This page 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. |
I am the individual who posted here formerly as Irate ( talk · contribs) and Son of Paddy's Ego ( talk · contribs). I am now going to edit for the good, I was a bloody fool when I posted here and apologise for the now-notorious Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate and my previous behaviour in 2005, but I have changed. I appeal to be unbanned; I am no JarlaxleArtemis or Betacommand, and am now civil, and I was stupid on here. -- Canadacrox ( talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Giant block of ranting #1
|
---|
is unbelievable have to get here to make a call to common sense what ifJimbo, what if one day a certain amount of wikipedians reach a "consensus" and change the name of USA by the name "Zoltan Sovereign Republic" and seize the article?
etc... Categories: Autonomous communities of Spain - Territories of the Catalan Countries
Catalan Countries<--< WTF? I SPEAK CATALAN, I WAS BORN IN VALENCIA, so I'm Spanish. SOO... WHAT THE h ARE "the Catalan Countries"? (I understand "the Catalan Speaking Regions of Spain", not those invents to ban Spain from Wikipedia) Really I'm scared. sourcesMy birthplace is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY ¿Who writes "the state of valencia" or "land of valencia" or "valencia country" or other nonsenses?¿? where they belong? The
Spanish Constitution, and the regional
Statute of Autonomy of Valencian Community voted in referendum by the people of Valencian Community says that the ONLY and OFFICIAL name of this region of SPAIN is:
in English language, it can be translated by VALENCIAN COMMUNITY ¿sources? SPANISH CONSTITUTION (POWERED BY A FULL DEMOCRACY CONGRESS SINCE 1978)
... SO... ¿what does it say the regional Statute of Autonomy of Comunitat Valenciana - Valencian Community ?¿?
... - go to Spanish Congress web page of Spanish Constitution ...
STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF VALENCIAN COMMUNITY (in spanish, online Congress webpage) (POWERED BY FULL DEMOCRACY 17 AUTONOMIES OR REGIONS WITHIN THE UNITY OF SPANISH NATION SINCE 1978)
SO... the official and widely accepted and recognised by valencian people, Regional Statutes, Spanish Constitution, spanish people, european people, United Nations, and whole Universe is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY. Please, Stop secessionists and terrorists invents. Please, something stinks in that huge amount of seized and closed articles. Please be enciclopaedic and free Wikipedia in Catalan language to ALL catalan speaking territories, not only for the little secessionist Region of the North of Catalonia. Please, ask them to make their own nationalist wiki, but please free our catalan one FOR ALL catalan speaking people. |
If anyone is actually trying to make sense of this, see Names of the Valencian Community for an explanation of why Wikipedia uses both the official "Community of Valencia" and the unofficial "Land of Valencia". Basically, although "Community" is the official form, "Pais" (Land) is widely used, including by the official tourism bodies for the region and the Partit Socialista del País Valencià (the Valencian wing of the PSOE, Spain's governing party until late 2011), so "Land of Valencia" tends to crop up a lot in sources. The very first sentence of the Valencian Statute of Autonomy makes reference to the "Land of Valencia" name. Mogism ( talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Giant block of ranting #2
|
---|
WP:REF, NO:CABAL and ALL YOU SAY IS FALSE
"Languages: Two official languages exist in Valencia: Valencian, the local language for the Valencian Community, and Castilian, the official language of the country. The Constitution (1978) and the State Autonomy of the Valencian Community are the two legal texts that recognise Valencian and Castilian as the co-official languages for the region.
Conservatives
http://ppcv.com (Partit Popular de la Comunitat Valenciana) -NOTE: I'M NOT CONSERVATIVE-, STOP TO BREATHE (to proceed with a journey rhythm recommend to listen Ocean Colour Scene - Travellers Tune) Do you like
Rural tourism?
http://www.interiorcomunitatvalenciana.com/ Inland tourism confederation of COMUNITAT VALENCIANA HUMANITARIAN AID and Civil Protection? Spain - Disaster management structure Vademecum:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/vademecum/es/2-es-1.html "Spain has 17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities; Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Balearic Islands, Ceuta*, Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Madrid, Melilla*, Murcia, Navarra and Pais Vasco". Do you know that? When you follow all Google famous, recogniced and well known results of "VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"...
FALSE, is the first time I hear that in my life.
VERY VERY FALSE, The very first sentence IS in the cover of the book (in PANTONE RED, I think):
"STATUTE OF AUTONOMY Then, a white page, and the very second sentence is "STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY" then presentations, etc.. If you can see your longed "Land of Valencia" go to page 11: "PREAMBLE The Valencian Community resulted from the manifest will for autonomy shown by the people of the Valencian provinces, after the pre-autonomous period, which began thanks to the Royal Decree Law 10/1978, which created the Consell del País Valencià (Council of the Land of Valencia)". JIMBO would be wondering: what the heck is
Consell del País Valencià (
Council of the Land of Valencia)?? SO FINALLY WHAT SAYS VALENCIAN COMMUNITY STATUTE THAT VOTED THE PEOPLE IN REFERENDUM IN 1978??:
Autonomous Community, within the unity of the Spanish nation, as an expression of its distinct identity as an historical nationality and exercising the right to self-government that the Spanish Constitution recognises for any nationality, with the name of the Valencian Community. YES, "Mogism". I AM RIGHT. AND THE NAME OF THIS REGION IS "COMUNITAT VALENCIANA" (VALENCIAN COMMUNITY) BECAUSE WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED THIS REGIONAL STATUTES AND SPANISH CONSTITUTION IN REFERENDUM IN 1978 TO LIVE IN FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND PEACE. And four or three paid secessionists wikipedians cannot change this FACT. PD: October the 9 (tomorrow) is the Official Day of Valencian Community PARTY PEOPLE! (despite the hard work remains to reset all the flags of Spain that have been banned in ca.wikipedia.org) |
Hello, Jimbo. After reading all of the RfA discussion above, and the previous discussions, I have a suggestion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the process, but it is related. I thought it might be a good idea if you congratulated any newly promoted admin on their talk page, personally letting them know their efforts really are appreciated. Just a thought. Have a good day! Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.28 ( talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I just opened my email today and found this from the WM Foundation:
On October 1, 2013, we learned about an implementation error that made
private user information (specifically, user email addresses, password hashes, session tokens, and last login timestamp) for approximately 37,000 Wikimedia project users accessible to volunteers with access to the Wikimedia "LabsDB" infrastructure.
Your user account is one of the ones which was affected.
Uhm...what?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Now here's an idea i was pondering over today. To put it bluntly, if we made it so ads only appeared to unregistered users, it would encourage people to get an account while also give wikipedia it's revenue. Is this idea something worth pursuing? Please discuss below. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this morning that the August 2013 editing numbers are now posted. After roughly a two year plateau in editor participation, things seem to have taken a big dive in August 2013. Total edits for August fell from to about 2.9 million from the 3.5 million of the previous August (more or less a 15% drop, rounding things off), while the number of Very Active Wikipedians (100+ edits in the month), fell by 8.3%. Not good. Carrite ( talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There were unusual drops 5%-9%, beginning in June (before VisualEditor), for many languages; see counts of 5+ edits ( TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm). Drops occurred in many other-language wikipedias, including:
Then after June, some languages stabilized at the lower level, such as English showing levels for 5+ edits during June-August as 30901, 30891, 30941, being almost unchanged for 31-day months. Hence, the evidence clearly refutes any changes due exclusively to VE usage, as no significant changes in English edits, and German WP did not offer VE sitewide. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following table (extracted from TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm) shows the recent high editor-activity levels (for 100+ edits) in 15 languages (es=Spanish, ja=Japanese, ru=Russia, de=German, pt=Portuguese, it=Italian, pl=Polish, zh=Chinese, nl=Dutch, tr=Turkish, ar=Arabic, sv=Swedish, id=Bahasa Indonesia, etc).
Editor counts with 100+ edits per month | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Σ | en | es | ja | ru | de | fr | pt | it | pl | zh | nl | tr | ar | sv | id | |||
Aug 2013 | -2% 9923 |
-0% 3156 |
-5% 499 |
+5% 317 |
-7% 558 |
-1% 944 |
+2% 748 |
-7% 191 |
-9% 395 |
0% 237 |
-3% 286 |
+1% 225 |
-7% 64 |
+6% 109 |
+12% 114 |
-18% 42 | |||
Jul 2013 | -1% 10101 |
-2% 3157 |
-0% 524 |
-5% 302 |
-6% 597 |
-2% 955 |
-1% 734 |
+9% 206 |
+6% 434 |
-2% 236 |
+8% 295 |
-5% 223 |
+15% 69 |
+24% 103 |
-15% 102 |
+2% 51 | |||
Jun 2013 | -4% 10198 |
-3% 3227 |
-9% 525 |
-7% 319 |
-3% 634 |
-1% 975 |
-6% 741 |
-14% 189 |
-7% 409 |
-2% 240 |
-7% 274 |
-5% 235 |
-2% 60 |
-7% 83 |
+5% 120 |
+9% 50 | |||
May 2013 | +2% 10569 |
+1% 3318 |
+9% 576 |
-1% 343 |
+2% 652 |
-0% 985 |
+2% 789 |
+10% 219 |
+3% 441 |
+3% 244 |
+10% 295 |
+10% 247 |
+13% 61 |
-10% 89 |
-7% 114 |
+35% 46 |
The editor-activity levels for many languages dropped very sharply in June 2013 (compared to prior years), which might indicate many student editors leaving on school breaks in June, or perhaps some other major change which occurred during June 2013. Note the levels in July or August did not always rise back after the June drop, where prior years had a large rebound in July+August. Perhaps all the distractions from the VisualEditor and forced https-protocol interface drove away thousands of typical editors. Meanwhile the Arabic Wikipedia ("ar") had large increases in July and August, up 24%-30% over June's level of 83 editors (with 100+ edits), which had been typical of the prior year. Anyway, because the high-activity editors (even at 25+ edits per month) are associated with "fixing Wikpedia" then the June drop and low rebound in July+August is a significant 3-month danger sign. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Artur Mas (secessionist local governor of Catalonia) subsidizes the "Viquipèdia" defining Catalonia as an "European country" ? ¿? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 ( talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, "Konveyor Belt", I thought the "Paid editing blowup" was anyway related to the other "Paid editing blowup".
And Jimbo, try to imagine i.e. that you cannot see USA in a listing of hosts countries of Olympics or International Olympic Committee Countries, or cannot see Lebron James in "North-American international sportsmen" due to a new extrange "invented sovereign State" that always is against yours with confrontation everywhere.
The Catalan Speaking people of Valencian Community, and Balearic Islands are a little shocked here, hehe.
To "more substantive examples of bias", I need more more time, it's difficult to become a content curator or a kind of file sorter in a few weeks, to put all in a listing with journalist style heh hehe... (sorry my bad english).
Aside from the Spanish flag ban on international lists (being replaced by regional one, causing confusion in catalan speaking people from the rest of Spain), and the substitution of Catalan-Speaking-Official-Names-Voted-by-the-People, by secessionist-nicknames-... well, it's difficult to admit, living 25 years here to see in internet this new "names" (I'm 25).
I need more time to check The history fact changes (like "Is not said Kingdom of Spain, is Castile that oppresses people of Catalonia etc..." when all people knows that
Kingdom of Spain was born in the marriage of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon -not "catalonia"- in 1469) I need more more time to see if Spanish Flag is the only one that is banned, or Madrid one and others too... I'm sorry for International Olympic Committee.
If the Olympics 1992 were NOT in Spain in an international listing of COI Countries, and the Expo 1888 was NOT in Spain, well, I have nothing to work and write so I'll try to put more hard work to put Spain back in history in ca.wikipedia.org
I have to thank you have tried (almost all) to read my large paragraph (hehe), not revert to me or threaten me (i.e. using bots to prevent infinite blocking issues or articles like the other ca.wikipedia), which I really appreciate. Thanks for your patience and I will continue giving my best.
"Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory."
Thanks anyway and Regards. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.9.217.223 (
talk) 18:21, 8 October 2013 (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 just saw
this post on Wikipediocracy about the allegations of the Croatian Wikipedia being co-opted by the far right, but what really caught my attention was this detail:
Extreme right-wing views can apparently be found even among the Wikimedia Foundation’s own staff. Its Education Program Consultant for the Arab World, Faris El-Gwely, sports a little green userbox with a black and white picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page in the Arabic Wikipedia. The Arabic text next to that image reads, “This user respects Adolf Hitler”.
The translated version of the user page in question can be found here. It is not the only userbox of concern as there is one stating "This user believes the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arab", another saying "this user stands violently against the Zionist crimes against the Arab people will never forgive them what they had done the displacement and murder, terrorism and rape of freedom and dignity of the Arabs", and one stating "this user is anti-Zionist". Now the last one would not be of concern on its own, but an "anti-Zionist" who "believes in the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arabs" and "respects Adolf Hitler" sure as hell sounds like a virulent antisemite.
I understand that many Arabs are bombarded with misinformation on certain points of Jewish history because of Israel, so finding this type of attitude on the Arabic Wikipedia should not be totally surprising, but it is a whole other kettle of fish for the Foundation's education program consultant to the Arab World to adhere to such views. This isn't some programmer or technical assistant whose actions will not have an impact on the content. His page has had those userboxes since before he started working with the Foundation so it is not as though this could not have been caught beforehand.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no problem here because of the disclaimer which says: "Disclaimer: Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." Count Iblis ( talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The fact that some people are defending this on free-expression grounds or calling it a "witch hunt" demonstrates how bizarrely out of touch with the real world the Wikipedia community has become and, frankly, why sane editors have been fleeing this place in droves for the last few years. I never, ever thought I'd find myself typing these words, but The Devil's Advocate is entirely right here. It's not fair to hold Jimbo personally responsible for every hiring decision, but it is fair to ask for some sort of response from the Foundation. MastCell Talk 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Foundation needs to make a public statement on this issue, as it calls into question the Foundation's ability to hire and supervise staff overseas. The educational program isn't just about spreading knowledge, it's also about spreading the community's values (public access to knowledge, public participation in knowledge-creation, etc.) The statements made on the user's talk page, (including his support for Hitler and his apparent endorsement of violence), if they are being translated reasonably, lead me to believe that this user should not be representing the Foundation and the community. That he was a paid representative of the Foundation is deeply troubling and the Foundation should provide more detail on how they view this incident and what changes, if any, they believe need to be made to prevent a recurrence. GabrielF ( talk) 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with something that came from Wikipediocracy, but yes, the WMF needs to take serious action here. Someone hired this guy, and whoever that person was made a serious mistake and needs to be held accountable; I'd assume reading userpages would be a basic first step before hiring anybody. Furthermore... he's a sysop and a 'crat on ar.wp... am I the only one who has a serious problem with this? Jimbo, you've said in the past that people who believe horrible things have no right to edit Wikipedia. To me, this seems like the perfect opportunity to apply that philosophy. The WMF should pull any privileged access that El-Gwely holds, and should do the same for any other users who have displayed views such as his. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would any lurking admins consider semi-protecting Jimbo's talk page for a short duration? Indef-blocked User:Colton Cosmic is making one of his monthly sock-puppeting visits to pester for an unblock. Tarc ( talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a FYI courtesy to those who read here a week-and-an-half ago and prior to that about my unblock case, and I suppose a parting shot to Jimbo. I was falsely and abusively (no warning, no explanation) blocked for socking in May 2012. Since then, but not before, I have indeed block evaded, like this post essentially. Anyone who says editing by IP while clearly signing with your one and only user-name is "socking" is just twisting words around. On the other hand I plead guilty any day of the week to "block evasion," which is justifiable in clear cases of administrative abuse. About 45 days ago, Jimbo agreed to hear my appeal. We exchanged emails. Mine is a WP:CLEANSTART account, I switched for the online privacy and harassment rationale authorized by that policy. After the block, several admins and arbs, notably Silktork, made disclosure of my prior account the key criterion to be unblocked. If you think about it though, that would in no way prove I didn't sock. It does nothing except satisfy their curiosity and give them another account to plug into checkuser. In my opinion there's a sickness in Wikipedia's "sock puppet investigation" personnel, what some of these guys are doing is really sublimating their cyber-stalking impulses. "Hand over your prior account or stay blocked" demands are coercive and have no basis in policy, so I consistently resisted that, until Jimbo said the same thing, promised confidentiality (which no-one prior to that had) and I thought well, okay, this is Jimmy Wales. Silly me.
Jimbo, I won't quote your email publicly but I just reread it and in two ways you clearly suggested that if I told you my prior account, and it proved to be non-problematic, you'd favorably treat my block appeal. Wikipedians, I did just that, and it was, and my reward from founder is nothing more than a big fat "suckah!!!" He says, okay you told me, now you have to tell Arbcom, all 12 of them, whomever else is on the list, and whomever will ever be on it due to the fact they keep an archive. I said, but the account checked out, this was not our arrangement, but I'm like Lando Calrissian protesting Darth Vader's brand of deal-making by this point. Jimbo, I edited Wikipedia for years, authored plenty of stubs and articles, even sent WMF a charitable donation once. You want to dismissively handle me, not even explaining your move, I guess that's your authority, but I give you a public thumbs-down, a cyber raspberry, and I warn off those in the future who think they're liable to get a square deal out of you, "sole founder" (New York Times). All, what's my Wikipedia future? Well, as a matter of policy, I think any administrator at all can still unblock me. I was never the subject of Arbcom sanctions, or blocked by an oversighter on secret stuff or anything like that. It's just been a string of "appeal declineds" up and down the line, including now one by founder. You may now rest on the assurance that Jimbo has examined my previous account and found it warn, block, and sanction-free. But as a matter of survival and keeping your bit, you'd indeed risk the ire of some arbs, and the dingo pack at WP:AN/ANI. In closing, fellow Wikipedians, best regards, I don't know but after Jimbo's decline I guess you have heard the last of me. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 9:23 AM, EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.161.23 ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, RfA problems again. I also tried a wp:RfA (aka "Request for Abuse"), after 8 years of waiting, and it was still as bad an experience as everyone has been warning: block-log entries from 3-7 years ago were treated as if yesterday, and many insults were over-the-top. The quickest fix: as you, Jimbo, have suggested:
Currently, the RfA process seems like a "insta-poll popularity contest" rather than a "job interview" and the main focus directs people to issue judgmental decisions of Support/Oppose within seconds of starting an RfA page. Also, there are unusual cultural twists in RfA discussions, such as treating rebuttals to objections as being "badgering of opposes" rather than a logical discussion to clarify misunderstandings. Because I was a formal debate judge for years, I was not fooled to refrain from refuting incorrect claims (bottomline: debaters who fail to refute claims partially will lose a formal debate). Plus, of course, the RfA process allows the same level of insults as could be expected at wp:ANI, except each user's wp:RfA page is named with their username as an obvious, obvious case of " wp:Attack page". The whole process is completely awry, and I had to respond quickly to refute wp:NPA insults which would otherwise stand as accepted by begging the question. Anyway, the only workable solution, to the current judgmental RfA process, is to separate the interview-period from the judgement period:
The 1st, interview phase would discuss issues, and hopefully, follow " rules of evidence" (real evidence, not spin-doctored slants) to have specific diff-links; plus the focus would be on asking questions about the activities which the candidate would be performing. If the questions, or potential admin tasks, seemed too difficult, then the candidate could withdraw during the first phase. Then the 2nd, judgement phase could be longer if any insults were redacted meanwhile, by a neutral moderator, so that a candidate would not have to watchdog the RfA as being an outrageous personal attack-page during the whole time period. I was totally unaware that an RfA was like a wp:ANI thread open to insults, except with a person's username "flashing in lights" as a beacon to come see the insults by name. No wonder some people refer to the RfA period as a horrific experience, and as I said, if I had not been a debate judge for years, I might also have been tricked in allowing insults to stand, unrefuted, because of fear to avoid "badgering the opponents" who hurl unfounded insults. However, a separate "House of wikilords" would allow quick appointments, such as a request for 20 bilingual admins if an avalanche of new articles were created with non-English sources, pushing the limits of notability decisions due to a lack of other-language skills. Anyway, I would warn anyone, who plans an wp:RfA, to be prepared to defend yourself from over-the-top insults during the whole time period, and do not be fooled into keeping quiet to refute claims just to avoid "badgering of opponents" while insults are hurled without restraint. - Wikid77 ( talk) 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The systems that deal with the Admins and ArbCom won't be changed because they have become fundamental parts of Wikipedia and you'll never get a consensus to make significant changes. That's why e.g. the de-admining propsal failed. It's similar to why in the US Congress has a very low approval rating but any proposal to make even small changes to the system (e.g. term limits), is a non-starter.
Perhaps what could work is to make a copy of the entire Wikipedia (Wikipedia-beta) that has the same articles but which has a different Adminstrative infrastructure. Then, if over time the beta version is seen to work better, then one makes that the standard version and one can then try out some new experimental changes by creating another Wikipedia-beta. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what some may want people to believe, there is almost nothing in the admin toolset that cannot be undone with a simple reversion. Its just not that big of a deal. So there is no reason whatsoever with guarding it like the Crown Jewels. And even as hard as it is to get rid of a bad admin, if they misuse the block tool, they would probably get their access yanked pretty fast. So really, all the hyperbole about people getting into mischief if they had access to the toolset is just hogwash. With all that said, no one believes anything will change regardless of how many times its brought up until a crisis ensues. That being either no admins being promoted for a prolonged period or too few active admins to accomplish the necessary tasks (which really has been the case for some time now given the length backlogs at many of the venues). The bottom line is, unless the community decides it needs to change the process or Jimbo and the WMF step up, its going to stay broke. 71.126.152.253 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
While RFA is certainly not without its problems, if it's really as 'broken' and 'impossible to pass' as critics claim, how come two candidates passed with unanimous support in the past month alone? RFA has never been an obstacle for clearly suitable admin candidates. Most of the time, it does ultimately reach the right decision. The real issue is finding and convincing more suitable candidates to run in the first place. Robofish ( talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, here is the table I was referring to:
Year | Month | Mean | Passes | Fails [N 1] | RfAs [N 2] | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||
2024 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | ||||||||
2023 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 19 |
2022 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.2 | 14 | 6 | 20 |
2021 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 7 | 4 | 11 |
2020 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.4 | 17 | 8 | 25 |
2019 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1.8 | 22 | 9 | 31 |
2018 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | 10 | 8 | 18 |
2017 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.8 | 21 | 20 | 41 |
2016 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1.3 | 16 | 20 | 36 |
2015 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.8 | 21 | 32 | 53 |
2014 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1.8 | 22 | 38 | 60 |
2013 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2.8 | 34 | 39 | 73 |
2012 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2.3 | 28 | 64 | 92 |
2011 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4.3 | 52 | 87 | 139 |
2010 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 6.3 | 75 | 155 | 230 |
2009 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 10.1 | 121 | 234 | 355 |
2008 | 36 | 27 | 22 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 16 | 12 | 6 | 16 | 11 | 9 | 16.8 | 201 | 392 | 593 |
2007 | 23 | 35 | 31 | 30 | 54 | 35 | 31 | 18 | 34 | 27 | 56 | 34 | 34.0 | 408 | 512 | 920 |
2006 | 44 | 28 | 34 | 36 | 30 | 28 | 26 | 26 | 22 | 27 | 33 | 19 | 29.5 | 353 | 543 | 896 |
2005 | 14 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 17 | 28 | 31 | 39 | 32 | 67 | 41 | 68 | 32.3 | 387 | 213 | 600 |
2004 | 13 | 14 | 31 | 20 | 23 | 13 | 17 | 12 | 29 | 16 | 27 | 25 | 20.0 | 240 | 63 | 303 |
2003 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 11 | 9 | 17 | 10 | 9 | 15 | 10.3 | 123 | n/a [N 3] | 123 |
2002 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3.7 | 44 | n/a [N 3] | 44 | ||||||
Totals | 2233 | 2453 | 4686 [N 5] |
Key | |
---|---|
0 successful RFAs
|
26–30 successful RFAs
|
1–5 successful RFAs
|
31–35 successful RFAs
|
6–10 successful RFAs
|
36–40 successful RFAs
|
11–15 successful RFAs
|
41–50 successful RFAs
|
16–20 successful RFAs
|
51–60 successful RFAs
|
21–25 successful RFAs
|
More than 60 successful RFAs
|
So, if this looks healthy, y'all, then no arguments from other people will convince you otherwise. These are the numbers.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Year | Month | Monthly mean |
Total removals |
Total restorations [b] |
Total elections |
Yearly change in admins | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | ||||||
2024 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.5 | 22 | 1 | 4 | -17 |
2023 | 104 [c] | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 12.6 | 152 | 4 | 12 | -136 |
2022 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 4 [d] | 11 | 5.9 | 71 | 8 | 14 | -49 |
2021 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5.3 | 64 | 4 | 7 | -53 |
2020 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4.8 | 58 | 7 | 17 | -34 |
2019 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 29 [e] | 7 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 7.9 | 95 | 28 | 22 | -45 |
2018 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 73 | 13 | 10 | -50 |
2017 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 6.5 | 78 | 23 | 21 | -34 |
2016 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 7.3 | 88 | 15 | 16 | -57 |
2015 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 85 | 26 | 21 | -38 |
2014 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 13 | 6.6 | 80 | 16 | 22 | -42 |
2013 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6.8 | 82 | 28 | 34 | -20 |
2012 | 10 | 4 | 23 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 7 | 11.4 | 137 | 42 | 28 | -67 |
2011 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 230 [f] | 2 | 18 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 23.5 | 282 | 26 | 52 | -204 |
2010 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1.9 | 23 | 23 | 75 | +75 |
2009 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3.2 | 39 | 28 | 121 | +110 |
2008 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2.3 | 28 | 23 | 201 | +196 |
2007 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2.8 | 34 | 21 | 408 | +395 |
2006 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 30 | 9 | 353 | +332 |
2005 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0.9 | 11 | 6 | 387 | +382 |
2004 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 11 | 2 | 240 | +231 |
2003 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.3 | 4 | 0 | 123 | +119 |
2002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | +44 |
Key | |
---|---|
0 desysoppings |
16–18 desysoppings
|
1–3 desysoppings |
19–22 desysoppings
|
4–6 desysoppings |
23–27 desysoppings
|
7–9 desysoppings |
28–36 desysoppings
|
10–12 desysoppings |
37–48 desysoppings
|
13–15 desysoppings |
More than 48 desysoppings
|
Based upon high activity at this page and at wt:rfa I thought there was interest in doing something about the problem. So I proposed doing something about it, either specifically:
or generally:
The proposals were met by a resounding yawn (with minor exceptions). I now conclude I misread the sense of the community, and the community is very interested in whining, but not actually doing anything. Am I wrong?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
At the core of many frustrations is the lock-down of protected pages, where admins can access so much more. At the Help:Desk, it would be useful to look at a user's deleted article to explain, in detail, why it failed the WP policies for inclusion. Also, many, many thousands of templates are protected against update by non-admin users. Overall, as several people have commented: "This isn't a wiki any longer". Having to continually request permission (for *everything*) has turned WP into a bureaucracy of bureaucratic rules, which many of us have learned to tolerate, but it is not fun, no. So, many people leave due to restricted access to pages. Or, we try wp:RfA to get long-term permission to access Wikipedia as if it were still a wiki, rather than a system of expanding lock-down where templates have gone unfixed for years. Instead, a system of trusted-user levels should have been developed, early, to allow several levels of access controls to different types of protected pages. - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The first oversimplification / misfire is to think that metric of any split should be by tools. In reality it should be by roles. Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations and decide to impose sanctions against editors. That combination with gnome tools/roles is absolutely crazy; the latter types of things should be split off by role/policy, not by tools in the toolbox.
The second oversimplification / misfire is thinking that there is only one dial (degree of easiness / hardness) that needs adjustment at RFA. What it really needs is tools to make it a qualities based discussion rather than the current misfire test which essentially is largely "have you avoided taking any stands that some people didn't like". North8000 ( talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations- I don't think this quite true actually. Non-admins can certainly close many contentious discussions, many of which get listed at WP:ANRFC. Personally speaking, I've done closes of contentious issues at Adolf Hitler, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and Monty Hall problem (a triumverate close) without any concerns from others about my involvement. Not many non-admins contribute there, maybe because they don't think they are allowed to, or maybe because they don't want to deal with with folks who disagree with their closes, or maybe they just don't feel prepared or have enough time to devote to the task. (Of course, not many admins contribute there, either). In any case, my point is that non-admins can definitely close contentious issues (except for deletion). I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is an interesting comparison; by my calculations roughly 40% of the commercial aircraft in use today contain at least one part where I am the engineer who signed off on the design being safe for flight. Most of these involved electronics or hydraulics controlling flight control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators and rudders. I have also signed off on the safety for several children's toys that sold in the millions. Yet I am pretty sure that I would not pass an RfA. In other words, you trust me with your life and the life of your children, but (if I am correct about not passing an RfA), not with the admin tools. Now it is true that those engineering decisions all got reviewed multiple times, but any use of admin tools in the areas that could cause a lot of harm to the encyclopedia would no doubt be reviewed as well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, one of Wikipedia's admins who also happens to be a doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine said the following:
Are we to assume that Dr. Bertalan Meskó is interpreting your Bright Line Rule somewhat loosely, or is there an exception for pharmaceutical companies, because of their expertise in ensuring evidence-based information? - 68.87.42.110 ( talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
(Separately, I don't think Bertalan is saying what you think he's saying. I think he means "employ" in the sense of "work with" rather than "hire and pay a salary", but you might wish to ask him for clarification directly). MastCell Talk 02:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Med Foundation] is here to collaborate with organizations that share our goals. The pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately at this point in time has made it clear that they do not. There is no official collaborations and I personally have declined offers. I am not for sale at any price. I am happy to investigate any cases people come across. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
All the turmoil about the VisualEditor has reaffirmed a major aspect of software development: write tools which the users want, not something imagined to be useful. After removal from the top menu, when VE became an opt-in feature under Special:Preferences, the usage has dropped to almost 0%, as about 2-to-5 edits per thousand. Although there has been much anger about the WMF decisions, I want to emphasize how writing of unused software has been a common problem in other computer systems for decades. Many computer people often zone-inward (in a form of " navel gazing") to focus intensely on problems which many people do not think are important. I recently read comments about the old wikitext source editor being a convoluted implementation, and then thought, "Oh no, I hope they don't rewrite the typical wikitext editor to run like VE!". Of course, wp:edit-conflicts are a real, major problem in common talk-pages, or busy hot-topic articles, but unless developers think like users, they would rather sub-optimize the ultra-mega-gadgetry which they see, everyday, rather than upset their worldview by focusing on needs of users. Again, it is not an exclusive problem of WMF but rather an "age-old" problem in the development of computer technology. Anyway, based on those issues, I am wondering: what can be done to get the Foundation to focus on writing tools which people want? - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
We need to re-focus on creating our own tools for enwiki, and remember how much progress has already been made. Some of the most-important advancements were the direct transition to Lua script for the wp:CS1 cites (as tested by several cite experts) to edit-preview pages 2x-3x faster, and the Lua-based infoboxes which cut another 2 seconds off reformatting most articles. Plus, there are numerous graphic tools (see: wp:Graph and wp:Barchart) with Template:Brick_chart, and Template:Location_map for placing map-locator dots on images. I guess so much effort was spent trying to get the Foundation to delay VisualEditor until it "accepted [[xx]] as a wikilink" (still considered invalid) that too much attention was focused on hoping the WMF could fix problems, while almost totally ignoring all the powerful enwiki tools which are already in use, and could be enhanced with more features, as well as writing new tools. We already have some interesting options:
Each tool, or technique, helps with only a part of the problems, but working together, the benefits can be large. Overall, more users should be taught to use the tools, or enhance them, and we can get back to making major improvements which simplify the work for more editors, while rapidly fixing many overlooked typos or making difficult changes to pages with the help of semi-automated tools. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Good discussion. To sum up my current view, I think it is important that we remove some of the usual heat from this topic and move away from the "prudes versus pornographers" lens, a lens which I do not think represents anyone's actual views fairly. Instead we should be thinking about editorial judgment (i.e. responsible and thoughtful treatment of sexual topics versus immature/shock value treatment) and the Principle of least astonishment (i.e. topics are treated in such a fashion that virtually all users are not astonished by it). I believe there is likely more common ground (especially in English Wikipedia, as contrasted with commons, where there is a deep-seated cultural problem) than most people realize.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Jimbo, I am Benison. I've been here since 2005 and created an a/c on 2013 May. I saw many uncensored(nude) pics in wikipedia. Can you please do something about that bcoz it contributes to pornography. All ages are referring wikipedia. So my conscience(yours too) says that something must be done. Please look into the matter. Regards, Benison talk with me 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeh, I agree with Liz. Now antivirus softwares are coming with inbuilt parental settings to stop the e-pornography. It is effective to a good extent. They block websites by their content. But they are not much effective in Wikipedia bcoz Wikipedia is a library(YMMV,..encyclopedia) and those softwares can't block Wikis. Hence young readers are prone to watch explicit contents here. I don't agree with Herostratus because wikipedia is not a place to find gossip, slander, and lies. So I think we must stop pornography here also. Benison talk with me 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. This is not beating a dead horse: it is more like beating a horse fossil. We are not censored and this is one of our founding principles. Explicit images are used in their appropriate context -that is, in sexuality articles and the like. Censorship geared towards silly cultural taboos is not going to happen. -- cyclopia speak! 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Dear supervisor my name is Somar and I want to complain about the Articles in Arabic and being different from what it is in all other languages and express opinions that is not required and are not considered neutral, where your site is considered a neutral reference and I consider this fraud, so please respond to me because I intend to raise a lawsuit on the site in the event of non-responding
this is my email : <redacted> please respond to my email
Kind regards Somar n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.154.171 ( talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Somar, the insiders here have a strong policy against legal threats. Even if your statement was partially in jest, rather than a solid threat of any sort, they will ban you, because they look for form over substance, social connections rather than rational thinking. If I were in DES's position, I would have entertained your concerns and addressed them, rather than looking only at the legal threat and giving the dismissive "call my supervisor" treatment that you have received from DES. DES, you should be ashamed for biting a newcomer to the English Wikipedia.
I call upon Jimbo Wales to install open, constitutional authority upon all Wikipedias, rather than the opaque system of power networks and self-selecting leaders that we have right now. This is especially important in places of ethno-religious conflict, such as Indian-language Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia, as English is an official and very commonly-spoken language there), Balkan-language ones, and the Arabic Wikipedia. We must not allow history to be written by those with political ends through its revision. Wer900 • talk 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Bright line rule for my discussion of a change I made at WP:NOT (it was reverted within a minute, so I'm not sure the change will still be there). Jimbo - if I have misstated the bright line rule, please let me know. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Several people thought WP:NOT was "an odd place for it." The proposal at WP:NOT is now closed and a very similar proposed policy is at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy standing all by itself, not attached to anything. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we really concerned about content or editors? I'd almost postulate that if editors are being paid to create articles then just make the "Keep" criteria based on a minimum number of commenting editors. Sockpuppets can make contributions difficult but in rarely read and unread articles, who cares? Make the AfD a brightline participation goal: "If less than 20 editors comment on an AfD article, it's an automatic delete on notability". Then auto SPI all contributors for IP and tag it in the header. "15 of the 20 editors used the same or similar IP in this discussion." If the article is worthwhile, it shouldn't be hard to generate enough independent editors to comment. Virtually all of our content is sourced to paid contributors anyway whether it's a primary source or a secondary source. None of their COI is disclosed to us though even when we determine it to be "reliable." . -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at
Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to
your preferences and choosing the item, "
MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable
".
The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption ( bug 50459).
There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected ( bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances ( bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances ( bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories ( bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias ( bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes ( bug 54712).
Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.
For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Largest sockpuppet bust in Wikipedia history traces back to paid editing for hire firm 'Wiki-PR': http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ Ocaasi t | c 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd encourage everybody involved to take very serious steps on this. There are too many times (e.g. in the last few days) that I've heard something like "Well, you can't do anything about paid editing, so you're just going to have to accept it." I don't think we have to accept this. Some things the WMF can do.
The WMF certainly has the right to do this - (further on in the terms of use) "We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice."
You might wonder what is the point of banning possibly unknown employees if the WMF doesn't have the technical means to do anything about it. Well, the WMF likely has the legal and/or PR means to do something about it. Possibly a cease and desist order could be filed to prevent them from advertising (after all - they won't have any employees who can edit here - so they would be doing false advertising as well as defaming Wikipedia by claiming our admins work for them) and in any case their business reputation would be in tatters.
Of course, the WMF should talk with them before threatening to go to court. Ask for their employee and client lists so we can repair the damage they caused.
Finally, I think this should be reviewed at the board level - are we ever going to have a policy that can clearly discourage paid editing in an effective way? Another thing I heard in just the last few day goes something like this "There are too many editors with an interest in keeping paid editing, and with the consensus system and RfCs, they can always prevent anything from being changed." Sounds like a challenge to me. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Please keep Catalan Wikipedia discussion separate from local en.wikipedia issues. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Paid editing is wrong, especially when a local governor does it with tax money (
source), much needed in Spain, due to a severe recession, to try to change FACTS of history and nowadays, making a brutal MASSIVE BIAS in ca.wiki so... should wikimedia partner associations admit ALL money for Wikipedia, GLAM projects, Public libraries and conference rooms, from local secessionist governors of hate and confrontation, if the suposed "job" is to indoctrinate population and children to hate and secessionism? When you see
this video of children saying that "Spanish people steal our money, they are bad - we are better than they..." etc... What do you think? |
Hey guys, PR guy and COI contributor here. I noticed that Smallbones and Jusdafax are soliciting for legal action by the WMF on this matter and when I attended a discussion with a few Wikipedia editors a day or two ago, a couple expressed a similar viewpoint, that it was something that could not be handled by the community alone.
Wiki-PR is still soliciting for business - I talked to a marketing guy just yesterday that was in talks with them. And despite destroying hundreds of accounts, they can just as easily create more. This paints a rather hopeless picture for volunteers and there are a breath of options for legal action that would create (I think) a more sustainable resolution.
Naturally, WMF is in that weird position the community puts them in where one minute everyone is telling them BACK OFF! and the next we're saying "why aren't you doing anything?" However, one thing that has been brought up that I think is worth further discussion is if consensus should be built that the community does want them involved in this case and if there was a clear consensus if WMF would be able to do so (or if a chapter organization could do it).
I think I easily speak for the entire PR community when I say that we also don't endorse this kind of activity. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me have an analogy here. For many years Wikipedia has been fighting SEO people who inserts thousand of spam links per day. I think a reasonably large amount of money is involed but I think we are winning the battle. We are winning not by trying to identify SEO-paid people among our editors are by enforcing our policy on external links, etc. Obviously, if we could prove somebody is paid by SEO firms we would block them, but it is their the major success is. Now we have somehow larger opponents - PR people. We could (and should) block people who are paid to violate our policies but the main effort should be directed to upholding the policies that PR people violate: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK, WP:C. I think it has more chances to success.
Besides, we do not have a Zero-sum game here. PR people wants to put information regarding their subjects on wiki (often we have none). We also want this information (if it is notable, reliable, unbiased). So having good articles on their subjects would be in the interests of both parties. As an example we are interested in having articles on notable Gibraltar attractions and the government of Gibraltar is interested in it. If we knew that the article editors were paid we would probably still want those articles but we would want better scrutiny on them and their references from the main page. Could we achieve some compromise with the paid editors? E.g. they identify the COI themselves (opening their edits to additional scrutiny) and they do not edit war (so NPOVing the articles is not a pain for our volunteers). In exchange we do not block them if the COI is found. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem of paid editing won't be solved without including the broader, and much more common issue, of unpaid POV pushing and personal attacks on biography and company articles. If I had a bio on Wikipedia, or my company had an article, and they were targets of the negativity and attack-style criticism I see all too often, you can bet I would pay professionals to make it right. The main method that is suggested to fix such issues seldom works ('oh, just mention the error on the talk page' — even that is being attacked by some people here). First Light ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I indefinitely blocked the last PR person I encountered as they were trying to manipulate Wikipedia's medical content to their companies commercial advantage. I than had to put up with a couple of months of real life attacks by this nasty firm as they had docs on their pay role email my colleagues with me cc'ed to insult me professionally / attempt to put pressure on me to allow them to change Wikipedia. I am not easily intimidated; however, we need to do more to protect our editors from these sorts of folks / take a harder line toward these activities.
Supposedly if I would have published on this incident I would have been in violation of WP:OUTING and based on strict Wikipedia law could have been indefinitely banned myself. So what do we do about WP:OUTING? We need a clause that keeps it from protecting those who are being paid to be here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I am inspired by Jimbo's comment that made so much sense: part of the problem is that we all tend to stay in our own little corners, what we're aware of is then limited. So I want to share a bit of my experience and possibly elucidate what may be symptoms of the problem at hand. I am asking this be used as a case study to view this larger problem from the standpoint of one who builds and updates articles, from boots on the ground. My work at Wiki has always been pretty simple: I like to update articles and tend to stay very safe with my wording and use of sources, because I don't want any hassle. And I normally don't get any. In other words, I apply the guidelines properly and have never been in trouble EXCEPT when I come near a Monsanto-related article.
If someone were 'attacking' Monsanto (or any other company's) pages, the company could easily use the ticket system and get help. On the other hand, a lowly editor who is following all the rules, does not have this sort of help when the opposite is happening: the company's article(s) being whitewashed. If I want to address the problem, I have to figure out time-consuming and tedious noticeboards where I am inevitably drowned out by the very same editors who are causing the problem.
I found the March Against Monsanto article up for deletion a few days after the march took place at the end of May. I decided to find sourcing and build the article, thinking a 2 million person march certainly deserves one. Working on that article has been a maddening and completely loony experience, and it's continuing to this day. It's a daunting task to try and give you the whole story, I'll try to focus on just one example. I was the only editor working to build, rather than to trim, delete, argue, or minimize information about the event. I immersed myself for 4 days in every bit of media coverage I could find. I doubt there is any RS about the march that I haven't read. I simmered it all down and made a nice article. The entire thing has been obsessively worked on and changed to make prominent the idea "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt". Sections were rearranged so that this statement would be one of the first things you read. The introduction to the march origins, for example, were moved down and finally trimmed to the point of being unrecognizable and uninformative. It was turned into a refutation of the protesters' concerns and this was done by an incredible team of people. I mean, these people have their act together. They don't let even a minute pass by without reverting me (please look at the edit history just from today!). They seem to be an endless bunch, some do the dirty work of taking me to noticeboards, some are very polite, but in general, all seem in complete unison on every issue. And all - probably up to 15 folks - for the past three months blatantly misused a source to massively lowball the march turnout. This one single source stood alone when all others such as CNN, RT, LATimes, Yahoo, etc., used the protester's estimate of "2 million" attendees. The source was from a small media outlet and was published hours before the march had even begun in half of the world (this is a global march). The source claimed "200,000" people showed up. This is the same number media had been given by organizers as a projected turnout. I pointed out the obvious problem that this can't possibly be used to make a claim about turnout numbers over and over and over, on talk pages and when initially trying to edit the entries. In 3 separate Monsanto-related articles this source alone was used to make a claim that is found nowhere else on the web, that there was a 'range of estimates'. I was ignored and the rules governing proper use of sources were too, at Monsanto and Genetically modified food controversies as well as MAM, and by an astounding number of people. How could so many people all agree to something that is so wrong? I took this source to the RS noticeboard the other day, and no one disagreed with me. Even the one who entered the source to Wikipedia, Jytdog, agreed the author didn't know what they were talking about. Here is a big problem - it is too late. Wikipedia sat with this claim on three pages for three months. In July, the NYT published a sprawling piece about genetically modified oranges; it was probably 150+ lines, and the March Against Monsanto was mentioned in passing (one sentence) at the bottom of the article. The NYT used a "few hundred thousand" but did not give their source. Since the only place this number can be found through a search engine is here on Wikipedia, I have to assume we became the source for this number. Since the noticeboard (after feet were held to the fire), the editors all agree the first source was bogus, but now they are using this blurb in the NYT oranges article to maintain that media gave a range of numbers from a few hundred thousand. For the record, there was no estimate done by anyone but the march organizers - which is par for the course, media outlets don't put resources into investigating such things. Media had no problem citing organizers and moving on. In no RS will you find any talk of a range of estimates except here. Our editors are feeling perfectly comfortable second guessing RS and inserting their own doubts and leanings, regardless of whether they have sources that meet RS requirements or not. From the reactions at the RS noticeboard, it is obvious these editors knew all along it was wrong to use that source. And now we have rewritten history in favor of a very large company. Please let it sink in what this slight shifting of the facts means to Monsanto's image. Using sources properly, we can only state the number given by the organizers, citing them. It's fair to say "no independent estimates were made" too. But this has not been acceptable to any editor. They insist on adding the lowball number regardless of sourcing.
So what is uniting this group if it isn't the Wiki guidelines? If you were to guess what PR activity or image management might look like, would this be it?
Where is support for honest editors trying to use guidelines simply and appropriately on a page like this? I have never been taken to a noticeboard for my behaviour until working on this article. Three times they have tried to get me banned, all on false claims and always they failed. It is a wretched experience trying to work amongst these people. All the rules are thrown out the window, and I am standing alone. I don't know where to turn. It is an impossible undertaking to work on any Monsanto-related article unless you are in alignment with whatever MO they're operating under. Today i tried to remove the bogus source after consensus had been reached. Within 5 minutes I had been reverted three times by three separate editors, leaving the bogus source on the page and leaving me looking at another possible 3RR violation, unable to fix the page. This article gets 200 hits a day, yet we've got a team of editors ready to revert in seconds. Nothing resembling this happens at any other page I've edited. It is a wholly different experience. The three editors today had no regard for the noticeboard outcome. One I had never seen before, but noticed on their talk page a welcome note from the very guy who first tried to get me banned. The last one to show up hadn't made an edit in months, and the last edits were to this same article. It's like there are accounts being used when needed in order to keep others clean. There are obvious socks and there is obvious teamwork. I know that Wikipedia is being abused, as are the honest editors who try to edit/correct this page. I can't stress this last part enough. I am very close to giving up on Wikipedia because of what is happening with this crowd, and the fact that although I have spoken out numerous times, no one seems to care much and no one steps in to help.
Right now they are arguing on the MAM talk page that RT shouldn't be used as a source for the March. RT just so happens to be literally the only media outlet covering tomorrow's March, and was the most prolific source covering the last one. Just do a search for "March Against Monsanto", you'll see. Can you imagine how frustrating these endless games are for an editor? Now I'm looking at two more RS noticeboards: one for use of the oranges article, and now RT. Yet, I have a paying job that starts back up tomorrow.
Wikipedia is being taken over, and good editors are leaving because of it. So while you're looking at whether a certain PR firm is operating under the radar, I'm telling you this kind of activity can be seen by edits and talk page entries, by patterns of behaviour observed from ground level. We must be able to speak of the problem based on symptoms alone, untethered by a requirement to prove COI. We must have an easy way for someone like me to blow a whistle on ridiculously obvious BS such as with Monsanto articles, and to receive help, not to be asked to do this all alone, with little more than "good luck with your noticeboards". Thank you for hearing me out. petrarchan47 t c 09:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have tracked the edits on the Wiki page, ‘The Seralini affair’ carefully and I can confirm that the edits I am referring to by Wiki Users jytdog and runjonrun were an attempt to remove balance from the page by removing any information in support of the study. It was vandalism on a determined and massive scale.If we believe that comments on Seralini’s study published in lay articles in the media and from scientists associated with various regulatory bodies deserve reproduction on a Wiki page, then it is only fair to reproduce those comments supportive of the study as well as those critical of the study. The history of this Wiki page is a sign of how desperate the pro-GM lobby is to control public opinion.
Jytdog has a long and demonstrable history that shows without a doubt a strong pro-GMO and pro-Monsanto POV. It is horrifying to think this person is allowed full control over the entire suite of Monsanto and GMO articles on Wikipedia. I am not surprised that when I speak out, I become the problem and target practice ensues. It is the same reason others don't stand behind me, sharing their experiences too. In the past, editors have spoken out and expressed basically the same points I am making. One editor decided to put to the test accusations made by User:Viriditas and check out one Monsanto-related article, where s/he immediately saw what struck them as an advert right in the intro. Their edit to bring a more NPOV tone was immediately reverted, and this respected editor agreed that the Monsanto situation deserves more investigation. User:Groupuscule is another who has pushed for more neutral GMO articles and was met with the same experience. Again, this glaring problem is obvious to many, on wiki and off. Editors who speak out have to pay a high price. Editors who challenge this stranglehold at the article level will likely have no success, and will meet in no time a group who seem to live for taking people to noticeboards. Grown adults who have no shame about spending a Saturday night digging up evidence for 3RR violation or whatever might stick, to remove opponents. I've seen it time and again. There is nothing normal about the number of people and amount of dedication, 24/7, shown to a 200-hit-per-day article such as March Against Monsanto. The arguments are in unison and always 100% pro-Monsanto, which is also a giant red flag. None of this is difficult to see; all that I have said can be proven if indeed anyone cares and dares to confront this activity. petrarchan47 t c 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if someone could place here a comprehensive list of where the Wiki-Pr sock investigation is situated. I found [13] but that appears to be just one of several devoted to this problem. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Medical science has a weaker foundation compared to e.g. physics. This leaves room for activists to make propaganda in reliable sources. This makes Wikipedia vulnerable to COI editing in this topic area lot more than other topics, because sticking to the core policies of Wikipedia is not good enough for this field. A good examples are GM foods and electrosmog, many of the debates in this topic would have been closed a long time ago if physicists were in charge here.
To me this suggests that Wikipedia should change the NPOV policy by moving more toward SPOV and change the NOR policy to allow editorial decisions based on a debate about the science (which must itself be based on reliable sources) by the experts here. This would allow one to push back against POV pushing based on reliable sources where one merely cites reliable sources without discussing the fundamentals. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This PR Newswire release re "Obamacare" & Wikipedia just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:
"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Wikipedia, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency." Jimbo, are you there? What is your reaction to this? Coretheapple ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all the references we use are from persons that are compensated to write them. Do we realy believe that an unpaid filter is the answer to bias or is it the unpaid reviewer? That seems to be the argument. We explicitly deride free content such as blogs. I don't really care that a page that is rarely viewed is written by a paid PR guy. Nor am I worried that a highly visible page will dominate the community with meatpuppets. So what exactly are we deriding or defending? All content originates from a paid source. What outrage am I missing? -- DHeyward ( talk) 07:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I am the individual who posted here formerly as Irate ( talk · contribs) and Son of Paddy's Ego ( talk · contribs). I am now going to edit for the good, I was a bloody fool when I posted here and apologise for the now-notorious Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate and my previous behaviour in 2005, but I have changed. I appeal to be unbanned; I am no JarlaxleArtemis or Betacommand, and am now civil, and I was stupid on here. -- Canadacrox ( talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Giant block of ranting #1
|
---|
is unbelievable have to get here to make a call to common sense what ifJimbo, what if one day a certain amount of wikipedians reach a "consensus" and change the name of USA by the name "Zoltan Sovereign Republic" and seize the article?
etc... Categories: Autonomous communities of Spain - Territories of the Catalan Countries
Catalan Countries<--< WTF? I SPEAK CATALAN, I WAS BORN IN VALENCIA, so I'm Spanish. SOO... WHAT THE h ARE "the Catalan Countries"? (I understand "the Catalan Speaking Regions of Spain", not those invents to ban Spain from Wikipedia) Really I'm scared. sourcesMy birthplace is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY ¿Who writes "the state of valencia" or "land of valencia" or "valencia country" or other nonsenses?¿? where they belong? The
Spanish Constitution, and the regional
Statute of Autonomy of Valencian Community voted in referendum by the people of Valencian Community says that the ONLY and OFFICIAL name of this region of SPAIN is:
in English language, it can be translated by VALENCIAN COMMUNITY ¿sources? SPANISH CONSTITUTION (POWERED BY A FULL DEMOCRACY CONGRESS SINCE 1978)
... SO... ¿what does it say the regional Statute of Autonomy of Comunitat Valenciana - Valencian Community ?¿?
... - go to Spanish Congress web page of Spanish Constitution ...
STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF VALENCIAN COMMUNITY (in spanish, online Congress webpage) (POWERED BY FULL DEMOCRACY 17 AUTONOMIES OR REGIONS WITHIN THE UNITY OF SPANISH NATION SINCE 1978)
SO... the official and widely accepted and recognised by valencian people, Regional Statutes, Spanish Constitution, spanish people, european people, United Nations, and whole Universe is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY. Please, Stop secessionists and terrorists invents. Please, something stinks in that huge amount of seized and closed articles. Please be enciclopaedic and free Wikipedia in Catalan language to ALL catalan speaking territories, not only for the little secessionist Region of the North of Catalonia. Please, ask them to make their own nationalist wiki, but please free our catalan one FOR ALL catalan speaking people. |
If anyone is actually trying to make sense of this, see Names of the Valencian Community for an explanation of why Wikipedia uses both the official "Community of Valencia" and the unofficial "Land of Valencia". Basically, although "Community" is the official form, "Pais" (Land) is widely used, including by the official tourism bodies for the region and the Partit Socialista del País Valencià (the Valencian wing of the PSOE, Spain's governing party until late 2011), so "Land of Valencia" tends to crop up a lot in sources. The very first sentence of the Valencian Statute of Autonomy makes reference to the "Land of Valencia" name. Mogism ( talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Giant block of ranting #2
|
---|
WP:REF, NO:CABAL and ALL YOU SAY IS FALSE
"Languages: Two official languages exist in Valencia: Valencian, the local language for the Valencian Community, and Castilian, the official language of the country. The Constitution (1978) and the State Autonomy of the Valencian Community are the two legal texts that recognise Valencian and Castilian as the co-official languages for the region.
Conservatives
http://ppcv.com (Partit Popular de la Comunitat Valenciana) -NOTE: I'M NOT CONSERVATIVE-, STOP TO BREATHE (to proceed with a journey rhythm recommend to listen Ocean Colour Scene - Travellers Tune) Do you like
Rural tourism?
http://www.interiorcomunitatvalenciana.com/ Inland tourism confederation of COMUNITAT VALENCIANA HUMANITARIAN AID and Civil Protection? Spain - Disaster management structure Vademecum:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/vademecum/es/2-es-1.html "Spain has 17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities; Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Balearic Islands, Ceuta*, Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Madrid, Melilla*, Murcia, Navarra and Pais Vasco". Do you know that? When you follow all Google famous, recogniced and well known results of "VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"...
FALSE, is the first time I hear that in my life.
VERY VERY FALSE, The very first sentence IS in the cover of the book (in PANTONE RED, I think):
"STATUTE OF AUTONOMY Then, a white page, and the very second sentence is "STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY" then presentations, etc.. If you can see your longed "Land of Valencia" go to page 11: "PREAMBLE The Valencian Community resulted from the manifest will for autonomy shown by the people of the Valencian provinces, after the pre-autonomous period, which began thanks to the Royal Decree Law 10/1978, which created the Consell del País Valencià (Council of the Land of Valencia)". JIMBO would be wondering: what the heck is
Consell del País Valencià (
Council of the Land of Valencia)?? SO FINALLY WHAT SAYS VALENCIAN COMMUNITY STATUTE THAT VOTED THE PEOPLE IN REFERENDUM IN 1978??:
Autonomous Community, within the unity of the Spanish nation, as an expression of its distinct identity as an historical nationality and exercising the right to self-government that the Spanish Constitution recognises for any nationality, with the name of the Valencian Community. YES, "Mogism". I AM RIGHT. AND THE NAME OF THIS REGION IS "COMUNITAT VALENCIANA" (VALENCIAN COMMUNITY) BECAUSE WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED THIS REGIONAL STATUTES AND SPANISH CONSTITUTION IN REFERENDUM IN 1978 TO LIVE IN FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND PEACE. And four or three paid secessionists wikipedians cannot change this FACT. PD: October the 9 (tomorrow) is the Official Day of Valencian Community PARTY PEOPLE! (despite the hard work remains to reset all the flags of Spain that have been banned in ca.wikipedia.org) |
Hello, Jimbo. After reading all of the RfA discussion above, and the previous discussions, I have a suggestion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the process, but it is related. I thought it might be a good idea if you congratulated any newly promoted admin on their talk page, personally letting them know their efforts really are appreciated. Just a thought. Have a good day! Rgrds. -- 64.85.214.28 ( talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I just opened my email today and found this from the WM Foundation:
On October 1, 2013, we learned about an implementation error that made
private user information (specifically, user email addresses, password hashes, session tokens, and last login timestamp) for approximately 37,000 Wikimedia project users accessible to volunteers with access to the Wikimedia "LabsDB" infrastructure.
Your user account is one of the ones which was affected.
Uhm...what?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Now here's an idea i was pondering over today. To put it bluntly, if we made it so ads only appeared to unregistered users, it would encourage people to get an account while also give wikipedia it's revenue. Is this idea something worth pursuing? Please discuss below. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this morning that the August 2013 editing numbers are now posted. After roughly a two year plateau in editor participation, things seem to have taken a big dive in August 2013. Total edits for August fell from to about 2.9 million from the 3.5 million of the previous August (more or less a 15% drop, rounding things off), while the number of Very Active Wikipedians (100+ edits in the month), fell by 8.3%. Not good. Carrite ( talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There were unusual drops 5%-9%, beginning in June (before VisualEditor), for many languages; see counts of 5+ edits ( TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm). Drops occurred in many other-language wikipedias, including:
Then after June, some languages stabilized at the lower level, such as English showing levels for 5+ edits during June-August as 30901, 30891, 30941, being almost unchanged for 31-day months. Hence, the evidence clearly refutes any changes due exclusively to VE usage, as no significant changes in English edits, and German WP did not offer VE sitewide. - Wikid77 ( talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The following table (extracted from TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm) shows the recent high editor-activity levels (for 100+ edits) in 15 languages (es=Spanish, ja=Japanese, ru=Russia, de=German, pt=Portuguese, it=Italian, pl=Polish, zh=Chinese, nl=Dutch, tr=Turkish, ar=Arabic, sv=Swedish, id=Bahasa Indonesia, etc).
Editor counts with 100+ edits per month | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Σ | en | es | ja | ru | de | fr | pt | it | pl | zh | nl | tr | ar | sv | id | |||
Aug 2013 | -2% 9923 |
-0% 3156 |
-5% 499 |
+5% 317 |
-7% 558 |
-1% 944 |
+2% 748 |
-7% 191 |
-9% 395 |
0% 237 |
-3% 286 |
+1% 225 |
-7% 64 |
+6% 109 |
+12% 114 |
-18% 42 | |||
Jul 2013 | -1% 10101 |
-2% 3157 |
-0% 524 |
-5% 302 |
-6% 597 |
-2% 955 |
-1% 734 |
+9% 206 |
+6% 434 |
-2% 236 |
+8% 295 |
-5% 223 |
+15% 69 |
+24% 103 |
-15% 102 |
+2% 51 | |||
Jun 2013 | -4% 10198 |
-3% 3227 |
-9% 525 |
-7% 319 |
-3% 634 |
-1% 975 |
-6% 741 |
-14% 189 |
-7% 409 |
-2% 240 |
-7% 274 |
-5% 235 |
-2% 60 |
-7% 83 |
+5% 120 |
+9% 50 | |||
May 2013 | +2% 10569 |
+1% 3318 |
+9% 576 |
-1% 343 |
+2% 652 |
-0% 985 |
+2% 789 |
+10% 219 |
+3% 441 |
+3% 244 |
+10% 295 |
+10% 247 |
+13% 61 |
-10% 89 |
-7% 114 |
+35% 46 |
The editor-activity levels for many languages dropped very sharply in June 2013 (compared to prior years), which might indicate many student editors leaving on school breaks in June, or perhaps some other major change which occurred during June 2013. Note the levels in July or August did not always rise back after the June drop, where prior years had a large rebound in July+August. Perhaps all the distractions from the VisualEditor and forced https-protocol interface drove away thousands of typical editors. Meanwhile the Arabic Wikipedia ("ar") had large increases in July and August, up 24%-30% over June's level of 83 editors (with 100+ edits), which had been typical of the prior year. Anyway, because the high-activity editors (even at 25+ edits per month) are associated with "fixing Wikpedia" then the June drop and low rebound in July+August is a significant 3-month danger sign. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Artur Mas (secessionist local governor of Catalonia) subsidizes the "Viquipèdia" defining Catalonia as an "European country" ? ¿? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 ( talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, "Konveyor Belt", I thought the "Paid editing blowup" was anyway related to the other "Paid editing blowup".
And Jimbo, try to imagine i.e. that you cannot see USA in a listing of hosts countries of Olympics or International Olympic Committee Countries, or cannot see Lebron James in "North-American international sportsmen" due to a new extrange "invented sovereign State" that always is against yours with confrontation everywhere.
The Catalan Speaking people of Valencian Community, and Balearic Islands are a little shocked here, hehe.
To "more substantive examples of bias", I need more more time, it's difficult to become a content curator or a kind of file sorter in a few weeks, to put all in a listing with journalist style heh hehe... (sorry my bad english).
Aside from the Spanish flag ban on international lists (being replaced by regional one, causing confusion in catalan speaking people from the rest of Spain), and the substitution of Catalan-Speaking-Official-Names-Voted-by-the-People, by secessionist-nicknames-... well, it's difficult to admit, living 25 years here to see in internet this new "names" (I'm 25).
I need more time to check The history fact changes (like "Is not said Kingdom of Spain, is Castile that oppresses people of Catalonia etc..." when all people knows that
Kingdom of Spain was born in the marriage of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon -not "catalonia"- in 1469) I need more more time to see if Spanish Flag is the only one that is banned, or Madrid one and others too... I'm sorry for International Olympic Committee.
If the Olympics 1992 were NOT in Spain in an international listing of COI Countries, and the Expo 1888 was NOT in Spain, well, I have nothing to work and write so I'll try to put more hard work to put Spain back in history in ca.wikipedia.org
I have to thank you have tried (almost all) to read my large paragraph (hehe), not revert to me or threaten me (i.e. using bots to prevent infinite blocking issues or articles like the other ca.wikipedia), which I really appreciate. Thanks for your patience and I will continue giving my best.
"Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory."
Thanks anyway and Regards. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.9.217.223 (
talk) 18:21, 8 October 2013 (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 just saw
this post on Wikipediocracy about the allegations of the Croatian Wikipedia being co-opted by the far right, but what really caught my attention was this detail:
Extreme right-wing views can apparently be found even among the Wikimedia Foundation’s own staff. Its Education Program Consultant for the Arab World, Faris El-Gwely, sports a little green userbox with a black and white picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page in the Arabic Wikipedia. The Arabic text next to that image reads, “This user respects Adolf Hitler”.
The translated version of the user page in question can be found here. It is not the only userbox of concern as there is one stating "This user believes the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arab", another saying "this user stands violently against the Zionist crimes against the Arab people will never forgive them what they had done the displacement and murder, terrorism and rape of freedom and dignity of the Arabs", and one stating "this user is anti-Zionist". Now the last one would not be of concern on its own, but an "anti-Zionist" who "believes in the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arabs" and "respects Adolf Hitler" sure as hell sounds like a virulent antisemite.
I understand that many Arabs are bombarded with misinformation on certain points of Jewish history because of Israel, so finding this type of attitude on the Arabic Wikipedia should not be totally surprising, but it is a whole other kettle of fish for the Foundation's education program consultant to the Arab World to adhere to such views. This isn't some programmer or technical assistant whose actions will not have an impact on the content. His page has had those userboxes since before he started working with the Foundation so it is not as though this could not have been caught beforehand.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no problem here because of the disclaimer which says: "Disclaimer: Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." Count Iblis ( talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The fact that some people are defending this on free-expression grounds or calling it a "witch hunt" demonstrates how bizarrely out of touch with the real world the Wikipedia community has become and, frankly, why sane editors have been fleeing this place in droves for the last few years. I never, ever thought I'd find myself typing these words, but The Devil's Advocate is entirely right here. It's not fair to hold Jimbo personally responsible for every hiring decision, but it is fair to ask for some sort of response from the Foundation. MastCell Talk 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Foundation needs to make a public statement on this issue, as it calls into question the Foundation's ability to hire and supervise staff overseas. The educational program isn't just about spreading knowledge, it's also about spreading the community's values (public access to knowledge, public participation in knowledge-creation, etc.) The statements made on the user's talk page, (including his support for Hitler and his apparent endorsement of violence), if they are being translated reasonably, lead me to believe that this user should not be representing the Foundation and the community. That he was a paid representative of the Foundation is deeply troubling and the Foundation should provide more detail on how they view this incident and what changes, if any, they believe need to be made to prevent a recurrence. GabrielF ( talk) 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with something that came from Wikipediocracy, but yes, the WMF needs to take serious action here. Someone hired this guy, and whoever that person was made a serious mistake and needs to be held accountable; I'd assume reading userpages would be a basic first step before hiring anybody. Furthermore... he's a sysop and a 'crat on ar.wp... am I the only one who has a serious problem with this? Jimbo, you've said in the past that people who believe horrible things have no right to edit Wikipedia. To me, this seems like the perfect opportunity to apply that philosophy. The WMF should pull any privileged access that El-Gwely holds, and should do the same for any other users who have displayed views such as his. — PinkAmpers & (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would any lurking admins consider semi-protecting Jimbo's talk page for a short duration? Indef-blocked User:Colton Cosmic is making one of his monthly sock-puppeting visits to pester for an unblock. Tarc ( talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a FYI courtesy to those who read here a week-and-an-half ago and prior to that about my unblock case, and I suppose a parting shot to Jimbo. I was falsely and abusively (no warning, no explanation) blocked for socking in May 2012. Since then, but not before, I have indeed block evaded, like this post essentially. Anyone who says editing by IP while clearly signing with your one and only user-name is "socking" is just twisting words around. On the other hand I plead guilty any day of the week to "block evasion," which is justifiable in clear cases of administrative abuse. About 45 days ago, Jimbo agreed to hear my appeal. We exchanged emails. Mine is a WP:CLEANSTART account, I switched for the online privacy and harassment rationale authorized by that policy. After the block, several admins and arbs, notably Silktork, made disclosure of my prior account the key criterion to be unblocked. If you think about it though, that would in no way prove I didn't sock. It does nothing except satisfy their curiosity and give them another account to plug into checkuser. In my opinion there's a sickness in Wikipedia's "sock puppet investigation" personnel, what some of these guys are doing is really sublimating their cyber-stalking impulses. "Hand over your prior account or stay blocked" demands are coercive and have no basis in policy, so I consistently resisted that, until Jimbo said the same thing, promised confidentiality (which no-one prior to that had) and I thought well, okay, this is Jimmy Wales. Silly me.
Jimbo, I won't quote your email publicly but I just reread it and in two ways you clearly suggested that if I told you my prior account, and it proved to be non-problematic, you'd favorably treat my block appeal. Wikipedians, I did just that, and it was, and my reward from founder is nothing more than a big fat "suckah!!!" He says, okay you told me, now you have to tell Arbcom, all 12 of them, whomever else is on the list, and whomever will ever be on it due to the fact they keep an archive. I said, but the account checked out, this was not our arrangement, but I'm like Lando Calrissian protesting Darth Vader's brand of deal-making by this point. Jimbo, I edited Wikipedia for years, authored plenty of stubs and articles, even sent WMF a charitable donation once. You want to dismissively handle me, not even explaining your move, I guess that's your authority, but I give you a public thumbs-down, a cyber raspberry, and I warn off those in the future who think they're liable to get a square deal out of you, "sole founder" (New York Times). All, what's my Wikipedia future? Well, as a matter of policy, I think any administrator at all can still unblock me. I was never the subject of Arbcom sanctions, or blocked by an oversighter on secret stuff or anything like that. It's just been a string of "appeal declineds" up and down the line, including now one by founder. You may now rest on the assurance that Jimbo has examined my previous account and found it warn, block, and sanction-free. But as a matter of survival and keeping your bit, you'd indeed risk the ire of some arbs, and the dingo pack at WP:AN/ANI. In closing, fellow Wikipedians, best regards, I don't know but after Jimbo's decline I guess you have heard the last of me. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 9:23 AM, EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.161.23 ( talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, RfA problems again. I also tried a wp:RfA (aka "Request for Abuse"), after 8 years of waiting, and it was still as bad an experience as everyone has been warning: block-log entries from 3-7 years ago were treated as if yesterday, and many insults were over-the-top. The quickest fix: as you, Jimbo, have suggested:
Currently, the RfA process seems like a "insta-poll popularity contest" rather than a "job interview" and the main focus directs people to issue judgmental decisions of Support/Oppose within seconds of starting an RfA page. Also, there are unusual cultural twists in RfA discussions, such as treating rebuttals to objections as being "badgering of opposes" rather than a logical discussion to clarify misunderstandings. Because I was a formal debate judge for years, I was not fooled to refrain from refuting incorrect claims (bottomline: debaters who fail to refute claims partially will lose a formal debate). Plus, of course, the RfA process allows the same level of insults as could be expected at wp:ANI, except each user's wp:RfA page is named with their username as an obvious, obvious case of " wp:Attack page". The whole process is completely awry, and I had to respond quickly to refute wp:NPA insults which would otherwise stand as accepted by begging the question. Anyway, the only workable solution, to the current judgmental RfA process, is to separate the interview-period from the judgement period:
The 1st, interview phase would discuss issues, and hopefully, follow " rules of evidence" (real evidence, not spin-doctored slants) to have specific diff-links; plus the focus would be on asking questions about the activities which the candidate would be performing. If the questions, or potential admin tasks, seemed too difficult, then the candidate could withdraw during the first phase. Then the 2nd, judgement phase could be longer if any insults were redacted meanwhile, by a neutral moderator, so that a candidate would not have to watchdog the RfA as being an outrageous personal attack-page during the whole time period. I was totally unaware that an RfA was like a wp:ANI thread open to insults, except with a person's username "flashing in lights" as a beacon to come see the insults by name. No wonder some people refer to the RfA period as a horrific experience, and as I said, if I had not been a debate judge for years, I might also have been tricked in allowing insults to stand, unrefuted, because of fear to avoid "badgering the opponents" who hurl unfounded insults. However, a separate "House of wikilords" would allow quick appointments, such as a request for 20 bilingual admins if an avalanche of new articles were created with non-English sources, pushing the limits of notability decisions due to a lack of other-language skills. Anyway, I would warn anyone, who plans an wp:RfA, to be prepared to defend yourself from over-the-top insults during the whole time period, and do not be fooled into keeping quiet to refute claims just to avoid "badgering of opponents" while insults are hurled without restraint. - Wikid77 ( talk) 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The systems that deal with the Admins and ArbCom won't be changed because they have become fundamental parts of Wikipedia and you'll never get a consensus to make significant changes. That's why e.g. the de-admining propsal failed. It's similar to why in the US Congress has a very low approval rating but any proposal to make even small changes to the system (e.g. term limits), is a non-starter.
Perhaps what could work is to make a copy of the entire Wikipedia (Wikipedia-beta) that has the same articles but which has a different Adminstrative infrastructure. Then, if over time the beta version is seen to work better, then one makes that the standard version and one can then try out some new experimental changes by creating another Wikipedia-beta. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what some may want people to believe, there is almost nothing in the admin toolset that cannot be undone with a simple reversion. Its just not that big of a deal. So there is no reason whatsoever with guarding it like the Crown Jewels. And even as hard as it is to get rid of a bad admin, if they misuse the block tool, they would probably get their access yanked pretty fast. So really, all the hyperbole about people getting into mischief if they had access to the toolset is just hogwash. With all that said, no one believes anything will change regardless of how many times its brought up until a crisis ensues. That being either no admins being promoted for a prolonged period or too few active admins to accomplish the necessary tasks (which really has been the case for some time now given the length backlogs at many of the venues). The bottom line is, unless the community decides it needs to change the process or Jimbo and the WMF step up, its going to stay broke. 71.126.152.253 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
While RFA is certainly not without its problems, if it's really as 'broken' and 'impossible to pass' as critics claim, how come two candidates passed with unanimous support in the past month alone? RFA has never been an obstacle for clearly suitable admin candidates. Most of the time, it does ultimately reach the right decision. The real issue is finding and convincing more suitable candidates to run in the first place. Robofish ( talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, here is the table I was referring to:
Year | Month | Mean | Passes | Fails [N 1] | RfAs [N 2] | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |||||
2024 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | ||||||||
2023 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 19 |
2022 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.2 | 14 | 6 | 20 |
2021 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 7 | 4 | 11 |
2020 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.4 | 17 | 8 | 25 |
2019 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1.8 | 22 | 9 | 31 |
2018 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | 10 | 8 | 18 |
2017 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.8 | 21 | 20 | 41 |
2016 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1.3 | 16 | 20 | 36 |
2015 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1.8 | 21 | 32 | 53 |
2014 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1.8 | 22 | 38 | 60 |
2013 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2.8 | 34 | 39 | 73 |
2012 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2.3 | 28 | 64 | 92 |
2011 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4.3 | 52 | 87 | 139 |
2010 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 6.3 | 75 | 155 | 230 |
2009 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 10.1 | 121 | 234 | 355 |
2008 | 36 | 27 | 22 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 16 | 12 | 6 | 16 | 11 | 9 | 16.8 | 201 | 392 | 593 |
2007 | 23 | 35 | 31 | 30 | 54 | 35 | 31 | 18 | 34 | 27 | 56 | 34 | 34.0 | 408 | 512 | 920 |
2006 | 44 | 28 | 34 | 36 | 30 | 28 | 26 | 26 | 22 | 27 | 33 | 19 | 29.5 | 353 | 543 | 896 |
2005 | 14 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 17 | 28 | 31 | 39 | 32 | 67 | 41 | 68 | 32.3 | 387 | 213 | 600 |
2004 | 13 | 14 | 31 | 20 | 23 | 13 | 17 | 12 | 29 | 16 | 27 | 25 | 20.0 | 240 | 63 | 303 |
2003 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 11 | 9 | 17 | 10 | 9 | 15 | 10.3 | 123 | n/a [N 3] | 123 |
2002 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3.7 | 44 | n/a [N 3] | 44 | ||||||
Totals | 2233 | 2453 | 4686 [N 5] |
Key | |
---|---|
0 successful RFAs
|
26–30 successful RFAs
|
1–5 successful RFAs
|
31–35 successful RFAs
|
6–10 successful RFAs
|
36–40 successful RFAs
|
11–15 successful RFAs
|
41–50 successful RFAs
|
16–20 successful RFAs
|
51–60 successful RFAs
|
21–25 successful RFAs
|
More than 60 successful RFAs
|
So, if this looks healthy, y'all, then no arguments from other people will convince you otherwise. These are the numbers.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Year | Month | Monthly mean |
Total removals |
Total restorations [b] |
Total elections |
Yearly change in admins | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | ||||||
2024 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.5 | 22 | 1 | 4 | -17 |
2023 | 104 [c] | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 12.6 | 152 | 4 | 12 | -136 |
2022 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 4 [d] | 11 | 5.9 | 71 | 8 | 14 | -49 |
2021 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 5.3 | 64 | 4 | 7 | -53 |
2020 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4.8 | 58 | 7 | 17 | -34 |
2019 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 29 [e] | 7 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 7.9 | 95 | 28 | 22 | -45 |
2018 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 73 | 13 | 10 | -50 |
2017 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 6.5 | 78 | 23 | 21 | -34 |
2016 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 7.3 | 88 | 15 | 16 | -57 |
2015 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 85 | 26 | 21 | -38 |
2014 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 13 | 6.6 | 80 | 16 | 22 | -42 |
2013 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 6.8 | 82 | 28 | 34 | -20 |
2012 | 10 | 4 | 23 | 22 | 15 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 7 | 11.4 | 137 | 42 | 28 | -67 |
2011 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 230 [f] | 2 | 18 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 23.5 | 282 | 26 | 52 | -204 |
2010 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1.9 | 23 | 23 | 75 | +75 |
2009 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3.2 | 39 | 28 | 121 | +110 |
2008 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2.3 | 28 | 23 | 201 | +196 |
2007 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2.8 | 34 | 21 | 408 | +395 |
2006 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 30 | 9 | 353 | +332 |
2005 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0.9 | 11 | 6 | 387 | +382 |
2004 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.9 | 11 | 2 | 240 | +231 |
2003 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.3 | 4 | 0 | 123 | +119 |
2002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | +44 |
Key | |
---|---|
0 desysoppings |
16–18 desysoppings
|
1–3 desysoppings |
19–22 desysoppings
|
4–6 desysoppings |
23–27 desysoppings
|
7–9 desysoppings |
28–36 desysoppings
|
10–12 desysoppings |
37–48 desysoppings
|
13–15 desysoppings |
More than 48 desysoppings
|
Based upon high activity at this page and at wt:rfa I thought there was interest in doing something about the problem. So I proposed doing something about it, either specifically:
or generally:
The proposals were met by a resounding yawn (with minor exceptions). I now conclude I misread the sense of the community, and the community is very interested in whining, but not actually doing anything. Am I wrong?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
At the core of many frustrations is the lock-down of protected pages, where admins can access so much more. At the Help:Desk, it would be useful to look at a user's deleted article to explain, in detail, why it failed the WP policies for inclusion. Also, many, many thousands of templates are protected against update by non-admin users. Overall, as several people have commented: "This isn't a wiki any longer". Having to continually request permission (for *everything*) has turned WP into a bureaucracy of bureaucratic rules, which many of us have learned to tolerate, but it is not fun, no. So, many people leave due to restricted access to pages. Or, we try wp:RfA to get long-term permission to access Wikipedia as if it were still a wiki, rather than a system of expanding lock-down where templates have gone unfixed for years. Instead, a system of trusted-user levels should have been developed, early, to allow several levels of access controls to different types of protected pages. - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The first oversimplification / misfire is to think that metric of any split should be by tools. In reality it should be by roles. Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations and decide to impose sanctions against editors. That combination with gnome tools/roles is absolutely crazy; the latter types of things should be split off by role/policy, not by tools in the toolbox.
The second oversimplification / misfire is thinking that there is only one dial (degree of easiness / hardness) that needs adjustment at RFA. What it really needs is tools to make it a qualities based discussion rather than the current misfire test which essentially is largely "have you avoided taking any stands that some people didn't like". North8000 ( talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations- I don't think this quite true actually. Non-admins can certainly close many contentious discussions, many of which get listed at WP:ANRFC. Personally speaking, I've done closes of contentious issues at Adolf Hitler, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and Monty Hall problem (a triumverate close) without any concerns from others about my involvement. Not many non-admins contribute there, maybe because they don't think they are allowed to, or maybe because they don't want to deal with with folks who disagree with their closes, or maybe they just don't feel prepared or have enough time to devote to the task. (Of course, not many admins contribute there, either). In any case, my point is that non-admins can definitely close contentious issues (except for deletion). I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is an interesting comparison; by my calculations roughly 40% of the commercial aircraft in use today contain at least one part where I am the engineer who signed off on the design being safe for flight. Most of these involved electronics or hydraulics controlling flight control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators and rudders. I have also signed off on the safety for several children's toys that sold in the millions. Yet I am pretty sure that I would not pass an RfA. In other words, you trust me with your life and the life of your children, but (if I am correct about not passing an RfA), not with the admin tools. Now it is true that those engineering decisions all got reviewed multiple times, but any use of admin tools in the areas that could cause a lot of harm to the encyclopedia would no doubt be reviewed as well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, one of Wikipedia's admins who also happens to be a doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine said the following:
Are we to assume that Dr. Bertalan Meskó is interpreting your Bright Line Rule somewhat loosely, or is there an exception for pharmaceutical companies, because of their expertise in ensuring evidence-based information? - 68.87.42.110 ( talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
(Separately, I don't think Bertalan is saying what you think he's saying. I think he means "employ" in the sense of "work with" rather than "hire and pay a salary", but you might wish to ask him for clarification directly). MastCell Talk 02:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Med Foundation] is here to collaborate with organizations that share our goals. The pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately at this point in time has made it clear that they do not. There is no official collaborations and I personally have declined offers. I am not for sale at any price. I am happy to investigate any cases people come across. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
All the turmoil about the VisualEditor has reaffirmed a major aspect of software development: write tools which the users want, not something imagined to be useful. After removal from the top menu, when VE became an opt-in feature under Special:Preferences, the usage has dropped to almost 0%, as about 2-to-5 edits per thousand. Although there has been much anger about the WMF decisions, I want to emphasize how writing of unused software has been a common problem in other computer systems for decades. Many computer people often zone-inward (in a form of " navel gazing") to focus intensely on problems which many people do not think are important. I recently read comments about the old wikitext source editor being a convoluted implementation, and then thought, "Oh no, I hope they don't rewrite the typical wikitext editor to run like VE!". Of course, wp:edit-conflicts are a real, major problem in common talk-pages, or busy hot-topic articles, but unless developers think like users, they would rather sub-optimize the ultra-mega-gadgetry which they see, everyday, rather than upset their worldview by focusing on needs of users. Again, it is not an exclusive problem of WMF but rather an "age-old" problem in the development of computer technology. Anyway, based on those issues, I am wondering: what can be done to get the Foundation to focus on writing tools which people want? - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
We need to re-focus on creating our own tools for enwiki, and remember how much progress has already been made. Some of the most-important advancements were the direct transition to Lua script for the wp:CS1 cites (as tested by several cite experts) to edit-preview pages 2x-3x faster, and the Lua-based infoboxes which cut another 2 seconds off reformatting most articles. Plus, there are numerous graphic tools (see: wp:Graph and wp:Barchart) with Template:Brick_chart, and Template:Location_map for placing map-locator dots on images. I guess so much effort was spent trying to get the Foundation to delay VisualEditor until it "accepted [[xx]] as a wikilink" (still considered invalid) that too much attention was focused on hoping the WMF could fix problems, while almost totally ignoring all the powerful enwiki tools which are already in use, and could be enhanced with more features, as well as writing new tools. We already have some interesting options:
Each tool, or technique, helps with only a part of the problems, but working together, the benefits can be large. Overall, more users should be taught to use the tools, or enhance them, and we can get back to making major improvements which simplify the work for more editors, while rapidly fixing many overlooked typos or making difficult changes to pages with the help of semi-automated tools. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Good discussion. To sum up my current view, I think it is important that we remove some of the usual heat from this topic and move away from the "prudes versus pornographers" lens, a lens which I do not think represents anyone's actual views fairly. Instead we should be thinking about editorial judgment (i.e. responsible and thoughtful treatment of sexual topics versus immature/shock value treatment) and the Principle of least astonishment (i.e. topics are treated in such a fashion that virtually all users are not astonished by it). I believe there is likely more common ground (especially in English Wikipedia, as contrasted with commons, where there is a deep-seated cultural problem) than most people realize.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi Jimbo, I am Benison. I've been here since 2005 and created an a/c on 2013 May. I saw many uncensored(nude) pics in wikipedia. Can you please do something about that bcoz it contributes to pornography. All ages are referring wikipedia. So my conscience(yours too) says that something must be done. Please look into the matter. Regards, Benison talk with me 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeh, I agree with Liz. Now antivirus softwares are coming with inbuilt parental settings to stop the e-pornography. It is effective to a good extent. They block websites by their content. But they are not much effective in Wikipedia bcoz Wikipedia is a library(YMMV,..encyclopedia) and those softwares can't block Wikis. Hence young readers are prone to watch explicit contents here. I don't agree with Herostratus because wikipedia is not a place to find gossip, slander, and lies. So I think we must stop pornography here also. Benison talk with me 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. This is not beating a dead horse: it is more like beating a horse fossil. We are not censored and this is one of our founding principles. Explicit images are used in their appropriate context -that is, in sexuality articles and the like. Censorship geared towards silly cultural taboos is not going to happen. -- cyclopia speak! 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Dear supervisor my name is Somar and I want to complain about the Articles in Arabic and being different from what it is in all other languages and express opinions that is not required and are not considered neutral, where your site is considered a neutral reference and I consider this fraud, so please respond to me because I intend to raise a lawsuit on the site in the event of non-responding
this is my email : <redacted> please respond to my email
Kind regards Somar n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.154.171 ( talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Somar, the insiders here have a strong policy against legal threats. Even if your statement was partially in jest, rather than a solid threat of any sort, they will ban you, because they look for form over substance, social connections rather than rational thinking. If I were in DES's position, I would have entertained your concerns and addressed them, rather than looking only at the legal threat and giving the dismissive "call my supervisor" treatment that you have received from DES. DES, you should be ashamed for biting a newcomer to the English Wikipedia.
I call upon Jimbo Wales to install open, constitutional authority upon all Wikipedias, rather than the opaque system of power networks and self-selecting leaders that we have right now. This is especially important in places of ethno-religious conflict, such as Indian-language Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia, as English is an official and very commonly-spoken language there), Balkan-language ones, and the Arabic Wikipedia. We must not allow history to be written by those with political ends through its revision. Wer900 • talk 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Bright line rule for my discussion of a change I made at WP:NOT (it was reverted within a minute, so I'm not sure the change will still be there). Jimbo - if I have misstated the bright line rule, please let me know. Smallbones( smalltalk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Several people thought WP:NOT was "an odd place for it." The proposal at WP:NOT is now closed and a very similar proposed policy is at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy standing all by itself, not attached to anything. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Are we really concerned about content or editors? I'd almost postulate that if editors are being paid to create articles then just make the "Keep" criteria based on a minimum number of commenting editors. Sockpuppets can make contributions difficult but in rarely read and unread articles, who cares? Make the AfD a brightline participation goal: "If less than 20 editors comment on an AfD article, it's an automatic delete on notability". Then auto SPI all contributors for IP and tag it in the header. "15 of the 20 editors used the same or similar IP in this discussion." If the article is worthwhile, it shouldn't be hard to generate enough independent editors to comment. Virtually all of our content is sourced to paid contributors anyway whether it's a primary source or a secondary source. None of their COI is disclosed to us though even when we determine it to be "reliable." . -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at
Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to
your preferences and choosing the item, "
MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable
".
The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption ( bug 50459).
There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected ( bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances ( bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances ( bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories ( bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias ( bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes ( bug 54712).
Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.
For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Largest sockpuppet bust in Wikipedia history traces back to paid editing for hire firm 'Wiki-PR': http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ Ocaasi t | c 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd encourage everybody involved to take very serious steps on this. There are too many times (e.g. in the last few days) that I've heard something like "Well, you can't do anything about paid editing, so you're just going to have to accept it." I don't think we have to accept this. Some things the WMF can do.
The WMF certainly has the right to do this - (further on in the terms of use) "We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice."
You might wonder what is the point of banning possibly unknown employees if the WMF doesn't have the technical means to do anything about it. Well, the WMF likely has the legal and/or PR means to do something about it. Possibly a cease and desist order could be filed to prevent them from advertising (after all - they won't have any employees who can edit here - so they would be doing false advertising as well as defaming Wikipedia by claiming our admins work for them) and in any case their business reputation would be in tatters.
Of course, the WMF should talk with them before threatening to go to court. Ask for their employee and client lists so we can repair the damage they caused.
Finally, I think this should be reviewed at the board level - are we ever going to have a policy that can clearly discourage paid editing in an effective way? Another thing I heard in just the last few day goes something like this "There are too many editors with an interest in keeping paid editing, and with the consensus system and RfCs, they can always prevent anything from being changed." Sounds like a challenge to me. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Please keep Catalan Wikipedia discussion separate from local en.wikipedia issues. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Paid editing is wrong, especially when a local governor does it with tax money (
source), much needed in Spain, due to a severe recession, to try to change FACTS of history and nowadays, making a brutal MASSIVE BIAS in ca.wiki so... should wikimedia partner associations admit ALL money for Wikipedia, GLAM projects, Public libraries and conference rooms, from local secessionist governors of hate and confrontation, if the suposed "job" is to indoctrinate population and children to hate and secessionism? When you see
this video of children saying that "Spanish people steal our money, they are bad - we are better than they..." etc... What do you think? |
Hey guys, PR guy and COI contributor here. I noticed that Smallbones and Jusdafax are soliciting for legal action by the WMF on this matter and when I attended a discussion with a few Wikipedia editors a day or two ago, a couple expressed a similar viewpoint, that it was something that could not be handled by the community alone.
Wiki-PR is still soliciting for business - I talked to a marketing guy just yesterday that was in talks with them. And despite destroying hundreds of accounts, they can just as easily create more. This paints a rather hopeless picture for volunteers and there are a breath of options for legal action that would create (I think) a more sustainable resolution.
Naturally, WMF is in that weird position the community puts them in where one minute everyone is telling them BACK OFF! and the next we're saying "why aren't you doing anything?" However, one thing that has been brought up that I think is worth further discussion is if consensus should be built that the community does want them involved in this case and if there was a clear consensus if WMF would be able to do so (or if a chapter organization could do it).
I think I easily speak for the entire PR community when I say that we also don't endorse this kind of activity. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me have an analogy here. For many years Wikipedia has been fighting SEO people who inserts thousand of spam links per day. I think a reasonably large amount of money is involed but I think we are winning the battle. We are winning not by trying to identify SEO-paid people among our editors are by enforcing our policy on external links, etc. Obviously, if we could prove somebody is paid by SEO firms we would block them, but it is their the major success is. Now we have somehow larger opponents - PR people. We could (and should) block people who are paid to violate our policies but the main effort should be directed to upholding the policies that PR people violate: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK, WP:C. I think it has more chances to success.
Besides, we do not have a Zero-sum game here. PR people wants to put information regarding their subjects on wiki (often we have none). We also want this information (if it is notable, reliable, unbiased). So having good articles on their subjects would be in the interests of both parties. As an example we are interested in having articles on notable Gibraltar attractions and the government of Gibraltar is interested in it. If we knew that the article editors were paid we would probably still want those articles but we would want better scrutiny on them and their references from the main page. Could we achieve some compromise with the paid editors? E.g. they identify the COI themselves (opening their edits to additional scrutiny) and they do not edit war (so NPOVing the articles is not a pain for our volunteers). In exchange we do not block them if the COI is found. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem of paid editing won't be solved without including the broader, and much more common issue, of unpaid POV pushing and personal attacks on biography and company articles. If I had a bio on Wikipedia, or my company had an article, and they were targets of the negativity and attack-style criticism I see all too often, you can bet I would pay professionals to make it right. The main method that is suggested to fix such issues seldom works ('oh, just mention the error on the talk page' — even that is being attacked by some people here). First Light ( talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I indefinitely blocked the last PR person I encountered as they were trying to manipulate Wikipedia's medical content to their companies commercial advantage. I than had to put up with a couple of months of real life attacks by this nasty firm as they had docs on their pay role email my colleagues with me cc'ed to insult me professionally / attempt to put pressure on me to allow them to change Wikipedia. I am not easily intimidated; however, we need to do more to protect our editors from these sorts of folks / take a harder line toward these activities.
Supposedly if I would have published on this incident I would have been in violation of WP:OUTING and based on strict Wikipedia law could have been indefinitely banned myself. So what do we do about WP:OUTING? We need a clause that keeps it from protecting those who are being paid to be here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I am inspired by Jimbo's comment that made so much sense: part of the problem is that we all tend to stay in our own little corners, what we're aware of is then limited. So I want to share a bit of my experience and possibly elucidate what may be symptoms of the problem at hand. I am asking this be used as a case study to view this larger problem from the standpoint of one who builds and updates articles, from boots on the ground. My work at Wiki has always been pretty simple: I like to update articles and tend to stay very safe with my wording and use of sources, because I don't want any hassle. And I normally don't get any. In other words, I apply the guidelines properly and have never been in trouble EXCEPT when I come near a Monsanto-related article.
If someone were 'attacking' Monsanto (or any other company's) pages, the company could easily use the ticket system and get help. On the other hand, a lowly editor who is following all the rules, does not have this sort of help when the opposite is happening: the company's article(s) being whitewashed. If I want to address the problem, I have to figure out time-consuming and tedious noticeboards where I am inevitably drowned out by the very same editors who are causing the problem.
I found the March Against Monsanto article up for deletion a few days after the march took place at the end of May. I decided to find sourcing and build the article, thinking a 2 million person march certainly deserves one. Working on that article has been a maddening and completely loony experience, and it's continuing to this day. It's a daunting task to try and give you the whole story, I'll try to focus on just one example. I was the only editor working to build, rather than to trim, delete, argue, or minimize information about the event. I immersed myself for 4 days in every bit of media coverage I could find. I doubt there is any RS about the march that I haven't read. I simmered it all down and made a nice article. The entire thing has been obsessively worked on and changed to make prominent the idea "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt". Sections were rearranged so that this statement would be one of the first things you read. The introduction to the march origins, for example, were moved down and finally trimmed to the point of being unrecognizable and uninformative. It was turned into a refutation of the protesters' concerns and this was done by an incredible team of people. I mean, these people have their act together. They don't let even a minute pass by without reverting me (please look at the edit history just from today!). They seem to be an endless bunch, some do the dirty work of taking me to noticeboards, some are very polite, but in general, all seem in complete unison on every issue. And all - probably up to 15 folks - for the past three months blatantly misused a source to massively lowball the march turnout. This one single source stood alone when all others such as CNN, RT, LATimes, Yahoo, etc., used the protester's estimate of "2 million" attendees. The source was from a small media outlet and was published hours before the march had even begun in half of the world (this is a global march). The source claimed "200,000" people showed up. This is the same number media had been given by organizers as a projected turnout. I pointed out the obvious problem that this can't possibly be used to make a claim about turnout numbers over and over and over, on talk pages and when initially trying to edit the entries. In 3 separate Monsanto-related articles this source alone was used to make a claim that is found nowhere else on the web, that there was a 'range of estimates'. I was ignored and the rules governing proper use of sources were too, at Monsanto and Genetically modified food controversies as well as MAM, and by an astounding number of people. How could so many people all agree to something that is so wrong? I took this source to the RS noticeboard the other day, and no one disagreed with me. Even the one who entered the source to Wikipedia, Jytdog, agreed the author didn't know what they were talking about. Here is a big problem - it is too late. Wikipedia sat with this claim on three pages for three months. In July, the NYT published a sprawling piece about genetically modified oranges; it was probably 150+ lines, and the March Against Monsanto was mentioned in passing (one sentence) at the bottom of the article. The NYT used a "few hundred thousand" but did not give their source. Since the only place this number can be found through a search engine is here on Wikipedia, I have to assume we became the source for this number. Since the noticeboard (after feet were held to the fire), the editors all agree the first source was bogus, but now they are using this blurb in the NYT oranges article to maintain that media gave a range of numbers from a few hundred thousand. For the record, there was no estimate done by anyone but the march organizers - which is par for the course, media outlets don't put resources into investigating such things. Media had no problem citing organizers and moving on. In no RS will you find any talk of a range of estimates except here. Our editors are feeling perfectly comfortable second guessing RS and inserting their own doubts and leanings, regardless of whether they have sources that meet RS requirements or not. From the reactions at the RS noticeboard, it is obvious these editors knew all along it was wrong to use that source. And now we have rewritten history in favor of a very large company. Please let it sink in what this slight shifting of the facts means to Monsanto's image. Using sources properly, we can only state the number given by the organizers, citing them. It's fair to say "no independent estimates were made" too. But this has not been acceptable to any editor. They insist on adding the lowball number regardless of sourcing.
So what is uniting this group if it isn't the Wiki guidelines? If you were to guess what PR activity or image management might look like, would this be it?
Where is support for honest editors trying to use guidelines simply and appropriately on a page like this? I have never been taken to a noticeboard for my behaviour until working on this article. Three times they have tried to get me banned, all on false claims and always they failed. It is a wretched experience trying to work amongst these people. All the rules are thrown out the window, and I am standing alone. I don't know where to turn. It is an impossible undertaking to work on any Monsanto-related article unless you are in alignment with whatever MO they're operating under. Today i tried to remove the bogus source after consensus had been reached. Within 5 minutes I had been reverted three times by three separate editors, leaving the bogus source on the page and leaving me looking at another possible 3RR violation, unable to fix the page. This article gets 200 hits a day, yet we've got a team of editors ready to revert in seconds. Nothing resembling this happens at any other page I've edited. It is a wholly different experience. The three editors today had no regard for the noticeboard outcome. One I had never seen before, but noticed on their talk page a welcome note from the very guy who first tried to get me banned. The last one to show up hadn't made an edit in months, and the last edits were to this same article. It's like there are accounts being used when needed in order to keep others clean. There are obvious socks and there is obvious teamwork. I know that Wikipedia is being abused, as are the honest editors who try to edit/correct this page. I can't stress this last part enough. I am very close to giving up on Wikipedia because of what is happening with this crowd, and the fact that although I have spoken out numerous times, no one seems to care much and no one steps in to help.
Right now they are arguing on the MAM talk page that RT shouldn't be used as a source for the March. RT just so happens to be literally the only media outlet covering tomorrow's March, and was the most prolific source covering the last one. Just do a search for "March Against Monsanto", you'll see. Can you imagine how frustrating these endless games are for an editor? Now I'm looking at two more RS noticeboards: one for use of the oranges article, and now RT. Yet, I have a paying job that starts back up tomorrow.
Wikipedia is being taken over, and good editors are leaving because of it. So while you're looking at whether a certain PR firm is operating under the radar, I'm telling you this kind of activity can be seen by edits and talk page entries, by patterns of behaviour observed from ground level. We must be able to speak of the problem based on symptoms alone, untethered by a requirement to prove COI. We must have an easy way for someone like me to blow a whistle on ridiculously obvious BS such as with Monsanto articles, and to receive help, not to be asked to do this all alone, with little more than "good luck with your noticeboards". Thank you for hearing me out. petrarchan47 t c 09:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have tracked the edits on the Wiki page, ‘The Seralini affair’ carefully and I can confirm that the edits I am referring to by Wiki Users jytdog and runjonrun were an attempt to remove balance from the page by removing any information in support of the study. It was vandalism on a determined and massive scale.If we believe that comments on Seralini’s study published in lay articles in the media and from scientists associated with various regulatory bodies deserve reproduction on a Wiki page, then it is only fair to reproduce those comments supportive of the study as well as those critical of the study. The history of this Wiki page is a sign of how desperate the pro-GM lobby is to control public opinion.
Jytdog has a long and demonstrable history that shows without a doubt a strong pro-GMO and pro-Monsanto POV. It is horrifying to think this person is allowed full control over the entire suite of Monsanto and GMO articles on Wikipedia. I am not surprised that when I speak out, I become the problem and target practice ensues. It is the same reason others don't stand behind me, sharing their experiences too. In the past, editors have spoken out and expressed basically the same points I am making. One editor decided to put to the test accusations made by User:Viriditas and check out one Monsanto-related article, where s/he immediately saw what struck them as an advert right in the intro. Their edit to bring a more NPOV tone was immediately reverted, and this respected editor agreed that the Monsanto situation deserves more investigation. User:Groupuscule is another who has pushed for more neutral GMO articles and was met with the same experience. Again, this glaring problem is obvious to many, on wiki and off. Editors who speak out have to pay a high price. Editors who challenge this stranglehold at the article level will likely have no success, and will meet in no time a group who seem to live for taking people to noticeboards. Grown adults who have no shame about spending a Saturday night digging up evidence for 3RR violation or whatever might stick, to remove opponents. I've seen it time and again. There is nothing normal about the number of people and amount of dedication, 24/7, shown to a 200-hit-per-day article such as March Against Monsanto. The arguments are in unison and always 100% pro-Monsanto, which is also a giant red flag. None of this is difficult to see; all that I have said can be proven if indeed anyone cares and dares to confront this activity. petrarchan47 t c 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if someone could place here a comprehensive list of where the Wiki-Pr sock investigation is situated. I found [13] but that appears to be just one of several devoted to this problem. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Medical science has a weaker foundation compared to e.g. physics. This leaves room for activists to make propaganda in reliable sources. This makes Wikipedia vulnerable to COI editing in this topic area lot more than other topics, because sticking to the core policies of Wikipedia is not good enough for this field. A good examples are GM foods and electrosmog, many of the debates in this topic would have been closed a long time ago if physicists were in charge here.
To me this suggests that Wikipedia should change the NPOV policy by moving more toward SPOV and change the NOR policy to allow editorial decisions based on a debate about the science (which must itself be based on reliable sources) by the experts here. This would allow one to push back against POV pushing based on reliable sources where one merely cites reliable sources without discussing the fundamentals. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This PR Newswire release re "Obamacare" & Wikipedia just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:
"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Wikipedia, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency." Jimbo, are you there? What is your reaction to this? Coretheapple ( talk) 19:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all the references we use are from persons that are compensated to write them. Do we realy believe that an unpaid filter is the answer to bias or is it the unpaid reviewer? That seems to be the argument. We explicitly deride free content such as blogs. I don't really care that a page that is rarely viewed is written by a paid PR guy. Nor am I worried that a highly visible page will dominate the community with meatpuppets. So what exactly are we deriding or defending? All content originates from a paid source. What outrage am I missing? -- DHeyward ( talk) 07:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)