Note from Jimbo: I will be unable to look into this in a timely fashion but it sounds like there would be nothing for me to do at this stage anyway other than the usual: to advice calm, quiet reflection, a reduction of drama, and a serious effort to treat everyone with dignity as human beings.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr Wales, Tutelary was doxxed by members of Wikipediocracy. They also claim that she is not really a transwoman, which is obvious transphobia. Now there is a proposal on ANI to topic ban her from BLPs or even site ban her. Just because she moderates some subreddits about women on Reddit does not mean that she is an MRA. Remember, Wikipediocracy are the same people who claimed that a KKK member shouldn't be editing articles about Jews. That's not how Wikipedia works - anyone can edit anything. I bet Tutelary knows more about feminists than most of the people who edit in that topic area. Please put a stop to this harrassment by Wikipediocracy supporters. Anyone voting to ban Tutelary should be banned for supporting doxxing. Doxelary ( talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that there is an unfortunate coincidence that you on your travels, Jimmy, and not able to scrutinize things closely, just as you were when the Essjay shit hit the fan, but it is worth considering whether you want to support someone playing the same sort of game as Essjay played of pretending to be what he was not in order to gain an advantage in on-Wiki discussions. Do you again want to let a troll, in this case a misogynist one, be seen to have gulled you?-- 92.238.57.40 ( talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If Tutelary emails you, I recommend you don't click any links or open any attachments. (Per WP:ANI#For your own safety.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What we must be guard against (I made this point on AN/I too) is the following scenario (which may not apply to this case, but if this were to happen it would manifest itself with similar symptoms). In the past we've had Wikipediocracy members complain here about editors with politically incorrect views they would like to see banned without going through the regular processes. It may therefore be tempting to them or to some other group to just invent an editor who has politically incorrect views. They can create an account here and also on some forums where they make politically incorrect postings under the same moniker. After a while they can then claim on Wikipediocracy to have "discovered" this Wikipedia editor who has all these outrageous views that Wikipedia is just tolerating. So, they create an artificial case for intervention on the basis of political incorrectness.
If we were to give in to that, then that would create a precedent. The next time it will be an editor who has less extreme views but those views are still regarded as problematic by some here, and then some Admin may act on the precendent set. The rules for reversing a ban means that unless there is a consensus against the ban, the ban won't be reversed. In practice this means that the ban will stand. The minority of editors who think that BLPs should not be edited by people who have questionable views will then have their way. But just consider the turmoil we've had in the climate change area when there was only the perception in the community that editors here were not giving the climate sceptical editors enough room to edit. So, on the long run this would create a lot of problems for Wikipedia. We should therefore allow everyone to edit all articles unless they are creating problems here. We should not care about postings on some hacker forums or elsewhere. Only if the disruption here is a problem can off Wiki behavior be used as supplementary evidence. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Half this discussion is one set of socks accusing another set of socks of sock puppeting, with the latter socks retaliating by accusing the former socks of being socks. The other half of this discussion is The Devil's Advocate and Count Iblis either trolling or saying some very very dumb things and a couple editors wasting their time trying to engage them on a serious level. Welcome to what Wikipedia has become. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course we judge Wikipedians by their edits here and not by their views or whatever they might do outside Wikipedia. It would be outrageous if someone were to be a good and uncontroversial editor but then be banned because someone discovered that they had a certain view or political affiliation. Clearly, that isn't how we operate. Everyking ( talk) 04:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You know what I find amusing? That the entire discussion above wasted dozens of hours of time, because the argument just had to be maintained; but this little note had to be quickly erased by some mouth-breather, so as not to allow Wikipedia to be disrupted. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:C124:1B41:6BA1:E72B ( talk) 12:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if somebody could find some articles which were created in the dark ages of 2001 which are still stubs?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Chillum:, where do I do that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, the evil one has found a way of finding them :-) Things like science fiction novels, usernet cabal, mathematical jargon etc were among the first created, male geeks at work... Somebody please close this in a hidden section to avoid the scrutiny of British Intelligence!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I had fun rummaging through some old pages I found and looking at the contributions of some of the very oldest users. I found this Some of the earliest entries were created like FrancE with funny capitals in them. Jimbo might remember that and User:Wojpob. I just expanded Double-hulled tanker which was created on April 3 2001! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it actually true that some articles will always be stubs, no matter what? Seems like a very depressing Hell to be locked into. -- k6ka ( talk | contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I WP:AGF that the policy hawks (i.e. editors who seem to spend most of their breathing moments editing Wikipedia policies) only have good intentions. Nevertheless, it's impossible not to note that the same issues that arrise with civil POV pushing in articles are even more prevalent on policy pages. For starters, on articles at least there is an external factor (i.e. sources) that can sometimes limit what can be pushed in. There is no such limitation for policies, so whoever spends most of their time pushing the n-th slightly tweaked version of a failed proposal eventually might win by exhausting the opposition and/or profiting from their [temporary] drop in vigilance. Any ideas for combating this phenomenon? Perhaps a yearly policy review instead of the never-ending tweaks? That seems to work for other important issue like ArbCom elections instead of having them on a rolling basis. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
On Wikimania you said: "One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years." Once you even told me a story about a vandal who left wikipedia after he was asked to leave nicely. Remember?
I know Mr. Wales, that you would agree with me that templating user pages of banned content creators, listing their user names (which sometimes are their real names and/or could be easily linked to their real names) in this shameful list means shaming persons, means denying them an option to leave your site with dignity. Besides in some situations listing "the crimes" of named persons is violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So called community ban discussions violate each and every letter of BLP policy.
Mr. Wales, I know you understand that wikipedia would only benefit, if people are treated with dignity. That list serves no other purpose but bullying and shaming human beings who often made tremendous contributions to your site, and who in many cases have done nothing wrong to deserve the way they were treated.
The shameful listed should be deleted. The shameful practice of so called community bans ought to stop. It is a good time to use your founder flag, Mr. Wales, no, not for the people who are listed in the list, but for wikipedia. 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | [23:42:12] <philippe> Guest38632: nothing like an easy one, huh? That's maybe the hardest question around.... I've been trying for years :) | ” |
Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is (still) an issue of civility, and the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to participate. "Avoiding personal attacks". Sincerely. Lightbreather ( talk) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Since I mentioned your talk page (and the usage thereof), I thought I should drop you a note. - jc37 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, so you are aware, it appears there was a situation today where this comment led to this comment (rev-deleted, but I believe you still have the tools to view? It's, obviously, the 2 hidden comments there), which according to someone who saw it before revision deletion, said this. The user was indefinitely blocked, then unilaterally unblocked less than 24h later; the user never posted an unblock request. Tarc ( talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no value to continuing this thread. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
According to
reliable sources, what are some
notable
misconceptions about Wikipedia?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I know this is not the right forum, but several requests for undeletion for the duration of the deletion review have gone unanswered. I know a lot of active administrators look at this page. Please remove this when the request is completed. The article on Susan Lindauer under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 18 should be viewable so people can comment on the actual content of the article and not just the chatter at AFD and deletion review. People need to see how extensive and reliable the references are, and how many years that they span to determine whether the subject is notable or if they are a private person subject to BLP1E. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to consider locking this whole thing down, then polishing it for a final edition. You once needed an army of anonymous volunteers (all with varying degrees of qualifications and intentions) to build this project... but not it's built. Keep continuing like this, and it will start to erode and deteriorate. - theWOLFchild 07:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Putting on my AGF hat here: Anyone thinking that Wikipedia is already "built" really hasn't probed too deeply. Of course, with no central direction it is hard steering any random person that wants to write on something new to deficiencies as they arise. Have a Mississippi High School: Amanda Elzy High School. Here's another one I just found Charleston Orphan House, the first public orphanage in the USA and the subject of a new monograph by John E. Murray (University of Chicago Press, 2013). And here is one for the gnomes that needs attention: Thomas Wilson Dorr. Carrite ( talk) 15:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
individually, one guy isn't making a billion stubs (Although there are some that seem to be trying). Collectively it might be close ;), Personally I have run into
And I'm sure others are aware of a great many others in similar situations. Personally I would like to see more content encouraged to be moved to wikia. Game of Thrones deserves an article or two. Does every episode and char require an article? No. Move it to http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/
Also, I think WP:N should be tightened up to say something about "If sources (an encyclopedia, book, etc) collectively cover every individual X, that is a sign that the collection is notable, not each individual item" and likewise "If sources A, B and C WP:ROUTINEly reviews every periodic instance of X, every instance is not notable, only the ones that gain non-routine coverage."
Now, are these articles degrading the quality of the FAs? no. But they are noise, and noise that takes up considerable admin and editor time for very little value. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at Eric's page about planning a major boycott of Wikipedia, with many of the core community going on strike. Just thought I'd make you aware of this public information in case you hadn't stumbled across it. (Please note I am just the messenger and am not involved in any of this)-- Coin945 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dr Blofeld: "If you can get 100 core editors of wikipedia to leave the website for a full month with a specific request to the foundation then I think they'd start to notice. The impression I get is that they have a naive outlook on wikipedia development and think that even if we lose contributors there'll be more along to take their place. The impression I've always got is that they consider the ip or newbie who adds some unsourced content in entries and the seasoned editor who writes featured articles as all in one class, "editor". I don't think they truly appreciate the "core community" or if they do they their efforts to interact are very poor.."
Eric: "The boycott is underway, it's no threat."
I agree that what this "strike" will achieve is somewhat (at best) obscure. I also agree that I can't see any real value in a debate here on JW's talk page - although there's absolutely nothing wrong with one editor notifying another of a discussion. What puzzles me more is this attitude that a strike will cause some kind of harm or damage. Self-evidently the main space contributions of these editors (and many more) have made wikipedia a valuable first line reference.
So, let me post a thought. Lock the database right now, totally. The work already done is valuable for at least 10, probably 30 and maybe 100 years - longer as digital-archaeological research. The "Ah, well I could have made it better but screw you" line is unfortunate. Yes, indeed, we want it better. The argument of these people seems to be it will be made worse. Regretfully for them that's not true. It will just become outdated. So have many things. Pedro : Chat 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why these editors are leaving anything behind is beyond me. It won't even have a noticeable dip in article edits, and if they want change, they should make it. Leaving Wikipedia behind only serves to illustrate the foundation's point. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The Shellshock flaw— Shellshock (software bug)—is said to be bigger than Heartbleed.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) and 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, if (heaven forbid!) you were diagnosed with terminal cancer and given just two weeks to live, who (if anyone) would you wish to nominate or appoint as your "successor" in the role of spiritual leader and/or constitutional monarch of the Wikimedia movement? - 71.185.46.22 ( talk) 20:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Re: Your edit summary at Nuclear option, I've gone ahead and fixed the link; I noted how I found a working copy of the article in my edit summary. Graham 87 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ranting.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear Jimbo, hello! Because Russia - is not any mafia, I ask you ban actions of users, which make rollback in article about the newspaper Guardian: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Guardian&action=history Their journalist says that Russia - is mafia (worse insult does not exist in the nature). This is even not insult and slander, but full stupidity. The Guardian sells this bad book already 7 years. Russia and the UK have bilateral agreements almost on any issue (friendship and cooperation). Book - not article (meanness - to perpetuate such info, including). They do it to get money (sale even in real life). Please, provide the fairness on Wikipedia. If grammatical mistake, English users can make corrections. Thank you! P.S. Example: if I am a journalist and I will create book about: Wikipedia wants kill great number people, using special hidden methods (almost the same situation - full stupidity). Russia - mafia (stupidity in millions times more). Because violation vs the whole state - on very high level. Violation of journalistic ethics also. Facts for the relevant article (Guardian). https://translate.google.com - 95.29.83.230 ( talk) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
|
Dear Jimmy,
I, and another Wikipedia editor have recently been having a certain debate about when a minority view should or should not be given fair presentation within a Wikipedia article. We have both been quoting various Wikipedia policies to one another, some of which sometimes almost seem to contradict one another. We are having this debate at:
A proposed compromise for the ACIM article. Specifically, we are debating regarding the Wikipedia
A Course in Miracles article, and whether or not the philosophy of this NRM ought to be fairly represented in an unbiased fashion in this article. Clearly the philosophy of ACIM is a minority view, and is generally regarded as unacceptable amongst most Christians. If you might be able to help clarify Wikipedia policy on this question for us, it is my sense that the resolution of such a Wikipedia "policy question" could be quite helpful for all concerned.
Thanks,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The WMF has an active, and very successful, fundraising effort that provides ample funds to support WMF operations, staff and grants. It seems that none of it goes directly into content building -- is that correct? (I looked at wmf:Frequently asked questions, but that is now rather out-of-date). How would you feel about a parallel fund-raising drive aimed specifically at supporting content creation, via scholarships, fellowships, and similar grants to academics and subject matter experts? Could that be made compatible with the issues around paid editing, and set up to support rather than compete with existing WMF fundraising? Is that something worth pursuing? Deltahedron ( talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If only the Wikimedia shop had more to offer, there would be no need for a fundraiser. Count Iblis ( talk) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
" It seems that none of it goes directly into content building -- is that correct?" Yes, this is correct. Sadly "paid editing" has always been seen as a taboo by Jimbo and the foundation to the point that anything which could potentially reward editors for their work, even an article of the month contest which is even above board and organized by them or an admin panel of judges with the prize of Amazon vouchers which they can use to buy books to build further content, they want no part of. I must have approached Jimmy about it half a dozen times, never got a response, even by email. In fairness though it's not just them, the "financial reward for editors is evil" school of thinking is more widely apparent on here. I do have a plan which I think could dramatically improve content each month with a little investment and also has the potential to attract new contributors to the project. I'm thinking of proposing something next month but I certainly won't be approaching Jimbo or the foundation to back it financially as they've made it quite clear they're not willing to directly put money into actual content building. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you want something to go into content building @ Deltahedron: your best bet would be to approach one of the chapters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Undeletion requires a "procedural error" or "significant new evidence" to open a case to a !vote at wikipedia:deletion review similar to a criminal court. Why can't "consensus can change" be a reason for undeletion. I have seen some articles nominated over 10 times until they were finally, and permanently, deleted The rational for a new AFD was always: "consensus can change". In the criminal court analogy, we do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy, we can keep prosecuting until we get a conviction. Why do we demand a higher threshold for undeletion? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo: Make a nice cup of tea and stop by the new List of hot beverages to learn more about the many notable hot beverages of the world and their history. NorthAmerica 1000 11:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see hemlock isn't on there. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy,
I, and another Wikipedia editor have recently been having a certain debate about when a minority view should or should not be given fair presentation within a Wikipedia article. We have both been quoting various Wikipedia policies to one another, some of which sometimes almost seem to contradict one another. We are having this debate at:
A proposed compromise for the ACIM article. Specifically, we are debating regarding the Wikipedia
A Course in Miracles article, and whether or not the philosophy of this NRM ought to be fairly represented in an unbiased fashion in this article. Clearly the philosophy of ACIM is a minority view, and is generally regarded as unacceptable amongst most Christians. If you might be able to help clarify Wikipedia policy on this question for us, it is my sense that the resolution of such a Wikipedia "policy question" could be quite helpful for all concerned.
Thanks,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo,
For some reason, this comment section was selectively deleted from your talk page and placed in an unsequential archive. I have restored it to allow for further discussion on this question as per the
New WP: policy proposal discussion section below.
Buenos dias, soy seguidor de Wikipedia y he querido ser colaborador, vivo en Republica Dominicana me loguie con el nombre:ramonsosa pero mi contraseña no entra, cuando usted pueda y tenga tiempo para que me asista con mi cuenta de acceso. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.120.115.100 ( talk) 12:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that unprotecting that was a good idea. Since you did there have been "29 intermediate revisions by 16 users" in about 6 hours. Mainly just back and forth with pretty much the same stuff that I protected it for in the first place. There were two separate requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, both from level headed editors, full and semi. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest creating a request for comment. This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.
Thoughts?
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia |
---|
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia. [17] |
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline |
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.
"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit" [18] |
Walterruss ( talk) 08:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Has anybody checked whether Wikipediocracy has a hand in this? BethNaught ( talk) 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the deletion of the discussion section above, When to allow.... minority views, also deleted was an attempt of mine to create a new WP policy regarding yesterday's discussion on this. My proposed Wikipedia policy is at: WP: Balancing articles about thought systems This link will direct you to an archived non-current file that still shows the proposed WP policy before deletion. I've attempted to add this policy because as currently written, it seems to me that User RPoD probably made a very logical and good faith (but erroneous) interpretation of WP policy. I was wondering if you might be able to review this proposed WP policy and let me know if it might be something you would want? Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 170 | Archive 171 | Archive 172 | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | → | Archive 180 |
(restoring thread that was archived by bot error).
In two threads today (4 September 2014), Jimbo Wales has said: "In the old days some people would have been banned by now for that kind of behavior. It is a shame that we tolerate disruption - it costs us a lot of good editors." and "I'm hoping we can move to an understanding that we don't have to put up with people who have nothing useful to offer other than rancor." Does Jimbo have any suggestions as to what individual editors, the English Wikipedia community, or the WMF can or should do about his concerns? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate this statement: "Producing good content" does not give one a free pass to abuse, insult, or harass others through uncivil behavior. Simple enforcement of that principle, which falls under
WP:5, would do much to improve the editing climate.
It is not true that "uncivil" is hard to define; it means rude, or, as the OED defines it, Discourteous; impolite. WP:5 succinctly describes the kind of behavior that should be required of all editors:
Unfortunately, as Deltahedron points out, "behaviour will be tolerated from certain editors which would not be tolerated from others." That would be remedied if the basic principles of Wikipedia were evenly applied. Yopienso ( talk) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant material |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
For background, I will explain one of the reasons why I chose to ask Jimbo Wales to explain his two comments on disruptive editing. There is an apparent contradiction between the tone of his comment and his role in Wikipedia. He said: "In the old days some people would have been banned by now for that kind of behavior. It is a shame that we tolerate disruption...." From any other editor, that comment would have simply been an opinion, that behavior is now being tolerated that previously would not have been tolerated and should not be tolerated. However, Jimbo is not any other editor. He is the founder of Wikipedia. He says that some people would have been banned in the past for disruptive behavior that is currently seen. I agree, but would add that Jimbo Wales still has the reserved power to ban users. He chooses not to use it. The fact that he chooses not to use that reserved power implies that he has other reasons, such as the desire for the English Wikipedia community to be self-governing.
Jimbo, and probably the WMF, appear to have objectives that, unfortunately, at least for the time being, work against each other. They have editing workplace objectives, such as civility, an electronic workplace that is welcoming rather than intimidating to new editors, and the minimization of systemic bias in the makeup of the editor community. They have content objectives, such as the minimization of systemic bias in article coverage. They also have procedural objectives, including allowing the English Wikipedia to be self-governing, which is currently done by consensus, especially at the noticeboards. Consensus at the noticeboards is noisy, and represents those members of the community who can tolerate the noise at the noticeboards. The procedural objective of governing by consensus at the noticeboards does not appear to be supporting the workplace and content objectives. Jimbo and the WMF have a seeming contradiction that is actually a tension between objectives. How can they achieve their workplace and content objectives if those objectives are not the objectives of the loudest members of "the community"? Which objectives prevail, and how? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Another relatively non-controversial thing the Wikimedia Foundation could do would be to advertise or encourage more civil relations through it's ability to advertise at the top of pages. If wikiprojects like taking photos can be advertised, why not the fact that civility is a terms of use and civility is a good thing in it's own right. Do it in a lighthanded way, maybe with some fun GIFs. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't see any civility/offensiveness problems on Meta-filter. They have hired tech-savvy community management people to act as moderators--I have been able to identify about three. — Neotarf ( talk) 03:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to highlight and respond to a comment that has already been archived:
1. I think the WMF can do little directly. It would be pretty difficult for them to get directly involved in banning uncivil users, and hard for them to do a good job of it. One reason for this is that extreme cases are quite easy and the community does a good job of bans. The difficult cases are people who go around causing disruption and abusing people but who have some kind of support network and produce good content. In these cases, community opinion often ends up divided. It would be hard for the Foundation to know what to do.
2. The Foundation could help us by doing more studies on what causes people to leave the community. I think what is often lacking is the empirical evidence needed to convince some fence-sitters how much damage some people are doing. If you write 3 featured articles but chase away through your incivility 10 potentially great editors who would have written 30 featured articles, then you are a net loss to the project. I think that's often the case with some of these characters, but we have no way at the moment to empirically demonstrate it.
3. The English Wikipedia community can beef up policies in various ways to make it clearer that "producing good content" does not give one a free pass to abuse, insult, or harass others through uncivil behavior.
4. I recommend that people who care about this issue work hard to think about how we might improve our ArbCom processes so that more cases can be handled and in a quicker fashion. Barring that, I would say being careful to elect "civility hawks" to the ArbCom would be useful. When a user who has a long history of uncivil interactions with others comes before ArbCom, it should often be a simple open and shut case. For a variety of reasons (including that policy isn't strong enough in some areas so ArbCom can feel constrained) that sometimes doesn't happen, and this has follow-on repercussions with behavior across the site as uncivil people feel safe to carry on.--Jimbo Wales 10:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have opened an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is an issue of civility, the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to weigh in. Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Lightbreather ( talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, webreflinks is a tool that automatically fixes up all citations within an article. All you have to do is past the title in a box and click Enter, and when the program completes, copy the output to the article. Simple as.
Since this tool has been blocked, or whatever happened to it, I have seen the level of citations decrease rapidly everywhere on Wikipedia. We desperately need either this tool or another one that does a similar thing.
P.S. Oh and once we do we need to make sure all newbies know what it is and how to use it. I'm working at WP:AFC atm and I can't take the horribly formatted references anymore.-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, if you check the article traffic stats for just about any article in the English Wikipedia, it appears that September 3rd there was approximately an 80% to 100% spike in page views. The spike only persisted for that one day. Do you (or any of your loyal JimboTalk followers) have any idea if this spike was real, or was it just a quirk of the measurement tool? - 2001:558:1400:10:8165:67BB:738F:E52B ( talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikiviewstats shows no spike at September 3, all OK. BTW, do use meta:User:Hedonil/XTools, it's a fantastic tool! -- Atlasowa ( talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo. You earned a lot of respect, IMHO, when you brought up the WP:SOPA issue and galvanized the community to take a stand. I am curious why didn't you feel necessary to do the same thing with the Internet Slowdown Day action? Also, do you know why WMF has taken no interest in this (during SOPA they issued several press statements and such...). Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Unverified request |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear Jimmy, I am looking for feedback from Wikipedia editors about the “MediaViewer scandal”. I would be very grateful if you could publicise this message internally throughout Wikipedia so we can get responses from a broad range of editors. From the advice I have been given so far, it seems it would be beneficial to engage in particular editors involved with the MediaViewer “RFC” and “Wikipediocracy”. Yours sincerely, Jane Investigative researcher BBC News
BBC News is interested in investigating a story about the “MediaViewer scandal”. We believe that the breakdown between the Wikimedia Foundation and the editors upon which it relies is a fascinating story that is almost unknown to our readers. We would like to invite editors to provide their accounts of this breakdown. Firstly, we would like accounts of what has happened. Secondly, we want to know how this has affected editors. Our readers are mostly very familiar with Wikipedia, but do not have the opportunity to see what happens “behind the scenes”. You should submit your stories on the general submissions page here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10725415 Any personal information can be made anonymous if requested. It is critically important that the line “Wikipedia MediaViewer scandal” is inserted as the first line in the “Comments” box. BBC News receives thousands of comments from readers every day and in order to receive your comments we will filter by this first line. If the line is not included, then your comments might not reach us. We welcome comments from all kinds of Wikipedia editors and encourage as many of you as possible to share your stories. We are also interested in looking at other internal Wikipedia topics for further articles. Ideas that have been suggested so far have included the following: - Harassment of women editors on Wikipedia - Contacting banned editors’ employers - Political correctness and “JZG abuse of process” at Sarah Brown’s (Gordon Brown’s wife) article - Administrators engaging in paid editing for commercial purposes We welcome comments from editors about all of these topics and any other internal Wikipedia topics that our readers might find interesting. We thank all of you for your time and look forward to hearing about your experiences. Yours, Jane Investigative researcher BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.212.16 ( talk) 13:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
|
![]() |
The Real Life Barnstar |
Thank you for completing the interview with me Jimbo. I really appreciate how you took time out of your day to talk with me! Mirror Freak 15:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC) |
I have made a proposal that I would think would help close the gender gap in WP's administrative corps. I think this is necessary because, speaking from observation and personal experience, WP's RfA process has a lot of serious issues. Cla68 ( talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It would have worked. Editors running for Admin would all have self-identified themselves as female regardless of their real sex, so the gender gap would have vanished. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"why don't you dine on the swine?" Are you soliciting me for something? — Neotarf ( talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project.[5]. You've made similar statements elsewhere. I'll not waste my time collecting them unless needed. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 19:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
What? The Anita Sarkeesian links I dropped on the gender gap talk page? Is that what you're upset about? No, I don't think the links should be passed to some RS group for evaluation, where there are likely to be few women. I meant them for the gender gap group, and I'm sure the group is perfectly competent to evaluate the gender implications for themselves.
I can't help but note that although you were just blocked for disruptively archiving the gender gap talk page, the first thing you did when your block expired was to rush right over to the gender gap talk page, start reverting SlimVirgin's archiving, and start ordering her around. I also note that, like the guy who has a swastika sig when he welcomes people at the teahouse, when you go over to the gender gap project, you now have a sig that says "Makin' Bacon". — Neotarf ( talk) 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I find this whole discussion very disturbing. This is not the place for it, and someone should have told Cla68 that instead of stoking this fire. However, the worst thing about it is the deeply-entrenched sexism that is evident from some of the above comments, not to mention the attempt to "out" Cla68 by referring to off-wiki events. The fact that a majority disagreed with the proposal does not make it insincere and certainly does not make it trolling. These are wild accusations from undisciplined contributors.
Deb (
talk)
10:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This all seems rather misguided because of the editors that are attracted to multiple, but orthogonal issues. The "gender gap" is a metric. It is a metric of inclusiveness and also interest. An editor gap task force goal must be to make the experience of being an editor more inclusive. It is not a goal of that task force to create or recruit more viewpoints from different perspectives - that turns WP into a forum, not an encyclopedia. More viewpoints may indeed be a result of being more inconclusive, but that is not the goal of editor gap. It is antithetical to the very nature of WP to presume that recruiting viewpoints that are appealing to subsets of underrepresented editors will improve the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. Rather, the appropriate way is to understand what barriers or enablers are creating variance in participation. This must be done in a very broad sense and not narrowly focused to just increasing numbers by whatever means necessary. The first thing that must happen is to completely delineate content focused issues such as "Countering Systemic Bias" from inclusiveness issues such as "Gender Gap Task Force." The presumption of overlap is very misplaced and blending of these two very separate issues is detrimental to the objectives of each. They are orthogonal to each other. I'd submit for consideration, from an outside perspective, that those who feel strongly there is no systemic bias and therefore there is no need for a gender gap task force do not understand they are different topics and those editors are most likely unsuitable to participate in either. Likewise, I'd submit for consideration, from an outside perspective, that those who feel strongly there is a systemic bias and therefore there is a need for a gender gap task force to counter it are also equally unsuitable to participate. There will be many that strongly agree with one of my statements and strongly disagree with the other - and that is what leads to the agenda driven conflict. There are other issues just as orthogonal to the two I mentioned and editors with strong feelings of overlap (in either direction) are hampering solutions. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just curious given the newly released documents regarding Yahoo's lawsuit against the US Federal govt's NSA "requests" for user information what your opinion would be, and what possible courses of action are open to you personally, should the Wikimedia Foundation ever receive such a "request" and subsequent threat of a $25,000 daily fine if the WMF declines the request. Secondly I'm curious if you've ever been asked, or if you have asked, to present testimony to any Congressional committee hearings on such topics of internet privacy and such government requests. Camelbinky ( talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Articles about controversial current events seem to attract editors with a bias. I have the impression that Wikipedia's influence on public opinion for these subjects is negligible compared to the influence of the news media, so that the only thing a biased editor could accomplish is to influence readers that Wikipedia is biased. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, you and your WMF win by ignoring more than 800 [6] votes. As Lenin said: "They voted with their feet". After some 30.000 Edits in 7 years i quit as WP:supporter So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish -- Gruß Tom ( talk) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
hi sorry to bring this to your attention, however I've been trying to give an opinion in regards to the latest ebola outbreak on the talk page for "ebola virus epidemic west Africa", however I keep getting the runaround. At issue is the recent publication,,,,,,, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/ ,,,& ,,, http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395 the latter being a scientific journal which on page 45 (pdf) makes a direct relation between the west Africa and Congo outbreaks on its map. I believe this warrants (1) Congo's inclusion into the "cases-table" for overall case amount and (2) a better written Congo part; more connected to the overall ebola outbreak in Africa.I, aside from noting the above on the respective "talk page" have also brought it up with "Gandydancer" one of the principle editors, on this persons talk page, but have gotten little discussion.I believe everyone should be equal in opinion, without "page ownership". How should I proceed in your opinion?,,thank you
P.S.....W.H.O. itself has used west Africa and Congo together to show total cases (page 4 ) as I requested in article,,, ( http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... .-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
My two cents, in reply to a section that appears to be currently in an edit war, but on the general subject of paid editing. It is unlikely that any incidence of someone editing a page with a username that resembles the page subject (be it an individual, company or organisation) is a gotcha moment. It means they don't know the policy (if they did, they wouldn't be using such an obvious name). To me, of greater concern, is editing that policy does allow, such as PR reps who declare WP:COI on less traveled talk pages and then go ahead and edit (on the basis of no talk page objection. eg. [8]). I'm against paid editing but I don't think hounding the ones who don't know policy on this talk page really achieves much. AnonNep ( talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
|
NB: Hat edit summaries are more useful when neutral and don't lash out any anyone involved. [9]
![]() |
Dear Jim,
I am lodging a formal complaint against a page which I view as damaging. The predescribed page is labelled ' Suicide Methods' and provides such content in intricate detail, citing (helpful?) resources. This page is easily accessible via a simple google search( 'suicide') and thus has HIGH potential for misuse. For this reason I am attempting to contact you directly in a bid to remove such pages from existence. Whilst the page entitled 'Suicide' is not explicit or clumsily written enough to warrant deletion, the aforementioned is. I hope this comment isn't lost amongst a sea of those by other users, Yours Sincerely, |
Hi, User:Jimbo Wales, why did you block Mutter Erde? Lotje ( talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
So really what your are asking for the ban on User:MutterErde to be lifted. The relevant policy page is WP:UNBAN although it is a little unclear how bans imposed by Jimbo can be lifted. I would start by the user making a case for why the ban should be lifted on their talk page: User talk:MutterErde. The appeal should address the two main reasons the ban was imposed WP:COPYVIO and WP:SOCK. Note ban and blocks are different things, bans which MutterErde has are more serious. See the reason for the ban at WP:BANLIST.-- Salix alba ( talk): 08:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we need an automated process to randomly delete stuff from Wikipedia. We could start with empty sections. They are so evil [10]. Stubs should be next, particularly those with zero refs etc. Then we could have process by which we automatically delete sourced material too, particularly if admin disagrees with it. Most sources are known to be unreliable from time to time. So DELETE all of them, just as a precaution. JMP EAX ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jimbo: This case seems to be a bit strange. As far as I can see MutterErde's "last words" are placed on YOUR talk site - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=23835406#Have_you_seen_this_.3F . They are a complaint or even a request for help, which you didn't answered with a link to the new fair use rules/templates of these days in September 2005, but with a ban of this productive author. Right or wrong? 91.65.74.2 ( talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely there are virtually no editors who really need to stay blocked for nine years or more. It's ridiculous that such long-term bans remain in effect long after everyone has forgotten about the situations in question. Everyking ( talk) 04:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize that there has been previous discussion of what the WMF can do to foster civility in the English Wikipedia. That discussion here has been archived. I would like to repeat one suggestion in particular. There is a major discrepancy between the stated views of the WMF on civility and the positions defined by "community consensus" at the noticeboards. In particular, civility is a condition of the WMF's Terms of Use that govern all WMF communities, and at least one member of the WMF board, the owner of this talk page, has expressed concerns about the lack of civility enforcement. On the other hand, civility is not enforced at the English Wikipedia noticeboards unless it rises to the level of personal attacks, and not always even then (e.g., the allegation of brainlessness). There is a disconnect between stated overall WMF policy, and its restatement by the owner of this talk page, and its application at the noticeboards. My question is: Where does the disconnect lie? There are at least two explanations. First, the views of the WMF are out of line with those of English Wikipedia editors as a whole. Second, the views of English Wikipedia editors are not properly represented by the editors who take part in discussions at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What the WMF can and should do is to survey the extended English Wikipedia community. A neutrally worded survey should be composed, and posted on project talk pages and sent by email, with mechanisms to prevent stuffing the box. The survey should ask whether editors think that the current level of civility enforcement is appropriate, is too strict, or is too loose. It should also include other questions, such as questions about editor retention. Responses should be stratified as well as possible, such as by gender, by length of time of editing, by frequency of edits, by how frequently they would like to edit, and by other information, some of which can be collected by automation, and some of which can be self-declared (taking into account the uncertainty of self-declaration). If the WMF doesn't have available technical resources to conduct the survey with sufficient detail and stratification, it should consider the reassignment of technical resources from questionable projects such as Flow. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If the survey finds that the larger community of editors is consistent with the community of the noticeboards, then the WMF should drop or downgrade its emphasis on civility, and recognize that the current civility climate is what the larger editorial community wants. If the survey finds that the "community" of the noticeboards, that largely ignores civility, does not represent the larger community of editors, then some sort of WMF intervention, in the least disruptive possible form, is needed. ( Jimbo Wales has recognized, correctly, that introducing "community organizers" as administrators would be disruptive and would make the situation worse, for instance.) The suggestion of the involvement of a small group of mediators has been made, which would be a good idea if care is taken to avoid the fallacy of moderation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(The gender gap is a special case. Even if the larger editorial community thinks that the disproportion of male editors over female editors is not a problem, it is true that the ratio of male editors to female editors is not representative of the technically literate population. Some action on the gender gap is needed in any case, but, at the same time, disruptive action on the gender gap, like on civility, would backfire.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Either the WMF has a handle on the views of the larger editorial community, or it does not. A survey is needed, and either action or inaction. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the many problems with civility enforcement is related to the famous Potter Stewart comment. When asked if he could define pornography he responded, "I know it when I see it". While many would agree that they might struggle with a formal defintion of civility, they beleive they have no trouble identifying examples of incivility. I don't doubt this, however what some may miss is that many of these identifications will not overlap from person to person.
That leaves us with a dual problem: it is hard enough to codify a set of rules when one has difficulty defining the terms but add to that the likely fact that different members of the community have very different opinions on what type of responses are considered incivil.
The community claims it wants a civil environment but when it comes to actually enforcing this, it becomes very difficult. If we do draw everyone's map of incivility would be a set of overlapping Venn diagrams with a rather common overlap. That means we have a relatively small number of sanctions for civility in which there is little disagreement. We have a large number of attempted sanctions where a significant portion of the community disagrees.
This leaves an outsider observing that there are relatively few sanctions that stick and quite a few items of perceived incivility that go on challenged leaving an outsider to think that Wikipedia is not particularly interested in enforcing civility.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Carrite and I may disagree as to whether there is a civility problem in the English Wikipedia, but we agree that a survey would be informative. Either the "community" at the noticeboards is not representative of the larger community of editors, and there is a disconnect between the noticeboard community and the larger community, in which case some sort of action by the WMF is in order, or the larger community does not perceive a problem, in which case inaction by the WMF is in order. I agree with Carrite that hiring at least one person with real experience in surveys and statistics would be a good idea. Carrite refers to "not good ol' boys". I am interested in who he is deprecating. Carrite proposes that the survey also include former editors. I agree. Both current and former editors should be surveyed. I agree with the comments of User:Sphilbrick about the complexity of defining civility, and think that a survey could help to clarify what the varied opinions of editors are. I think that Sphilbrick and I are in agreement that there is very little enforcement of civility except for actual personal attacks. (I would add that, in my opinion, some personal attacks go ignored also.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Carolmooredc proposes what appears to be an entirely different type of survey, of WP:ANI threads. I don't understand what she wants well enough to comment one way or the other, but that is an entirely different survey than I was proposing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is (still) an issue of civility, and the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to participate. "Avoiding personal attacks". Sincerely. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
[Note from Jimbo: I will be unable to look into this in a timely fashion but it sounds like there would be nothing for me to do at this stage anyway other than the usual: to advice calm, quiet reflection, a reduction of drama, and a serious effort to treat everyone with dignity as human beings.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr Wales, Tutelary was doxxed by members of Wikipediocracy. They also claim that she is not really a transwoman, which is obvious transphobia. Now there is a proposal on ANI to topic ban her from BLPs or even site ban her. Just because she moderates some subreddits about women on Reddit does not mean that she is an MRA. Remember, Wikipediocracy are the same people who claimed that a KKK member shouldn't be editing articles about Jews. That's not how Wikipedia works - anyone can edit anything. I bet Tutelary knows more about feminists than most of the people who edit in that topic area. Please put a stop to this harrassment by Wikipediocracy supporters. Anyone voting to ban Tutelary should be banned for supporting doxxing. Doxelary ( talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that there is an unfortunate coincidence that you on your travels, Jimmy, and not able to scrutinize things closely, just as you were when the Essjay shit hit the fan, but it is worth considering whether you want to support someone playing the same sort of game as Essjay played of pretending to be what he was not in order to gain an advantage in on-Wiki discussions. Do you again want to let a troll, in this case a misogynist one, be seen to have gulled you?-- 92.238.57.40 ( talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If Tutelary emails you, I recommend you don't click any links or open any attachments. (Per WP:ANI#For your own safety.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
What we must be guard against (I made this point on AN/I too) is the following scenario (which may not apply to this case, but if this were to happen it would manifest itself with similar symptoms). In the past we've had Wikipediocracy members complain here about editors with politically incorrect views they would like to see banned without going through the regular processes. It may therefore be tempting to them or to some other group to just invent an editor who has politically incorrect views. They can create an account here and also on some forums where they make politically incorrect postings under the same moniker. After a while they can then claim on Wikipediocracy to have "discovered" this Wikipedia editor who has all these outrageous views that Wikipedia is just tolerating. So, they create an artificial case for intervention on the basis of political incorrectness.
If we were to give in to that, then that would create a precedent. The next time it will be an editor who has less extreme views but those views are still regarded as problematic by some here, and then some Admin may act on the precendent set. The rules for reversing a ban means that unless there is a consensus against the ban, the ban won't be reversed. In practice this means that the ban will stand. The minority of editors who think that BLPs should not be edited by people who have questionable views will then have their way. But just consider the turmoil we've had in the climate change area when there was only the perception in the community that editors here were not giving the climate sceptical editors enough room to edit. So, on the long run this would create a lot of problems for Wikipedia. We should therefore allow everyone to edit all articles unless they are creating problems here. We should not care about postings on some hacker forums or elsewhere. Only if the disruption here is a problem can off Wiki behavior be used as supplementary evidence. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Half this discussion is one set of socks accusing another set of socks of sock puppeting, with the latter socks retaliating by accusing the former socks of being socks. The other half of this discussion is The Devil's Advocate and Count Iblis either trolling or saying some very very dumb things and a couple editors wasting their time trying to engage them on a serious level. Welcome to what Wikipedia has become. Volunteer Marek 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course we judge Wikipedians by their edits here and not by their views or whatever they might do outside Wikipedia. It would be outrageous if someone were to be a good and uncontroversial editor but then be banned because someone discovered that they had a certain view or political affiliation. Clearly, that isn't how we operate. Everyking ( talk) 04:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You know what I find amusing? That the entire discussion above wasted dozens of hours of time, because the argument just had to be maintained; but this little note had to be quickly erased by some mouth-breather, so as not to allow Wikipedia to be disrupted. - 2601:B:BB80:E0:C124:1B41:6BA1:E72B ( talk) 12:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if somebody could find some articles which were created in the dark ages of 2001 which are still stubs?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Chillum:, where do I do that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, the evil one has found a way of finding them :-) Things like science fiction novels, usernet cabal, mathematical jargon etc were among the first created, male geeks at work... Somebody please close this in a hidden section to avoid the scrutiny of British Intelligence!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I had fun rummaging through some old pages I found and looking at the contributions of some of the very oldest users. I found this Some of the earliest entries were created like FrancE with funny capitals in them. Jimbo might remember that and User:Wojpob. I just expanded Double-hulled tanker which was created on April 3 2001! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it actually true that some articles will always be stubs, no matter what? Seems like a very depressing Hell to be locked into. -- k6ka ( talk | contribs) 22:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I WP:AGF that the policy hawks (i.e. editors who seem to spend most of their breathing moments editing Wikipedia policies) only have good intentions. Nevertheless, it's impossible not to note that the same issues that arrise with civil POV pushing in articles are even more prevalent on policy pages. For starters, on articles at least there is an external factor (i.e. sources) that can sometimes limit what can be pushed in. There is no such limitation for policies, so whoever spends most of their time pushing the n-th slightly tweaked version of a failed proposal eventually might win by exhausting the opposition and/or profiting from their [temporary] drop in vigilance. Any ideas for combating this phenomenon? Perhaps a yearly policy review instead of the never-ending tweaks? That seems to work for other important issue like ArbCom elections instead of having them on a rolling basis. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Wales,
On Wikimania you said: "One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years." Once you even told me a story about a vandal who left wikipedia after he was asked to leave nicely. Remember?
I know Mr. Wales, that you would agree with me that templating user pages of banned content creators, listing their user names (which sometimes are their real names and/or could be easily linked to their real names) in this shameful list means shaming persons, means denying them an option to leave your site with dignity. Besides in some situations listing "the crimes" of named persons is violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So called community ban discussions violate each and every letter of BLP policy.
Mr. Wales, I know you understand that wikipedia would only benefit, if people are treated with dignity. That list serves no other purpose but bullying and shaming human beings who often made tremendous contributions to your site, and who in many cases have done nothing wrong to deserve the way they were treated.
The shameful listed should be deleted. The shameful practice of so called community bans ought to stop. It is a good time to use your founder flag, Mr. Wales, no, not for the people who are listed in the list, but for wikipedia. 50.150.100.229 ( talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
“ | [23:42:12] <philippe> Guest38632: nothing like an easy one, huh? That's maybe the hardest question around.... I've been trying for years :) | ” |
Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is (still) an issue of civility, and the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to participate. "Avoiding personal attacks". Sincerely. Lightbreather ( talk) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Since I mentioned your talk page (and the usage thereof), I thought I should drop you a note. - jc37 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, so you are aware, it appears there was a situation today where this comment led to this comment (rev-deleted, but I believe you still have the tools to view? It's, obviously, the 2 hidden comments there), which according to someone who saw it before revision deletion, said this. The user was indefinitely blocked, then unilaterally unblocked less than 24h later; the user never posted an unblock request. Tarc ( talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no value to continuing this thread. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
According to
reliable sources, what are some
notable
misconceptions about Wikipedia?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I know this is not the right forum, but several requests for undeletion for the duration of the deletion review have gone unanswered. I know a lot of active administrators look at this page. Please remove this when the request is completed. The article on Susan Lindauer under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 18 should be viewable so people can comment on the actual content of the article and not just the chatter at AFD and deletion review. People need to see how extensive and reliable the references are, and how many years that they span to determine whether the subject is notable or if they are a private person subject to BLP1E. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to consider locking this whole thing down, then polishing it for a final edition. You once needed an army of anonymous volunteers (all with varying degrees of qualifications and intentions) to build this project... but not it's built. Keep continuing like this, and it will start to erode and deteriorate. - theWOLFchild 07:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Putting on my AGF hat here: Anyone thinking that Wikipedia is already "built" really hasn't probed too deeply. Of course, with no central direction it is hard steering any random person that wants to write on something new to deficiencies as they arise. Have a Mississippi High School: Amanda Elzy High School. Here's another one I just found Charleston Orphan House, the first public orphanage in the USA and the subject of a new monograph by John E. Murray (University of Chicago Press, 2013). And here is one for the gnomes that needs attention: Thomas Wilson Dorr. Carrite ( talk) 15:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
individually, one guy isn't making a billion stubs (Although there are some that seem to be trying). Collectively it might be close ;), Personally I have run into
And I'm sure others are aware of a great many others in similar situations. Personally I would like to see more content encouraged to be moved to wikia. Game of Thrones deserves an article or two. Does every episode and char require an article? No. Move it to http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/
Also, I think WP:N should be tightened up to say something about "If sources (an encyclopedia, book, etc) collectively cover every individual X, that is a sign that the collection is notable, not each individual item" and likewise "If sources A, B and C WP:ROUTINEly reviews every periodic instance of X, every instance is not notable, only the ones that gain non-routine coverage."
Now, are these articles degrading the quality of the FAs? no. But they are noise, and noise that takes up considerable admin and editor time for very little value. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at Eric's page about planning a major boycott of Wikipedia, with many of the core community going on strike. Just thought I'd make you aware of this public information in case you hadn't stumbled across it. (Please note I am just the messenger and am not involved in any of this)-- Coin945 ( talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dr Blofeld: "If you can get 100 core editors of wikipedia to leave the website for a full month with a specific request to the foundation then I think they'd start to notice. The impression I get is that they have a naive outlook on wikipedia development and think that even if we lose contributors there'll be more along to take their place. The impression I've always got is that they consider the ip or newbie who adds some unsourced content in entries and the seasoned editor who writes featured articles as all in one class, "editor". I don't think they truly appreciate the "core community" or if they do they their efforts to interact are very poor.."
Eric: "The boycott is underway, it's no threat."
I agree that what this "strike" will achieve is somewhat (at best) obscure. I also agree that I can't see any real value in a debate here on JW's talk page - although there's absolutely nothing wrong with one editor notifying another of a discussion. What puzzles me more is this attitude that a strike will cause some kind of harm or damage. Self-evidently the main space contributions of these editors (and many more) have made wikipedia a valuable first line reference.
So, let me post a thought. Lock the database right now, totally. The work already done is valuable for at least 10, probably 30 and maybe 100 years - longer as digital-archaeological research. The "Ah, well I could have made it better but screw you" line is unfortunate. Yes, indeed, we want it better. The argument of these people seems to be it will be made worse. Regretfully for them that's not true. It will just become outdated. So have many things. Pedro : Chat 20:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why these editors are leaving anything behind is beyond me. It won't even have a noticeable dip in article edits, and if they want change, they should make it. Leaving Wikipedia behind only serves to illustrate the foundation's point. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The Shellshock flaw— Shellshock (software bug)—is said to be bigger than Heartbleed.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) and 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, if (heaven forbid!) you were diagnosed with terminal cancer and given just two weeks to live, who (if anyone) would you wish to nominate or appoint as your "successor" in the role of spiritual leader and/or constitutional monarch of the Wikimedia movement? - 71.185.46.22 ( talk) 20:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo, Re: Your edit summary at Nuclear option, I've gone ahead and fixed the link; I noted how I found a working copy of the article in my edit summary. Graham 87 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ranting.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Dear Jimbo, hello! Because Russia - is not any mafia, I ask you ban actions of users, which make rollback in article about the newspaper Guardian: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Guardian&action=history Their journalist says that Russia - is mafia (worse insult does not exist in the nature). This is even not insult and slander, but full stupidity. The Guardian sells this bad book already 7 years. Russia and the UK have bilateral agreements almost on any issue (friendship and cooperation). Book - not article (meanness - to perpetuate such info, including). They do it to get money (sale even in real life). Please, provide the fairness on Wikipedia. If grammatical mistake, English users can make corrections. Thank you! P.S. Example: if I am a journalist and I will create book about: Wikipedia wants kill great number people, using special hidden methods (almost the same situation - full stupidity). Russia - mafia (stupidity in millions times more). Because violation vs the whole state - on very high level. Violation of journalistic ethics also. Facts for the relevant article (Guardian). https://translate.google.com - 95.29.83.230 ( talk) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
|
Dear Jimmy,
I, and another Wikipedia editor have recently been having a certain debate about when a minority view should or should not be given fair presentation within a Wikipedia article. We have both been quoting various Wikipedia policies to one another, some of which sometimes almost seem to contradict one another. We are having this debate at:
A proposed compromise for the ACIM article. Specifically, we are debating regarding the Wikipedia
A Course in Miracles article, and whether or not the philosophy of this NRM ought to be fairly represented in an unbiased fashion in this article. Clearly the philosophy of ACIM is a minority view, and is generally regarded as unacceptable amongst most Christians. If you might be able to help clarify Wikipedia policy on this question for us, it is my sense that the resolution of such a Wikipedia "policy question" could be quite helpful for all concerned.
Thanks,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The WMF has an active, and very successful, fundraising effort that provides ample funds to support WMF operations, staff and grants. It seems that none of it goes directly into content building -- is that correct? (I looked at wmf:Frequently asked questions, but that is now rather out-of-date). How would you feel about a parallel fund-raising drive aimed specifically at supporting content creation, via scholarships, fellowships, and similar grants to academics and subject matter experts? Could that be made compatible with the issues around paid editing, and set up to support rather than compete with existing WMF fundraising? Is that something worth pursuing? Deltahedron ( talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If only the Wikimedia shop had more to offer, there would be no need for a fundraiser. Count Iblis ( talk) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
" It seems that none of it goes directly into content building -- is that correct?" Yes, this is correct. Sadly "paid editing" has always been seen as a taboo by Jimbo and the foundation to the point that anything which could potentially reward editors for their work, even an article of the month contest which is even above board and organized by them or an admin panel of judges with the prize of Amazon vouchers which they can use to buy books to build further content, they want no part of. I must have approached Jimmy about it half a dozen times, never got a response, even by email. In fairness though it's not just them, the "financial reward for editors is evil" school of thinking is more widely apparent on here. I do have a plan which I think could dramatically improve content each month with a little investment and also has the potential to attract new contributors to the project. I'm thinking of proposing something next month but I certainly won't be approaching Jimbo or the foundation to back it financially as they've made it quite clear they're not willing to directly put money into actual content building. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you want something to go into content building @ Deltahedron: your best bet would be to approach one of the chapters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Undeletion requires a "procedural error" or "significant new evidence" to open a case to a !vote at wikipedia:deletion review similar to a criminal court. Why can't "consensus can change" be a reason for undeletion. I have seen some articles nominated over 10 times until they were finally, and permanently, deleted The rational for a new AFD was always: "consensus can change". In the criminal court analogy, we do not have the equivalent of double jeopardy, we can keep prosecuting until we get a conviction. Why do we demand a higher threshold for undeletion? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo: Make a nice cup of tea and stop by the new List of hot beverages to learn more about the many notable hot beverages of the world and their history. NorthAmerica 1000 11:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see hemlock isn't on there. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy,
I, and another Wikipedia editor have recently been having a certain debate about when a minority view should or should not be given fair presentation within a Wikipedia article. We have both been quoting various Wikipedia policies to one another, some of which sometimes almost seem to contradict one another. We are having this debate at:
A proposed compromise for the ACIM article. Specifically, we are debating regarding the Wikipedia
A Course in Miracles article, and whether or not the philosophy of this NRM ought to be fairly represented in an unbiased fashion in this article. Clearly the philosophy of ACIM is a minority view, and is generally regarded as unacceptable amongst most Christians. If you might be able to help clarify Wikipedia policy on this question for us, it is my sense that the resolution of such a Wikipedia "policy question" could be quite helpful for all concerned.
Thanks,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo,
For some reason, this comment section was selectively deleted from your talk page and placed in an unsequential archive. I have restored it to allow for further discussion on this question as per the
New WP: policy proposal discussion section below.
Buenos dias, soy seguidor de Wikipedia y he querido ser colaborador, vivo en Republica Dominicana me loguie con el nombre:ramonsosa pero mi contraseña no entra, cuando usted pueda y tenga tiempo para que me asista con mi cuenta de acceso. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.120.115.100 ( talk) 12:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that unprotecting that was a good idea. Since you did there have been "29 intermediate revisions by 16 users" in about 6 hours. Mainly just back and forth with pretty much the same stuff that I protected it for in the first place. There were two separate requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, both from level headed editors, full and semi. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest creating a request for comment. This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.
Thoughts?
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia |
---|
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia. [17] |
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline |
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.
"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit" [18] |
Walterruss ( talk) 08:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Has anybody checked whether Wikipediocracy has a hand in this? BethNaught ( talk) 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the deletion of the discussion section above, When to allow.... minority views, also deleted was an attempt of mine to create a new WP policy regarding yesterday's discussion on this. My proposed Wikipedia policy is at: WP: Balancing articles about thought systems This link will direct you to an archived non-current file that still shows the proposed WP policy before deletion. I've attempted to add this policy because as currently written, it seems to me that User RPoD probably made a very logical and good faith (but erroneous) interpretation of WP policy. I was wondering if you might be able to review this proposed WP policy and let me know if it might be something you would want? Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)