User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 187

Jimmy, the Newsweek article arguably begins a new era for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding Wifione's corrupt tenure as an admin.

An examination of their Request for Administrator reveals a number of Wikipedians had reservations, including this prescient !vote, in which the massive editing to the IIPN article is specifically noted as a concern. We owe the opposers in general, and editor Ben Moore in particular our collective thanks.

Jimmy, I hope you agree that Adminship is big deal (apologies for the tweak) and that Wikipedia is a battleground where big money interests are out of control. It's a virtual certainty that numerous cases even worse than this current shameful one exist.

Given that, I urge the following be required by the Wikimedia Foundation, on an emergency basis:

• Every Admin over the next year or two should undergo a new Rfa, and these should take place on a dedicated page. New requests for Adminship would continue as usual.

• A new, carefully selected user group should be created, 'Auditors,' whose function would be to specifically examine the edits of Administrators and editors to business, political and other high-profile articles where there is an obvious fiduciary or power value involved.

I am not suggesting that a majority or even a large minority of our Administrators are corrupt. But I do think the time has come to take action. I'm sure there will be the usual cries about pitchfork-wavers that we have been hearing since the failed WP:CDA in 2010. They should, and must, be discounted as patently self-interested.

My thanks, Jimmy for your consideration and hopeful advocacy for a no-nonsense, top down directive from the Wikimedia Foundation on this one. If not now, when? The stakes are too high to wait. Jusdafax 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the correct solution lies in another direction - we have tons of very good users who choose not to go through the ridiculous process that has grown up around RfA. This leads to there being too few admins and therefore an incorrect view that adminship is such a big deal that we can't take it away from people who do bad things without a huge rigamarole. Adminship should be available to more people so that we have more people able to take action against wrongdoers. And adminship should be "easy go" - removed quite easily for any sort of misbehavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, your response here is a view which many share, to some degree. You have opined thus before, and even suggested you might get involved in making this change, as I remember. RFA reform has been discussed for, oh, I dunno, a decade. Intransigence has always prevailed. If there was ever a thing you might profitably nudge a bit more, even actively advocate as a prominent, respected, community member who will be listened to, I think this is a good candidate. Why not propose something? Maybe even an RFC? Seems about time to me. Begoon ^talk 19:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, assuming guilt because there's a few bad apples in the bunch. Vandalism and BLP violations are regularly committed by new/IP editors and arguably do more damage to the encyclopedia then corrupt admins and yet any suggestion of auditing all these edits before they go live is shot down. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jimmy. As a starting point, I'd be more enthusiastic about working for "easy go" admin reform if I hadn't spent a fair amount of time five years ago on the already-noted WP:CDA, which lost because a large number of the admins !voted it down. I agree that the current process at Rfa is broken and wonder if you have any specific solutions to fix it. I recall some discussion by you on this topic a year or so back, but nothing lately. Jusdafax 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The wp:RfA process needs to be reformed into a 2-phase judgment, with the first phase to merely ask questions for several days and meanwhile delay any support/oppose !votes into the 2nd phase, days later. Currently, RfA runs like a bizarre trial which opens with a pool of jurors all shouting "Guilty" or "Innocent" (or "Support") even before the evidence can be analyzed and arguments presented or refuted for the crowd. Consequently, an RfA can be terminated within a few days, even before a candidate's background can be fully discussed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jusdafax that something has to be done, in particular about admins who edit for pay. Wifione was an admin caught doing paid editing. There have been enough paid editing agencies who have claimed administrator access that we have to consider it a possibility. There has even been an admin who claimed (off and on) to be a paid editor. The German Wikipedia also had a problem with this.

My simple 1st step would be a policy to prohibit admins from accepting pay for editing or any other Wikipedia activity, with the usual exception for GLAMS and Wikipedians-in-Residence. I'd prefer that this doesn't get caught up in the usual "we have to limit this to ... " or "we have to expand this to ...", in other words a straight up-or-down vote. I guess we'd have to add that this is not a policy that changes the terms of use requirement for declaring paid editing. It would pass with about a 90% margin if we did it fairly. Is that possible to do under current Wikipedia governance? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that paid editing by admins should raise red flags. I am particularly concerned about any whiff of extortion in Wikipedia proceedings. There was an ANI case a couple of months ago where someone was called out (by a paid editor, yet...) for jesting that he'd be glad to take money not to edit an article. Even though I know he was doing good editing and didn't mean it, my feeling was that a something would have to be done anyway, like it or not. The problem is, the U.S. has quite a severe censorship law regarding taking payment not to write things. Just ask Bill Cosby's daughter (or not?) who threatened to tell her story to the tabloids. The problem with extortion laws from our point of view is that from the beginning they've targeted publication of even truthful material - in classic 1950s shakedowns, a real photo of someone in a gay bar or the like, to be revealed unless payments were made. So if we ever get ourselves into a situation where subject(s) can say that they didn't know whether they had to pay money to avoid nasty but true things being said about them, that's a position where somebody could come down on Wikipedia and start throwing editors in prison left and right, ten, fifteen, twenty years at a time. And because the role of admins is complex, often involving the suppression of information they feel is inappropriate, I think that the option of putting an admin on the payroll can soon start to look like a shakedown that someone could call the cops about. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That strikes me as a bit complicated, but ultimately a good argument for prohibiting paid editing by admins. The extortion angle does not sound extreme, in one very well-known example of paid editing it was noted that they would hassle the articles of a company for COI violations and then go to the company to sell the comapny their editing services. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that when you say "paid for editing," it's important to use that phrase broadly. Not just being paid for editing directly, but being paid for asking others to engage in editing on your behalf, as was the case in one notorious instance involving an administrator. The administrator claimed he was not a "paid editor" because even though he was "paid" he didn't "edit" but only had someone else do his dirty work for him. That loophole needs to be shut tied, for all editors but especially administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that just a few days ago there was this case; in that one, while it's clear that there was some direct political motivation for the prosecution regarding "revenge porn", what truly sunk the site operator was his demands for $250 to take down images, which is practically a replay of the old 1950s mob racket. Because this kind of censorship seems to "save reputations" while putting racketeers out of business it's extremely tempting to support it, but the real answer is to end the underlying pervasive discrimination that the people blackmailed feel they need to be protected against. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If paid editing is intrinsically bad (because COI, NPOV, SPAM), then its bad whoever does it. Its not more bad if the bad person has additional flags. Point: if we're against paid editing we should ban paid editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The perfect can be the enemy of the good. I'll suggest prohibiting paid administrators first, and tackle the other cases later. There's no case whatsoever for allowing paid admins. We can deal with this now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I think if you look at hypothetical situations that can arise, you'll see a difference. If I as an editor decided to hang out my shingle offering to edit for pay, I can try to push through an article about a company that hires me. But if a company never contacts me, it's really unlikely I'm ever going to write about them - so there's no pressure, no extortion. Of course, you can make something extortion if you start sending threatening emails to a company, and Wikipedia can't do anything to prevent someone from getting in trouble that way, but provided they respond to any on-wiki threats I'd make to target a company unless they pay me, they can prevent extortion from being a possibility in on-wiki communications.

Now contrast the situation with an admin who hangs out his shingle. Because the number of active admins is limited, and some tend to take on more specialized roles, a company might feel like it has as much as a 10% chance of needing that admin's intervention each time someone targets it (whether rightly or wrongly). So if there's some data out there that indicates that the admin tends to block people who write something unfortunate about a client company, and speedy delete articles about a client's controversies if there's anything out of place, while the same admin maybe warned people who wrote about a non-client, and put up those articles for AfD... well, there's two ways you can interpret that. You can say the admin is biasing the encyclopedia procedures in favor of his clients - which is definitely not good, but not racketeering per se - or you can say the admin is biasing procedure against those who refuse to pay him, and committing extortion. The more clients he gets the easier it will be to phrase this in terms of the second scenario. And the problem with racketeering, remember, is that those prosecutions tend to spread out, affect a lot of people, with some fairly abstract claims of conspiracy, and the ever-hungry Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act which is intended to be used to take over or destroy more or less innocent organizations in which a few racketeers have taken root. So Wikipedia really, really doesn't want to be anywhere near this. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: OK, now I don't want everyone to laugh at me for saying this, but administrators are supposed to set an example. Funny, right? But until we abolish that requirement, which may be advisable as it is a bit silly, then I suggest that we to through the motions by preventing admins from being whores. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, must be too late at night for me, I didn't get what you were trying to say, will re-read it in the morning. Coretheapple, I entirely agree with you re admins being supposed to set an example. I'd simply add that you can't set an example until someone actually defines the bad behaviour that you're setting an example by not doing. We don't have a policy against disclosed paid editing. Notwithstanding the impossibility of enforcement, I think we should have a policy banning paid editing in all its forms. But that policy seems like a necessary first step, and then admins can set an example by being vigorous upholders of it. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But as you know, efforts to prohibit paid editing on Wikipedia have been stymied, and are unlikely because of a combination of lack of real-world experience and a generally heads-up-butts attitude on this issue. However, the more limited objective of changing the administrator policy, to prohibit them from engaging in paid editing, might have less of a chance of being soundly defeated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, our existing guidelines state that "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Because COI editing is merely "strongly discouraged" rather than "prohibited", the guideline is routinely ignored, but there is in fact some guidance about what not to do. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But the terms of use specifically prohibit one particular type of COI editing - undisclosed paid editing. That's policy. I think it's not enough and that we can and should go much further, but even I agree that it serves as a useful tool.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago we tried to actually incorporate the TOU change into policy (it is just mentioned in the guideline), and we had to wage World War III and it was not successful. Leading the charge on the other side was an administrator who himself had benefitted from a sweet deal where he got paid by the subject of an article and then got another editor to do the edit for him. So he was paid but not a paid editor. LOL Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, I think that even mentioning the TOU in the guideline was resisted fiercely by many including the aforementioned not-paid-editor admin. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation - an admin got paid by the subject of an article and got another editor to do an edit to get around the terms of use restriction against paid editing? I've never heard that story - if you can name names, even privately, and give evidence, I would be very eager to hear about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, as there were no restrictions on paid editing at the time. This was pre-TOU. It was discussed on this page I believe, and possibly also on AN/I too. Openly admitted, as if it was nothing, and this editor is very unhappy when he is referred to as a paid editor. The admin in question has retired but has left the door open to getting his tools back if he ever decides to return, which doesn't thrill me but I think it's automatic. He admitted it, as he felt there was nothing wrong with it. These are the kind of misfits you have as administrators. Makes me want to throw up. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the link to the disclosure. OK, just to be absolutely precise, someone paid this administrator to write up an article, which he did, and then this person posted it using an SPI user account. So you see, that's not being a paid editor! That's being a paid ghostwriter you might say. I guess that one of the nice things about being an admin is that you can make money like this and take a lie detector test and pass it if asked if you're a paid editor. Sounds like a great form of moonlighting for admins. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC)If you (Jimmy) want a general description with some evidence, I think I can guess what Coretheapple is talking about. I don't think I'd state it quite as strongly as he did, and I may not have all the evidence he does, but you can get the basic story in private (just let me know, e.g. via my e-mail on my user page).

The basic idea of having somebody else do the editing for you is now standard operating procedure for paid "non-editors", e.g. Wiki-PR and Wiki-Experts. The examples are not admins though. (I'm actually very surprised that WMF legal cannot get these current ads taken down, given that both companies are banned from editing here). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It happened on this user talk page, in the archives, so if he wants I can post a link to that, as long as the details that I've described interest him enough for that. After it happened, I recall it got a bit ugly. He tried to out you as I recall. His user page is a WP:POLEMIC attesting to his honesty and the evil of you and, especially, me. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that user page before. It would have been nice if he pinged me, but I would have just gotten mad at the personal attacks. Now it just looks hilarious. I suppose if someone lives in his environment and really believes that Fox News is fair and unbiased, he could really believe what he said. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones:It is pathetic, isn't it? Anyway, I have gotten the paid-editing community riled up enough through my editing of MyWikiBiz (now the subject of an RfC, if anyone is interested), so I am getting a bit burned out on this entire issue anyway. The ball is in Jimbo's court as far as this admin is concerned. If he would like me to refresh his memory, I can post a link to the discussion here. Coretheapple (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(He might have to ping me, if he desires said link, as I am not really following this discussion very closely.) Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, everyone, I'll refocus my original proposals above. Let's drop the idea of reconfirming all admins, which even in the light of Wifione's activities, has gained little enthusiasm. I do like Jimmy's statement about making it much easier to gain, and lose, the admin flag. I also believe that would have to come as a top-down directive from the parent WMF. So, to restate:

• Prohibit all paid editing. Administrators found to be doing so would be subject to permanent de-adminship, and a block of editing privileges with the length TBD. And secondly, as before:
• A new, carefully selected user group should be created, 'Auditors,' whose function would be to specifically examine the edits of Administrators and editors to business, political and other high-profile articles where there is an obvious fiduciary or power value involved.

I think these two proposals will go a long way towards detecting and preventing future Wifione's. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first proposal makes obvious sense, but I don't think we need a class of super-users. That's the problem with the current system. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but here is the outstanding feature, as I see it. The new Auditor group would have no extra powers. They would be investigators, able to ask questions and look into edit histories only. They could request a sock puppet investigation, like any user. They would report to ArbCom or in sensitive circumstances to the WMF. They would be tasked with looking at Admin and regular user edits and behavior in regards to big-ticket issues. They would have a set term, perhaps two years. And the group would have no Admins, being comprised of long-term, trusted users who, again, are carefully selected not by the community but by Jimmy and the WMF, and required to disclose their identities. The advantage this group would have: they would be able to function without fear of reprisal from Admins or community members for asking questions or openly discussing edit patterns of prominent editors. Jusdafax 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But isn't that what we're all supposed to do? Police articles and such? I don't quite get what would distinguish these people from ordinary users who like to stick their nose into things and don't mind getting yelled at a lot. Coretheapple (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting yelled at, for average non-admin users, is sometimes the prelude to a block. No one wants that. This proposed user group, Auditors, identified to the WMF, would be answerable only to the IMF and Jimmy. It would be a tightly knit, intercommunicating squad of 10-20 members. It would have a co-ordinator and assistant co-ordinator. It could possibly use sophisticated programs to track editor inter-relationships and edit patterns. The Auditor's Watchlist would be suspected abusers of Wikipedia's policies. I do acknowledge that the ban on all paid editing would likely be a prerequisite for this squad to work. I also feel that this group should not be on the payroll of the WMF. Serving as an Auditor would be strictly volunteer work, and be an honor. Who will watch the watchers? The Auditors. Jusdafax 02:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's surprising this doesn't already exist. We've known for some time that the dwindling pool of independent editors is no match for those areas of Wikipedia targeted by special interests. petrarchan47tc 07:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree fully. The Wifione Case has got to be treated as a wake-up call. It is now obvious to most editors here that some clever and manipulative forces are at work on slanting articles for financial gain. There can be no doubt that the money involved can be substantial, per this case. These are real world victims, with real world pain, and our failure to detect and ban Wifione is our collective shame. I don't claim to be any better than anyone else, either, as at one point I awarded Wifione a Barnstar! I therefore feel a personal need to urge corrective measures, and I think that a permanent ban on paid editing, along with a clever and effective band of Auditors, will be an important step in retaking the encyclopedia from those who would game our system, just to make money. Jusdafax 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the auditors, I think it's a question of personnel. The devil is in the details. I have been disillusioned by the judgment and maturity of many of the admins I've encountered or witnessed, and knowing their real name does not guarantee quality performance. That's why I hesitate as to that. They would not have power, but they would have access to power, and I wonder if the people so charged could be a force for bad as well as good. As it is it takes gelignite to blast bad administrators out of their positions. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] We have been attempting to address this at Sarah (SV)'s talk page, where the idea of a task force was discussed. Sarah made a good point about editor burnout with relation to the time-consuming work such investigation would entail. Her suggestion was to apply for a grant from the Foundation and pay the (in this case) team of Auditors. I do agree that it would be an honor to do such work, but realistically, it seems we would want the team to be armed with more than passion and conviction as the "manipulative forces" are themselves well-armed and likely well-compensated, regardless of whether WP officially bans paid editing or not. Paid or not, the team would be a good way to restore some of the public's faith in Wikipedia. The creation of such a team is a perfect response to the WifiOne case, and certainly beats the hollow apology issued by the Foundation. petrarchan47tc 23:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict) I was just about to add, re Wifone: I have to say this is the first time I've read about that situation. It is staggering. It shows how Wikipedia can ruin people's lives. I disagree with statements some people have made indicating that we should make it easier to become an admin. Hello? What this case indicates is how important it is to vet admins very careflly, to make it easier to get rid of them, and to hold admins to the same standards as anyone else. Just a few hours ago, after an extremely questionable edit by an admin who is also a checkuser and a this and a that AND has an in-your-face COI, a user said to me the following: "XXXX is also a Wikipedia administrator, OTRS volunteer, checkuser, and oversighter. Her reputation in this project is impeccable, so there's yet another tree for you cease barking at." That's a very common attitude, but rarely articulated. Having an admin on your side in a discussion is a big deal. They can call what they do "admin actions" and throw the rulebook out the window. Particularly in COI situations, as there is no friggin rulebook, just a guideline that they are happy to violate because, after all, they're administrators. You don't like it? Lump it. Their word is law. Correcting their mistakes is verboten - either you got to ANI and get your head handed to you by other admins, or an admin steps in and engages in the forbidden practice known around here as "wheel warring." And I know what people are going to say: "What about arbcom? Look at them desysopping admins." I wouldn't go to arbcom about an admin if he was committing high treason in Macy's window. Arbcom decisions are completely unpredictable, and they can turn on the accuser as much as they can on the accused.

Coretheapple Out of curiosity, name a recent Arbcom case about admin abuse, that had its outcome turned on its accuser. Please note this is not a rhetorical question - I hear this a lot on this page and briefly discussed it with Begoon in an earlier thread. Several people say they won't go to Arbcom re admin abuse allegations, because they fear being sanctioned for raising concerns. No one can provide evidence of this actually occurring, but it's repeated often enough that I'm willing to believe its a genuine belief. Keen to know where it comes from, so it can Be properly addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

COI Accuser is banned here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So let's be honest about this, Jimbo. The idea that admins are just ordinary users who have a "mop" is a lot of bunk. They're super-users, and very often their heads are so far up their rears they can chew their own livers. Wifone was no surprise at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Core, Petra, thanks. I was unaware of the talkpage discussion mentioned, and the ArbCom ruling. But this is the beauty of talking about this on Jimmy's page. The light shining here is bright, and until told otherwise we are welcome to discuss these ideas openly, without fear of reprisal. At least that's how I'm choosing to operate. The disaster that is the Wifione Case and the attendant international publicity have put a great hurt on Wikipedia. Now is the time to move forward with bold proposals to Jimmy and the WMF. I will start a new subsection for convenience. Jusdafax 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to dump on admins too much, by the way, because admins just reflect the volunteer community as a whole, and are probably the "elite" thereof, which might be the scary part. Perhaps what's needed is a paid staff of professional editors who can deal with thorny situations, reporting only to the WMF? Sort of a professional ombudsman? Otherwise you're just going to get one Wifone after another. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: So what current admin is the next Wifone? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any "next Wifone," but I do know that if an administrator disregards WP:COI, as we keep seeing at Wikipediocracy, where a self-described founder keeps editing this article [1][2], and is backed up by another administrator involved in the website[3] that signals to editors and other administrators that there is a double standard of enforcement of WP:COI. It also can be an embarrassment if the media were to ever write about this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Why is this a thorny situation requiring the need for Auditors? There's no hidden connection here, no intent to deceive like there was with Wifone. You keep saying we need auditors to prevent the Wifone situation happening again and again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Because administrators view themselves as "above the law," which they are. In a sense, they are the law, and non-administrators are at their mercy depending upon whether they are good or bad. If they wish to disregard WP:COI, well if you don't like it you can lump it. That's the mindset on exhibit on the Wikipediocracy page. Wifione epitomized a mindset I have seen more than once in COI situations involving administrators, in which administrators act as if (and in one instance, not this one, actually said) that they viewed their ability to shirk WP:COI as a kind of "perk" for all the good work they've done for the project. It's a sense of entitlement. Since current mechanisms, controlled by other admins, are useless in such situations, you need a separate apparatus to deal with them, a check on administrator conduct that does not consist of other administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, who is the administrator who said that shirking COI was a perk of the job? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll get the diffs for that and, if Jimbo asks, I shall provide. I have the diffs for the previous issue I mentioned, but he hasn't asked. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, thanks but I think you should post the diffs right here. If someone's going around boasting that they are editing outside of policy, it should be made public so it can be addressed. This is particularly the case if that person is an administrator, There's no need for the diffs to be secret material provided only to Jimbo. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, for the reason previously stated I don't feel comfortable posting links unless specifically requested by Mr. W. Smallbones just alluded to him in a post, so if he feels a greater comfort level I'm sure he can post the same diffs if he chooses to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wifione scandal is a good example of how administrators shrug off COI when the COI is committed by other admins. I'm quoting from an article on the scandal (in "Wikipediocracy" by the way):

...in January 2012 a complainant alleged that Wifione was putting spin into the IIPM article, and removing criticism. Was this a PR exercise? “Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question”. But the complaint was slapped down by another administrator, saying that Wifione was not compelled to answer conflict of interest questions, and that “repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment”. Later, when we politely questioned him about his conflict of interest by email, he was able to complain of harassment as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, and requested that the account we used be blocked from Wikipedia. Administrators are held in such a degree of trust on Wikipedia that it is almost impossible to challenge them.

Whether something was "hidden" or not is beside the point. Admins feel they can get away with COI and they do. The fact that this article was from Wikipediocracy, and the most recent example of this attitude was in Talk:Wikipediocracy, adds an ironic note to the current COI situation in that article. The takeaway is that editors need a place to go, outside the Wikipedia framework, when Wikipedia admins themselves are engaged in COI. The auditors proposal is a step in that direction. If there had been such an apparatus, this scandal would have been nipped in the bud, no matter how poorly functioning the Indian legal system.Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems you want to set up an unelected alternative to Arbcom, not answerable to the community. No thanks. And taking the opinions of Wikipediocracy on Wikipedia at face value? Come on. Simple question: Do you think the edits of Alison and SB Johnny are against Wikipedia policy? If yes, open an Arbcom case. If no, what are the auditors going to do here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the whole idea is to circumvent the current process, as do auditors and inspectors general. And yes, Arbcom is a remedy when administrators misbehave and in this instance may be appropriate if it continues. So you get two yeses! Good for you. Coretheapple (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Which tells me nothing about what auditors could do that you cannot do right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Auditors would have no special powers. However as I see it, in my as yet unwritten formal proposal, it will come down to this: Auditors cannot be blocked with impunity. An Admin blocking an Auditor would be subject to an immediate review, and harsh sanctions, should the block not be upheld by the WMF. This presupposes WMF co-operation on the concept, and the hiring of one or more WMF Auditor Overseers, who would help, recruit, train and oversee Auditors. An Auditor's public questioning of an editor or admin would therefore not be subject to the usual downward spiral as described in the informal proposal section below. Jusdafax 04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, many if not most editors cannot be blocked with impunity, especially veteran editors. But since you're not interested in community input on this, I'll leave you be and watch with interest if your proposal goes anywhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As for blocking, I think the hero of this story, Vejvančický, appears to be nearly unique in his persistent bravery. There was also the off-wiki pressure which, while not my style, appears to have been a factor. As for me, I am indeed interested in community input on my Auditors proposal, just not a hostile "gotcha" debate where, as we see right in these proposal threads, the goal appears to me to be to demand specific diffs and then use those against editors with threats or actual sanctions. Core's quote from the Newsweek article, just above, illustrates how this tactic works. But I repeat, as a community, we are too divided to be able to make major changes to the current paradigm. After six years of serious study of Wikipedia, that's my conclusion, anyway, and as I see it only WMF intervention, with Jimmy acting forcefully as the lead advocate, can make a difference now. Unfortunately, we may need a scandal that dwarfs the Wifione Case to finally get a positive Cascade effect going. Jusdafax 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"I will be blunt and say again, this proposal will never be built properly, much less get off the ground, if it has to gain community consensus.", "Only a fast, top-down solution, designed to show clearly that the WMF will have zero tolerance for further gamesmanship, will remedy the situation." Okay, so you'd like one-sided input? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd love ideas. Don't like mine? What's yours? Jusdafax 03:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I found this news story interesting. Amazon is taking legal action against four firms 'that pay people to produce reviews that then appear on the online retailer's site'. Apparently this legal approach has met with some success: 'Since the legal action was filed two of the sites named have gone offline'. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting! I don't know enough about the legal technicalities to have a strong opinion about whether this would be a viable approach for us - but I would love it if it were.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any connection between companies that "astroturf" fictional product reviews and individuals or companies that pay for the skill of Wikipedia editing. Again for all you hyperventilating anti-paid editing people: concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  The connection is the nature of Amazon's complaint: the contributions undermine trust in Amazon's content by posting material that Amazon's readers expect to be unbiased, but in fact is paid. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia could likewise be said to undermine trust in Wikipedia's content. An example is the recent Newsweek article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, I'd love to hear your response to that. It's easy to spout slurs like "hyperventilating" (when, obviously, no one is). Undisclosed paid advocacy is an issue all over the Internet, and we have as much (or more) reason to oppose it as anyone. "Concentrate on the edits, not the editor" is a ducking of moral responsibility.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the "ducking of moral responsibility" is the failure to connect real life identities with content created in any meaningful way. The only way to stop conflict of interest editing (commercial or non-commercial) is to require transparency in the form of real name registration and sign-in-to-edit so that real life COI angles can be investigated and violators of NPOV be shown the door in a binding sort of way. As things stand now, "anybody can edit" is interpreted to mean that any anonymous person can contribute any information without further ado, and it is a punishable offense called "outing" to explore the real life connections between contributor and content. THAT'S the ducking of moral responsibility. "Concentrate on the edits, not the editor" is the sensible, practical, WP-rule-conforming way to address the implied problem of COI editing — violations of NPOV. Instead of, yes, hyperventilating about dastardly paid editors and their nefarious ways, Wikipedians should be advised to watch out for violations of NPOV and to take action against those edits and those who systematically create them. Obsessing about the real life identity of IP 123.45.678.901 and whether Dullscorp gave 123.45.678.901 money to write the article Dullscorp (and 50,000 other similar cases) is an unwinnable crusade.

Now, as for my response to the above, the question is not whether readers' "expectations" are being abused, the question is whether fraudulent, fictional information is being inserted to expedite commerce. Such is an illegal trade practice. You know this. Hiring a Wikipedia editor is on its face more akin to hiring a home remodeler to fix the sheetrock in one's living room. Carrite (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's completely absurd. Undisclosed paid advocacy happens every day in the mass media by people on television, radio, and in print, reaching far more of an audience than any Wikipedia articles' topics, all under their real names. See http://shameproject.com for some of the most egregious examples. EllenCT (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The two cases have similarity but there is one big difference...promotional articles on Wikipedia can affect a reader's opinion on a person or company but phony reviews on Amazon influence people's purchasing decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You think promotional articles on Wikipedia don't influence purchasing decisions? If you can evidence that then we could solve all our spam problems just by demonstrating your evidence to the marketing industry. ϢereSpielChequers 23:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

15,000 Indian students had their purchasing decisions affected by User:Wifione. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I spoke with someone from the Federal Trade Commission about this a while back. The person I talked to said they were unlikely to take an interest in content removals, BLPs, or general puffery, but would be interested in cases where non-disclosed COI editors successfully incorporate false product claims and overtly slanted Reception sections that could influence purchasing decisions. One problem with this is that in order to provide an example of a successful edit, we have to know of a problem edit and leave it be. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that there are legal similarities between the Amazon situation and our challenges in dealing with undisclosed paid editing, I hope that WMF legal staff will study this case, and take future legal action against businesses and individuals that violate our Terms of Service. One difference is that an Amazon review (much like a Yelp review) is a discrete chunk of writing by one entity. Our articles are "crowdsourced" as the saying goes, and can be edited by anyone, so anyone who sees an "ad" or "spam" on Wikipedia can edit and improve the article. They can either edit for NPOV if the topic is notable, or use our deletion processes if the topic isn't. As for the claim by Smallbones that 15,000 Indian students relied on the English Wikipedia article to make their decision to enroll in this school, I want to see the hard evidence of that. The primary culprits are the operators of the school, the Indian news media and the Indian government. Yes, Wikipedia screwed up but Wikipedia critics, please never forget who was primarily responsible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

hard evidence from Newsweek

"After the negative articles came out about IIPM, it became harder to attract students through conventional marketing. That was when IIPM's Wikipedia page became its primary lure, though it has never been conclusively proved that Wifione was being run by Chaudhuri or his company. Wifione began operating on the site around the same time critical articles about IIPM began to surface.

"Many of the articles Wifione removed from IIPM’s Wikipedia page were from Careers360. In 2011, another magazine, The Caravan, interviewed Chaudhuri and published a highly critical investigation. The link to this, too, was removed from the Wikipedia page.

....

"For poor students from rural areas of India, Wikipedia was often the only source of information they could use to research which business school to attend. “They don't really understand how Wikipedia works. It is just a web page to them,” Peri says.

....

“In my opinion, by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students’ lives,” Peri says. “They should have kept track of Wifione and what they were doing—they were just so active." "

Sure other people were involved, but so was Wikipedia. I think we all have to accept some responsibility for that. More importantly, if we don't do something now, we will certainly be morally responsible for the next Wifione-style debacle. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, Smallbones, it is now clear that you and I have read the same article which makes the claim that someone named "Peri" is of the "opinion" that, for "poor students from rural areas of India", Wikipedia was "often the only source of information". Let's examine that claim. If these "poor students" had Internet access to Wikipedia, didn't they also have access to websites of the Indian government? Didn't they also have access to the websites of respected newspapers like The Hindu? If one source says that some guy named Peri wants to place the blame solely on Wikipedia, and assign the number of 15,000 to Wikipedia's alleged guilt, then don't you, as a responsible editor exercising your independent editorial judgment, want to see better evidence than this? Again, I am not denying that Wikipedia screwed up here, but I question the 15,000 figure laid at Wikipedia's feet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Peri is a magazine publisher that has been embroiled in 2 libel suits by the school. He's unhappy that links to his exposés were removed from Wikipedia by Wifione and pulls the number 15,000 from the sky as the number of people affected by that lost link. Ummm, okay. If Newsweek reprints what he said, it doesn't make it true. The number is plucked from thin air. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen, Chaudhuri's influence extended even to government websites. As for Peri, as far as I can see he was the one person who stood alone against legal threats from IIPM. Keep on blaming the victims, both of you (looking at you Tim). 5.80.82.33 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No one, not me, and not Carrite, is "blaming the victims" here, and I encourage you to redact that slur. Please recognize that one man's opinion (who may well be a useful critic), summarized in one U.S. news magazine, does not amount to a proven fact. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I love IP editors. They are very brave. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

However many it was, we failed them. We got used. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, If these "poor students" had Internet access to Wikipedia, didn't they also have access to websites of the Indian government? Didn't they also have access to the websites of respected newspapers like The Hindu? Only if they could afford to, and were willing to pay extra for it. From 2013, Wikipedia Zero provided free access to the content manipulated by Wifione. Begoon ^talk 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. We are not here to provide a Complete User Guide to Consumer Products. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. If students are incapable of doing research beyond "What Wikipedia says," they should not be going to university (or business school) in the first place. That's not "blaming the victim," that is stating a fact. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Bollocks. In the now archived thread I commented on an editor blaming the victims. I never thought I'd have to add you to that group, Tim. For shame. We need to have responsibility for what we create, and an understanding of how it affects the real world. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Indeed, but that doesn't necessitate leaving our compassion, morals and common sense at the door every time we log on. That attitude is abhorrent. Begoon ^talk 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is abhorrent. Since I am retired, I consider the time that I spend editing here as my volunteer work of sorts. If I thought for one minute that the many hours that I have spent editing this free encyclopedia were not hours spent working for an organization that not only sought to maintain the highest of standards but took responsibility for its mistakes, even to the point of feeling the pain that it may have caused to any of our readers, I'd quit in a minute. Why else, for example, do we work so hard to keep our medical articles up to date and accurate? Because what we write here is taken to be factual by the many, and it's our duty to try and get it right. To take the attitude "oh they should have known better" is really just totally lacking in any sort of moral responsibility at all. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the biggest difference between Wikipedia and Yelp is that Yelp is a collection of opinions and Wikipedia is, or at least is supposed to be, a collection of facts. Thus paid editing presents an even graver issue for Wikipedia, in terms of readers expecting those facts to be assembled by someone other than the subject of the article. Notice how this discussion immediately deteriorated amid the usual apologias for paid editing. That is why it took action by the WMF, unprompted by "communityy consensus,"

to change the TOU, and it is I imagine why User:Jusdafax made his "appeal to Jimbo", not the community, re his auditors idea. The community is just simply out to lunch on this entire issue, always has been and probably always will be. If you don't believe me, just look about at the typical conversation that ensued when paid editing is called into question. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Which typical conversation ? Begoon ^talk 19:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another typical conversation. An attempt to address COI editing patterns is vigorously opposed. David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This very discussion is the one I was talking about, fits what I'm saying to a T. Amazon has commenced suits against people abusing its franchise. Here, such a positive attitude toward self-preservation would be impossible if the decision were left up to a "community" with zero stake, as individuals, in the Wikipedia brand. The WMF has a responsibility to protect that brand and not "defer to the community" (i.e., do nothing). Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is useful to evaluate how other websites have handled it and discuss both the similarities and differences. My main takeaway from the FTC discussion was that only when the edits themselves are materially deceptive does it escalate to being a legal issue. In other words, it is the edits that count.

As far as WMF, they have always handled a small number of extreme cases on many issues, but I think one of their own employees having been caught engaging in similar practices puts them in a difficult position to pursue it. I do think the community itself can find a way to activate legal resources without their help, such as through the FTC, in cases where the edits are overtly deceptive and done in bad-faith, in order to set an example. CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Disclosure this user frequently contributes to Wikipedia for pay.

It's not just lawsuits. Look at Yelp. It has sued businesses that review themselves [4], but not stopped at that. The problem of undisclosed COI contributions is dealt with by Yelp through an algorithm that the rated businesses absolutely hate, and which is designed to remove COI contributions at the moment they are made. I'm not suggesting that we do that, but it shows how seriously user-contributed websites view the issue. Yelp and Amazon illustrate how the real world deals with the problem: decisively, with litigation and more. What does Wikipedia do? It engages in endless thumb-sucking discussions among a "community" that doesn't give a shit, has an immense moral blind spot and no sense of responsibility, and is supervised by a board that, to date, has taken only limited steps to deal with this issue, a TOU change that it instituted after extensive hand-wringing. Pathetic. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as creating an algorithm, this can be done by the community using BOTs, or through a WMF Grant. As far as lawsuits, it's probably impractical to expect so many without a major corporate backer, but at least one could be done to set an example in a manner that is pursued by the community. You are complaining that nobody is doing these things, but then my question becomes, why aren't you doing it? :-p CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek here corp, but let's say for the sake of argument that I was a multimillionaire and had the financial wherewithal to contribute a substantial sum to Wikipedia for a legal fund to do that kind of thing. I might, but it wouldn't be a high priority, because I as an individual volunteer have no personal stake in Wikipedia's paid editing problem. I feel strongly about it, but I have no "skin in the game," it doesn't bother me or any other individual editor here. The only editor it does bother personally, or should, is Jimmy Wales. I think that lack of personal jeopardy is one of the main reasons the community doesn't give a hill of beans about paid editing. If you look at my user page I've made that point myself quite a while ago. Coretheapple (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For someone who has no skin in the game and to whom which paid editng does not bother you, you do spend a lot of time arguing about it. On the contrary, I'd argue that as curators of an encyclopedia which can influence the decisions of millions if not billions of people, we all have skin in the game, and I think everybody, no matter where they stand on fighting COI issues, knows the COI editing is a problem.However, the reason why the community has time and time again rebuffed anti-paid editing efforts is that invariably these efforts create new policy and are too draconian or radical. These proposals are also intended as the "master plan" or "final solution" for COI editing when in reality we haven't taken those small steps, simply finding and identifying COI editing while also working within current policy, which I find very nonrestrictive in what can be done. We need to start small before we take those big steps. KonveyorBelt 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right, and Wikipedia has perfected the apocryphal Chinese saying "an endless journey begins with a single step." Every paid editing proposal gets argued to death, as we are doing here now. That's because editors as individuals have no skin in the game, don't understand the concept of COI and in my opinion never will. That is also why Jusdafax made this an "appeal to Jimmy." But you are right, since we have no skin in the game, there is little point in arguing ourselves horse over it. I have (or had) an essay on my talk page to the effect that paid editing "is not our problem" but yes, seeing the so-called community deal with this, it is tempting to weigh in even though it is a waste of time and pretty much hopeless. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

People care just enough to complain about it... I imagine it's more like the sustainable energy debate, which didn't settle on a single replacement for oil, but on a series of alternatives, with each working best in different cases. In politics, they would typically address something like that with a package of legislative proposals that go through extensive hammering-out before being put to a vote. The "Anti-POV Pushing Act of 2016". CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've done some work for an analytics software company and a couple analytical specialists from their user community have shown an interest in creating an analytics tool that would help in identifying socking accounts. I've started a draft grant suggestion here. For obvious reasons, I have listed myself as a volunteer and suggested all payment go to the developers. The proposed analytics tool is very different than the kind of automated filtering that Yelp does (disclosure I have a COI with Yelp), but I think is better suited for Wikipedia, as I think we have a pretty low tolerance for false positives and would certainly not want automatically filtered edits. This would not require WMF's involvement at all, except to approve the grant if there is consensus for it of course. It's also worth noting the proposal is only for a feasibility study.

Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• God no. The only research that gets funded anymore is for ever fancier ways for owners of big computers to spy on the rest of us, and so unsurprisingly that's most of what we see invented. I don't doubt this will be done, but this kind of spymastering is not Wikipedia's mission. Wnt (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's very strange to associate analyzing publicly available contribution records with stuff like tapping private phone calls. Such analysis of editing histories is in fact already done by humans and having it done by a computer doesn't suddenly make the data private and the action spying. CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You can say the same thing about inventing technology which allows "the average citizen" to do night vision, terahertz imaging; to make drone aircraft, or pills with tracking features, or unique "quantum dot" barcodes for injectables. But due to the one-sided class war, always these things are available to be used on the common person, and virtually never by him. If you actually put in the effort to invent this thing, will you really set up a web interface that any random user can use to "out" any editor by searching for his other writings on Wikipedia and across the web? Or will you hoard it as another tool to reinforce the hierarchy of Wikipedia, to enhance the power that the checkusers have relative to the new user? So profound is the reach of social inequality and the spy state that science itself has been sullied, and "intelligence" has gone from being a gift of God to the embossed threat on so many products that people pretend to buy but instead sell themselves to. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wnt that Wikipedia is not a good place for that kind of approach. A more case-by-case evaluation by an "inspector general" type, not behold to the current power structure, such as Jusdafax's "auditors" idea, is the best way to deal with COI situations, especially in which administrators are involved. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That three different Wikipedia editors reverted this material back into the lead of a biography of a living person suggests that we have a problem with enforcing Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If we did not have that problem, less living people would feel compelled to hire paid advocates to try to deal with issues like this. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with the principle that Wikipedia can discourage some paid contributions by better fixing its own neutrality problems. Often it's a critic or legal antagonist that makes excessively negative content that makes paid contributions the company's only recourse. Public Storage is a perfect example of this (COI disclosure). Who else would write the rest of the article on this very boring company besides a paid editor? I certainly wouldn't volunteer my spare time for such an un-interesting task.

Regarding the proposal, one alternative would be to do something that essentially puts edits into pending changes, only if the majority of the editor's contributions are on a single page. Most blatant attack or promo content is done by SPAs. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've thought for a long time that paid editing ought to be permitted under circumstances equivalent to where we let people edit their own BLP. Just like in a BLP, often it is only the subject of the article who has any interest in and motivation for finding and removing inaccuracies. Other people either don't pretend to care, or do pretend to care but prefer bureaucracy over fixing the problem. This matters just as much when the subject is a company as when the subject is an individual. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

After a number of people encouraged me to do this, I politely request someone here to move the post below to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where this sort of thing normally goes. Apologies for posting here, but it’s the only place where it’s (sort of) allowed for banned editors to post. If you feel it’s altogether inappropriate, please remove altogether. Thanks also to Jimmy for allowing an open door here. You and I don’t always see eye to eye, but you do the right thing in allowing free and open debate in at least one part of the project. Thanks 86.132.251.83 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am editor Peter Damian. I started contributing to Wikipedia in 2003, and started (or was the major contributor to) many articles in Wikipedia, including logic and set theory, architecture, London places, and in particular medieval logic and philosophy, on which I am a published author, [5]. I was banned in August 2009 after accusing an administrator and ex-arbitrator of sockpuppeting.

After the ban I edited from other accounts, creating a number of articles and improving many others. This upset many Wikipedians – no one has ever complained to my knowledge about the quality of the content, but I was breaking the rules. So I stopped, and haven't touched Wikipedia in any significant way for nearly 3 years. (I occasionally edit Jimmy's page as an IP). I am a frequent contributor to Wikipediocracy and I wrote some of the exposés that found their way into the mainstream media.

I appeal to the community to revoke the ban of 2009. Most of the signatories of the ban are now either banned themselves, or have left, or were sockpuppet accounts created specifically to support the ban, but I welcome comments from other members of the community. user:Peter Damian

Copied, as requested. Begoon ^talk 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :) 86.132.251.83 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope it goes well for you, and doesn't just get dumped into some kind of "spam" folder. Begoon ^talk 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support. I'll note that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Peter_Damian_appeal_to_revoke_2009_ban, and urge others to do the same. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Request more evidence: I would like to see the case where Mr. Damian was banned, and a list of accusers who Mr. Damian said have been banned, left, and were sock puppets, his defense then, and his defense now as to why the original decision was in error. They should all be notified of the request by Mr. Damian to lift the ban and allowed to express their side of the story--whatever that was. We need to hear from the accusers for this to be a fair plea IMHO. David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Troubling: I find it really troubling that so many people have already supported the request to have Mr. Damian reinstated before those who asked for the ban have even been notified or had a chance to speak or even look at the self-admitted sockpuppetting. Why are we not looking at evidence first? What kind of process is this? David Tornheim (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's funny how WP:OWN doesn't get applied to bans or other admin-ish stuff. Process indeed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I think David has raised a legitimate point. Can someone link to the case where he was banned? Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Core. I believe this is the key case ("more history" and Arbcom discussion here), which I got from here. Credit for links provided by @KoshVorlon: here David Tornheim (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There were two comments made here about the supposed 'ban' from WMUK events. As the comment from Richard Symonds here makes very clear, the 'ban' was immediately revoked after I met in person with Jon Davies and Richard Symonds at WMUK offices, and an apology made, and accepted by me. Since then I have had a number of cordial meetings with Jon and Richard and a number of other WMUK members and even attended their party at London Wikimania. The ban notice was actually withdrawn from their mailing board by the WMF. I would very much appreciate it if someone could make this clear in the discussion at WP:AN, where I am not allowed to post. 86.132.251.83 (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Damian has been unbanned and unblocked per consensus on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC).

I feel like Rip van Winkle. You get Facebook style alerts and everything. Anyway, thank you to everyone who participated in the vote, however they voted, I'm sure everyone had their reasons. Thanks also to Jimmy (who hasn't been around for a bit) for the use of his talk page. I shall be good. Thank you all again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Peter. Write some good stuff. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo! Not sure whether you consider yourself a Southerner-- but as someone who has lived in the South, I'm hoping you have some practical experience with race relations in the US, and some thoughts on how you would like to see this handled on the site.

An interesting remark at the discussion on Articles for deletion/African american men in computer science suggests that the low participation of African Americans has moved past "breaking the color bar" and is now more an "issue of systemic bias, not racism."

Do have any thoughts on how to handle the idea of "African American firsts" and notability so that we can have more coverage of underrepresented groups in the professions? As an example of why this might be needed, there were comments at the discussion above indicating that some didn't view any single African American in computer science as a notable person for our encyclopedia.

Surely there has to be a calm, measured and considerate approach for addressing these gaps in our coverage and participation, without having more flame wars and craziness. --Djembayz (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From Damian (with an 'a')

Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, did you see the note that I left at Talk:John Prescott#'box of kink' vandalism? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please just unprotect. Jimbo no longer performs admin actions. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@156.61.250.250: You were saying? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is in the news today, and is another story about the old chestnut of WP:NOHOAXES. The information was added here by a Cambridge University IP address in November 2007, and removed here in October 2010. I suppose we could all beat our breasts at our failure to find this sooner, but the blame rests with the people who do this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• And HERE is another similar-but-different bit from the Washington Post about the Jar'Edo Wens hoax and a recent breaching experiment by Greg Kohs testing how thoroughly hoaxy hoaxes are caught. Kohs's WP:BEANS revelation is that edits with footnotes have a tendency to stick, even if the footnotes don't support anything. I will also note that each and every one of Kohs's hoaxes were made possible by the fact that IP editing is greenlighted here instead of some sort of real name registration and sign-in-to-edit policy, like the big kid websites all use. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Well if it meant in an emergency looking up the problem on Wikipedia or calling 911 id do the latter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'm surprised there's no anti-hoax Wikiproject or task force on Wikipedia. It seems like something that really needs a lot more scrutiny. Bosstopher (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How would an anti-hoax Wikiproject know which articles needed 'scrutiny'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

By planting hoaxes themselves and monitoring how fast they get removed. Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think an easy way to start would be through adding ISBN codes to every single book cited, to ensure that the books in question actually exist. A bot could be created to scan cite templates that contain an ISBN code, see if the code matches the book cited. Another possibility (tbh I'm not sure if this is possible, I can't code for shit), would be a bot that looks up books/journal articles cited on google books/jstor and searches to see if the title of the wikipedia article appears in the source (if a bot like this existed it would have picked up the Colin Hilton hoax). These two bots could flag articles for examination by the wikiproject. Another task could be collaborating to review articles by known/suspected hoaxers. User:KuchenZimjah, who's had a lot of his created articles deleted as hoaxes, also seems to have created a few legitimate articles. But as there was no concerted collaborative effort to discern which of his articles are hoaxes, there's a chance some of his hoaxing is still on the encyclopedia. It would be useful to have a hub where things like this could be evaluated. Bosstopher (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

An ISBN check was how the Bichoilm conflict hoax was caught. One-off pranks like Jare'Edo Wens are embarrassing but not as big of a deal as some make them out to be. Non-obvious fakes like Bichoilm are more damaging and need these kinds of verification efforts, especially at GA and FA. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You are aware, of course, that ISBN numbers are nothing more than UPC numbers for books, cash register and accounting selling numbers for publishers and retailers? And that paperback and hardcover editions of the same book have different numbers? And that every publisher's edition of the same title has its own number? And that millions of books from the past and present do not have, and never will have, ISBN numbers? This doesn't get into the unreadable, ugly mess that reading lists become with ISBNs. Or the fact that they are essentially useless in searching for books online and in libraries, since author + title + subject are the parameters generally used. ISBNs are useless... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I admittedly know very little about bot programming and ISBN codes. My suggestion of giving every citation an ISBN was a bit of a stupid one. But I have noticed when working on articles using the ISBN code to autocomplete the reference template always produces something vaguely resembling the title of the book in question. If the editing UI's citation tool already allows for book titles to be produced, I dont see why the string produced cant be compared to the book title listed on wikipedia to see if they roughly match. As already mentioned hoaxes like the Bicholim conflict have already been detected this way. Bosstopher (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.—Wavelength (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised no Wikipedians have jumped in yet to belittle or disparage the qualifications or opinions of the Telegraph or Washington Post journalists who wrote those stories. I remember one time when Jimbo said of a columnist who criticized Wikipedia that he was "not a real journalist." Is the tide turning on WP about being more accepting of outside criticism? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• While embarrassing, I don't see the hoaxes as being the bigger problem. What is more concerning is the number of times I check the source for a surprising, especially damning, or especially praise-ful statement in an article, and find that the source says no such thing. I've spent the last few days edit warring with a newly established SPA account that keeps adding statements to the Atorvastatin article that the drug causes Alzheimer's disease. What the cited sources actually say is that in a very small portion of users, it causes mild cognitive problems that stop within days of discontinuing the drug. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, this search [6] suggests there's a bit of "noise" amongst the health blogs about Lipitor & Alzheimer's. The editor in question may be a caregiver or loved-one of someone with Alzheimer's who is trying to add WP:TRUTH to the article. Good luck. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's a a lot of good ideas in this thread that deserve followup. Wikipedians could benefit from having in-house tools to verify, fact check, and improve the quality of our content. It would be great if the WMF could focus on developing these important tools. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A journalist from a reliable source quoted the claim about the invention of the butterfly stroke here. Journalists have a love-hate relationship with Wikipedia, criticising it one minute while using it as their crib sheet the next. The problem is that a well-meaning but uncited statement could be a deliberate hoax. Since Wikipedians give their time free of charge, they cannot spend 24/7 checking often obscure articles for factual errors, deliberately introduced or otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we would benefit from tools that would help us complete the task. I've never understand this strange argument that because we aren't getting paid we shouldn't be concerned with quality. Anyone using tools to patrol for recent changes, to navigate categories, and to review new articles, would be in a position to use these tools. Yes, we're all volunteers, which in fact has the opposite implication you intended. Since Wikipedians do this for the love of it, we are in a better position to spend our time, leisurely if need be since there's no deadline, looking for errors. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a one-month backlog in patrolling new pages. We have tools that aggregate these pages for review, but the reviewing itself is mostly manual. Major development efforts (VisualEditor) focus on making it easier for new editors, on the premise that we have a shortage of new editors creating content, because in theory they have trouble doing that. Reality is that Category:Pending AfC submissions has a backlog, so the shortage is in patrol volunteers. Tools with Watson-like intelligence would be nice: "Article A says 'fact x', but article B says 'fact y', which contradicts 'fact x'. Which is correct?" Wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

An interesting tool would be to empower readers who don't want to go through the effort of editing an article, still have a chance to provide quick feedback in a graphical way. For example, have a one-click "highlighter" tool, which the reader can then highlight a word, a sentence, or a paragraph, and then the interface would prompt them to either select "green" for "good", or "red" for "bad". None of this highlighting would appear on the live page, but a tab at the top (similar to "edit" and "new section") might say "heat map". Then bona fide editors could have a look at the heat map to see if there are any reader-induced concerns about certain spots within the article. P.S. I'm a banned editor, so if someone feels the need to remove this comment to "punish" me, then restore it under their own account, my feelings won't be hurt. - 2001:558:1400:10:CC0F:8EAD:7C36:144A (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WMF was playing with "article feedback" buttons (a disguised mechanism to get people to make their first edit, I think, but that's neither here nor there...) What about the idea of a simple "Content Flag" button, in which a button is clicked, opening a screen in which a simple alert message can be typed — "There is vandalism in this article in the third section" or whatever. People who are intimidated about changing content might be willing to report bad content. More eyes watching means fewer hoaxes. These alert messages could be run on a single page queue, like the late unlamented Feedback responses were. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2015

When I review an article, I almost always review the talk page. Just the other day, I removed an image from an infobox because of comments on the talk page. For me, at least, the question is how do we highlight and prioritize important comments about article content from the corresponding talk page? Your idea about a pushing this stuff to a queue is great. I'm also thinking that allowing editors to categorize talk page comments based on article elements imported from the current version (image, infobox, lead, etc.) could push these concerns to more individualized queues. For example, if there was a problem with the rendering of the table, we have editors who specialize in creating and maintaining tables. If there's an image licensing problem, it could go to the appropriate board. Of course, we already have this framework in place with the appropriate categories, but we can't deliver the information and present it a way that will allow more editors to participate in problem solving. All of this sounds like a job for subscription-based notifications, and I've been saying this before echo was ever designed. If you look closely at user contributions, you'll find that most people find a niche and specialize in it. What we want to do is deliver the problematic content to our content "experts" and let them fix the problems. That's always been the greatest disconnect here. Connecting editors with other editors is one thing, but connecting them with content they can help fix is another. Traditionally, admins might go on such hunting expeditions, but except for copyvio, it rarely has anything to do with content. I think the way forward is to simply take the existing content maintenance categories and feed them into the notifications. At that point, you can appropriately gamify the user experience and encourage people to fix accuracy problems for fun. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be silly. What is far more important is developing tools for IPs to edit via mobile, and via the visual piece of shit editor, so that even more people can vandalise the encyclopedia. You didn't expect the WMF to do anything functionally useful, did you? Let's face it, that would be a first. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Haven't done any controlled studies, but anecdotally it seems like a disproportionate percentage of my recent reversions are mobile IP edits, and it seems to be getting worse. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've actually noticed a number of mobile vandal edits that were reverted on a lot of pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the large number of non-sourced articles written from editors' "personal knowledge", it wouldn't surprise me to find more inaccuracies introduced by good-faith edits than by intentional vandalism. Ultimately whether the inaccuracy is good- or bad-faith isn't important. Correcting it is what's important. A chapter titled "in screen we trust" in ISBN 978-0385539005 says that nearly 25 percent of consumer credit reports contain errors, data brokers such as Acxiom admit that 30 percent of the data they maintain may be inaccurate, tens of millions of electronic medical records contain incorrect information about patients, and British police officials admitted that more than twenty thousand people had been wrongly branded as criminals due to Criminal Records Bureau errors. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[[Citation needed]] Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool. So Wikipedia's unreliability isn't a problem. Relax everyone. No need for change. The model is just fine. Carry on as you were. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if I see it on Facebook I can add it to Wikipedia right?Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by these responses. I did provide a citation. Facebook is not a reliable source. Wikipedia's unreliability is a problem. And other datasets you would expect to be highly reliable aren't either, so Wikipedia is not an outlier in that regard. Especially since we use some of those data sources as "reliable sources". Society as a whole perhaps doesn't value accuracy as much as it should, and indeed Wikipedia editors should strive for a higher level of accuracy. On the other hand, it's not possible to perfectly know everything (like next week's weather or the exact date someone was born), and in those cases we settle for the best approximation. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This myth, that Wikipedia is reasonably reliable, is a myth, and will remain a myth until Jimmy's foundation actually commits some funds to actually determining the actual (not mythological) reliability of the faux knowledge Wikipedia pushes. That they haven't done so yet strikes me as deliberate ignorance. Like they're scared of what they'll find. Jimmy and his foundation - at least until recently - have only cared about the myth and keeping it alive.

I say "until recently", because the recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [7] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading "Focus on knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives."

Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [8] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. Hopefully, this time round, something will actually happen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They love to spend donation money on engineers and funding regional user groups of dubious efficacy. They don't like funding statisticians and social scientists to actually take a look at who and what they've got in terms of a volunteer base and actual content and how to help make it better. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

They should spend more money on more good engineers - and they seem to be doing just that. But it's not an either/or thing. As for regional user groups - some of the best initiatives have been germinated and nurtured in WMUK and WMDE. It's good to have well-resourced, decentralised idea-hot houses, and the chapter model serves that function up to a point. There may be a better model but I haven't seen it yet. I hope they don't flush away the chapters before developing a proven better model. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

They don't need to flush them away, per se, they need to rein them in by shutting down the money spigot. What did I see this morning, that there are 16 employees of WMUK alone? Compare and contrast the value a user group such as that delivers to that provided by the couple of people behind Wikipedia Library project, which is funded directly out of San Francisco. I'm for increasing centralization here, decentralization has failed, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, a far worse problem, than reliability of occasional incorrect or falsified data, is the lack of overall coverage about various topics. Of course it is important to nitpick the specific details when checking the contents of a page, but in general, the "elephant in the room" for many articles is the lack of overview summary about each topic, and the related lack of key details about major facets of a topic. Many pages read like a "shaggy dog story" with random, disorganized facts plus questionable quotes about a topic. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then each page should provide encyclopedic coverage about a topic, such as addressing the "Six Ws" (who, what, when, where, why, and how) which could better explain the topic across a spectrum of facets. For example, when entertainer Michael Jackson died in June 2009, the biopage did not discuss Jackson as a film actor (The Wiz or acting in music videos), and in fact some people removed the term "actor" from Michael Jackson's page in trying to re-force a more narrow view. On balance, if a page focuses on the wider, overall aspects of a topic, then the specific details become far less important in the mix of numerous facts about the topic. Also, in general, avoid including quotes within a page because that complicates the text for exact-wording, copyright restrictions, or elevates problems of wp:POV-pushing the remarks (or rants) of individual people above the overall text about a topic. To avoid false details, avoid too much emphasis on details except when specifically sourced to explain crucial facts about the topic. When wp:NPP patrolling for new edits, then consider removing any direct quotes which might add little overall perspective but could complicate the fact-checking and NPOV-balance of the text. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors can test their knowledge of science and technology at http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That was fun. Perfect score.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Not hard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Same. Sad part is, at least at the time I took the quiz, that put us in a measly 7% of respondents that got every answer correct. Given how easy that was I find that rather depressing. Capeo (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"You scored better than 93% of the public and the same as 7%." I even correctly guessed which was the hardest question. So Sue G. is right: Wikipedians are very smart.   Wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The last couple of questions were tough. I clicked the answer saying I was male, but they never told me whether that was correct or not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the first 13 but never got confirmation that my answers about my age or education level were right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We could use something like this as a WP:COMPETENCE test; add some logic puzzles, a reading comprehension test and a few grammar questions to cover most of the bases. It's time we killed off the "anyone can edit" pie-in-the-sky idealistic nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A logic puzzle such as this one, perhaps? BethNaught (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

While I did "brag" that I got a perfect score, we as Wikipedians should remember- not everyone's job requires even that quiz's basic science and technology knowledge. If you replace light bulbs at a nuclear plant and make $15 to $18 an hour, you're probably just as happy not knowing covalent bonds or the three colors of quarks, as an adjuct professor who probably makes the same as that when you count up all the hours truly "worked" whether in a classroom, office hours, or other required time at home. I never required any the knowledge of any thing on that test for any of my businesses, nor for my college degrees. Knowledge for knowledge's sake. Yes, everyone probably should read at least some thing like Discover or Scientific American to at least get the broad view of science, an appreciation of space travel, and a general view of the state of our climate and what is/isn't being done. Oh, and that evolution is real, now that's a question to use on a real litmus test of "qualified editor" for Wikipedia. An 90 IQ editor who can research and add correct citations can, and probably often does, do a better job than a 145 IQ editor who "knows what's right" and adds and edit wars because (s)he knows "better" than others, including apparently the published material. We should see if we can get enough editors to submit to an IQ test to get some data on this and compare edits to IQ. I have a feeling some "average", and statistically below average by a standard deviation or even two, would show that they are actually slightly better or even in editing. And if the average Wikipedian's IQ is statistically skewed to be higher by a standard deviation from the average (which I highly, HIGHLY doubt) we can adjust our data accordingly and I think my premise would stand.Camelbinky (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Camelbinky, your mention of evolution leads me to refer you to this set of questions.

• The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking

—Wavelength (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is laughable and I sincerely hope you don't edit on any science based articles and specifically regarding evolution. Such fringe ideas MUST per our policy be only used to describe FRINGE ideas and not presented as scientific fact, you're very lucky this is a talk page, otherwise your use of posting that horrible "source" would have been deleted from an article. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself please, this isn't a church. Churches have walls for a reason.Camelbinky (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have found any factual or logical error(s) in that publication, then please kindly identify it (or them).

—Wavelength (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

BethNaught, that puzzle ("Cheryl's Birthday") reminds me of the "Impossible Puzzle".

—Wavelength (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC) and 13:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I scored "We're very sorry, but the page could not be loaded properly. This should be fixed very soon, and we apologize for any inconvenience." They clearly need some clever science people to make things work properly :-) Squinge (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Working now! 13/13 I wish quiz nights in the pub were this easy. I was wondering how many of those questions I'd have got right when I was a student. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A few months back I commented somewhere about what wikipedia should be doing for the future on here and was responded to by Erik Moller and a few others who liked my ideas. One of the biggest problems we're facing in the next five years I think is as many parts of the developing world come online we're going to increasingly see poor quality ip editing from around the world. India (with the exception of the elite fluent editors on here) and Pakistan as you might know have had some of the poorest quality articles on here for sometime, given the higher traffic and that most of the articles are off the English speaking world radar, particularly rural localities. This has now spread to Bangladesh. Look at Rangpur City and Government Laboratory High School, Comilla for instance. I once cleaned up some towns in an Indian state and they've since largely gone back to their original mess, with lists of "famous" locals, POV, capital letters etc. It's going to get out of control for most developing nations as they come on line and we get more traffic in areas off the radar. One of my suggestions was the idea of creating wiki ambassadors to facilitate development between wikipedias, but also the idea of setting up training schemes within such countries themselves and encourage local governments and schools to get involved with the project and try to maintain some level of quality. For countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh we need wiki ambassadors and editors consistently working to monitor progress and maintain quality and to nurture people into becoming good editors with a better command of English and how to reference and write articles. I think we're going to need to organize cleanup drives for such countries as traffic increases. It's something I'd like the foundation to seriously consider. We're going to see a rapidly increasing surge of traffic from all over, Latin America, Africa and Asia from mobiles and this is really going to be a major problem in maintaining quality in articles in developing world nations. If we don't start planning something now most of the articles in the developing world on here are going to degrade in quality and it'll get out of control.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

By avoiding exposure to common errors, we who have English as a native language can more easily avoid committing them, and thus we can contribute to setting a good example for foreigners. Avoiding such exposure completely is practically impossible, because common errors are sometimes made in mass media productions and in scholarly publications.

• Common Errors in English Usage and Grammar Check

—Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC) and 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between the odd typo or common factual/grammar error and a typical article on a town in Pakistan for instance with extremely poor prose, excessive unsourced POV, and non notable lists of schools in CAPLOCKS etc!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please illustrate the massively bigger problem by providing permanent links.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) and 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't take fifteen people funded by a massive research grant to illustrate Dr. B's point... Just watch THE QUEUE for a couple days. India is working the patrollers really hard, shall we say. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This gem for instance, unsourced yet a bare url link to Facebook...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

India does deserve to be watched, but I've been saying for years- watch China. Not only is it state-sponsored but you've got that fresh off the lot superpower smell still in the air and it has whipped up a lot of pent up "fix what the Westerners got wrong" mentality. You've got excessive jingoism and chauvinism (real meaning, not the type of males bashing women), for instance where China has forever and always rightfully controlled Tibet is often pushed based on dubious claims and Chinese sources as "being more accurate than pro-Western biased sources".Camelbinky (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Using User:AlexNewArtBot, I've been looking through many of the recent articles on India and Pakistan. The main problem seems to be brevity with lots of one-liner stubs. Maybe an easy way to intensify control would be to try to find three or four volunteers who would be prepared to look through the new additions and perhaps offer advice to the most frequent contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's also a major problem with older articles, with frequent BLP violations (adding names of living people), using the article for promotion of a school, businesss, etc, and copyright violation. I've had to give up those articles for at least a while due to other commitments. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was talking primarily about the older articles rather than new pages, yup. Articles on villages in the middle of Andhra Pradesh or northern Pakistan for instance nobody in the western world really knows about but attract local ips spewing nonsense about the famous locals and beauty of the village, a MASSIVE list of schools and businesses in cap locks and then signing the article with their own name and email address. Because few decent editors, even good Indian ones, ever see them they remain infested and get so long and bloated with haphazardly constructed factoids and POV nobody wants to clean them up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The problems with India/Pakistan articles run much deeper than brevity. In fact, quite often brevity is the one thing they lack. Reams of puffery are pretty common, often copy/pasted from dodgy websites etc. I've been banging this drum since the ill-conceived WMF "push" in India some years ago but no-one seems to pay much attention and things would appear to be getting worse, as Blofeld predicts. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's going to gradually spread to other parts of Asia and Latin America and Africa too. In fact the other day I looked through some Honduran and Mexican municipalities and found some with very poorly written unsourced prose, some looked as if they'd been machine translated on the old Systransoft translator! The POV issue does seem a lot worse for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh not to mention the BLP issue as Doug identified. I've encountered a few articles on politicians in which there's been mention of corruption and scandal and unsourced! I envisage a lot of the Nigerian articles for instance going the same way. Nigerian editors are becoming more and more apparent. Sorry to be cynical. While we might attract some educated fluent editors from the developing world it's obvious that many who come online will have a poor command of English and what wikipedia really requires and will add to the current problem. The gigantic cleanup task needed and protecting articles from spam is already way beyond our control, by the 2020s it's going to be several times larger than now. At this rate in 20 years time most of our articles on the developing world will be of a shockingly poor standard as we won't be able to control what is being edited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of these editors cannot or do not make the distinction between what is encyclopedic and what is (justifiably) important to them. Thus you are informed of where to catch rickshaws, where to get the best dosas, who are the doctors in town, and the ever-present schools available. Outreach programs should carry around a volume of any decent old-school encyclopedia and leave it with the local editors as an example of the tone and content we expect. Might not do much, but can't hurt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The people who write pages in poor English almost certainly do not have English as their first language. I think that the problem is that they might not be aware that Wikipedia is available in languages other than English. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, User:Redrose64, I guarantee that those editors know very well there are other Wikipedias in many languages. They intentionally want English Wikipedia because- that's where they want to reach potential tourists. Whether you're aiming for tourists from Australia, the UK, the USA, or even within India; it is English that will reach the most people. The Times of India for instance is the world's largest English language newspaper. We in the UK or USA may not consider their English to be up to "native speaker" status or as their first language, but chances are those people you state have "poor English" and "do not have English as their first language" have been speaking it since they were born and consider it a close second language that they use quite a lot. You're judging them by too harsh a standard, but yes a standard we have to keep strict for en:wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the level of POV in some of them and the glorification of the local imam or taxi driver I'd say a lot of them know that English wikipedia is the biggest wikipedia and want to reap praises on their home town for the world to see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• meta:Talk:2015 Strategy/Community consultation/2015-03-01#Dr. Blofeld <- that is the thread that Dr. Blofeld was alluding to, i think. Some really important points there.
• Regarding poor "village articles" in India/Pakistan/other regions: Do we have for those articles something similar to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines? Clear, specific DO-and-DONTs and recommendations for "village articles" that can be linked to in edit summaries etc. ? --Atlasowa (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've not seen any such guidelines for village etc articles. However, given how little people pay attention to existing policies, even when pointed out to them, I have doubts whether such a thing would make much difference.

  There is, by the way, an element of culture clash here. For example, few of us who live in the West think that having a stable electricity supply, a bank/postal facility/major highway within 20 miles/km, decent running water etc are big deals. They are big deals in some parts of the world and it is often a source of great pride in the village that they have even one of these (or similar things). Taking electricity as one example, states in India almost go to war with each other in attempts to grab or maintain grid capacity and even then it is often rationed; same for water in some areas. Thus, while not traditionally encyclopaedic, there is an argument that having a decent grid supply or an "our pride and joy" generator might be significant. That tradition has omitted them in the past may say more about the Western encyclopaedia culture than anything else. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Crazy idea #986241703... Maybe Wikipedia should not actually try to be a gazetteer. Start a separate "Wikiatlas" project that contains only highly structured "infobox-like" information about villages and similar "non-notable" places. Don't give them any room for bad grammar or to post lists of inconsequential businesses, temples, schools, etc. Actual Wikipedia articles about places then get a much higher admission standard - if it's not at least a proper Start-class it may not leave Draft-space and searches are all sent to the "Wikiatlas" page. Couple that with a hard restriction that forces anyone with less than N articles (N=3 to 5?) to create only in Draft-space. Allow only proven competent editors to create articles directly in mainspace. Yes I know that goes directly against the "anyone can edit" principle but IMHO that meme in any case needs to be consigned to Wikimedia's creation mythology - as is constantly proven on social media, the vast majority of people are definitely not capable of stringing together two simple sentences without at least three glaring errors. This is just a rough idea I'm throwing out, please don't beat me up me for not analyzing the consequences unto the seven-times-seventh generation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What about Wikitravel? Nyth63 10:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Every single human settlement is by default notable, we've been through this in many different places over the course of many, many years. We are a gazetteer and we should not be lamenting that there are a billion Indians with many towns, cities, etc that we Westerners don't know or care about. What you or anyone else or even 99% of the world cares about doesn't matter towards being included in Wikipedia. We aren't paper. Please remember that.Camelbinky (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think most world settlements will be notable. The sourcing for a lot of the small villages in Africa and Asia at present though might be lacking. Whatever the case, these people are going to come online and we'll see an increasing number of unsourced, poor quality new articles on villages in these areas in the next 10 years. One of the bigger problems I think though is even the towns and small cities which get more traffic and keep attracting spam. Even some of the major cities in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Somebody mentioned Chinese POV being a problem but to be honest I see very few Chinese editors editing on here. I must be missing something. Most of them are too busy editing Baidu which has over 10 million articles now. I do think we'll see more editors from China on here though over the next 10 years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that you've brought it up, I think we should be paying much more careful attention to Baidu. Using Google translate I've looked at many of their articles and they seem to maintain a pretty high standard. Don't know if there are any Chinese speakers around who would be interested in looking into it a bit more carefully. In any case, it makes the EN Wikipedia look pretty small in comparison. Pity we can't rally the English-speakers to contribute to the same extent. It might be interesting to see what makes the Chinese so keen to participate.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I would put that down to Wikipedia being intermittently banned in China, whereas Baidu Baike is Officially Approved by the Communist Party censors. MER-C 08:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there might also be a cultural difference at work relating to the way that knowledge is transmitted outside the West. Oral transmission of knowledge is much more commonplace in non-Western cultures, particularly in places where literacy is relatively low or there are significant barriers to publishing. Information about villages might be well-known orally but might not be written down. The information in articles about such places might therefore be perfectly accurate, but would be unverifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that people in the developing world may not even know what an encyclopedia is. We need to clearly and concisely explain -- in simple English -- the purpose of Wikipedia and what it isn't before account creation. MER-C 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation can produce a half-hour television segment in English, explaining to viewers (with screenshots) the most essential things that people should know about editing Wikipedia. That segment can be broadcast separately in many regions around the globe, and it can be followed by a half-hour segment during which viewers can submit their questions (by telephone or text or e-mail), and Wikipedians can provide answers on air in real time. Interpreters can be available for viewers with low levels of fluency in English. Because of anticipated high volumes of interest in various regions, the regions can be small enough to maximize opportunities for many viewers to submit their questions. The first segment and possibly various regional versions of the second segment can be posted on WikiCommons and on YouTube.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. There's an idealab somewhere where it might be more formally presented, but I'm sure it will get good exposure here. @Victorgrigas: would likely be involved (see video at right) if the WMF did it, or of course you might do it yourself. For TV channels to present it, the video would likely need more than screenshots. TV stations might use this to fill in a slot at 2:30 am, or during a rain delay in a baseball game, so we couldn't assume that folks are watching just because of their love of Wikipedia. There would have to be general interest material. Perhaps editors can suggest topics that would be best for a 30 minute video. IMHO editing could take up to 10 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Bad format. Bad format because TV advertising is dying, might as well do talk radio or a newspaper ad, and I say this even though my wife did advertising sales for a radio station for years and would beat me for saying that. This would be no different than a paid advertisement programming, this wouldn't be an actual TV show event. No channel would order it as anything less than an infomercial, they just won't. Better format is what you mentioned at the end- youtube; and I would expand that to "social media" in general. Have a series of youtube (and please don't forget Vimeo, as that is quickly rising to challenge youtube), have a series of much shorter videos on Vine and Instagram, have them also posted to Facebook, Google+, and Twitter, and advertise them on Tumblr, Tsu, Bubblews, and Reddit. Set up blog posts on Blogger et al. Plaster these videos all over the web. And that's just what to do with American-oriented social media; there are lots more Chinese, Hindi, European, Russian, and Australian social media sites. I would not waste time with a TV infomercial that Smallbones is right about it being aired at 2:30am if at all and it is going to be expensive, and I doubt they would ever use it for a rain delay. No network will air it in a normal timeslot and expect advertisers to support it, they just won't find the revenue they can get airing a rerun of Will and Grace or Seinfeld.Camelbinky (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It can be broadcast on commercial-free television.—Wavelength (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has Category:Educational video websites.—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The majority of "commercial-free" actually simply air commercials in-between programming instead of interrupting programming with commercial breaks.Camelbinky (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've seen this [9]. Apparently the Wikimedia functionary who "outed" the alleged Shapps sockpuppet is a LibDem activist. Rather goes to the heart of neutrality of this project I'd say.--Scott Mac 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott, have you seen this? Perhaps not, since I see you're alerting Risker as well. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

I guess he alerted Risker knowing that the RFAR was initiated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Now the arbitration case is getting media coverage too. [10] Everymorning talk 15:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, according to the story I linked to above, Wales was contacted by Chase Me after blocking Contribsx, so I imagine Jimbo does already know about all this. Everymorning talk 15:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you not expecting that the public would become aware that it is being investigated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It may not be so wise to discuss this publicly. However, Andrew Gilligan's outing of Chase as a Libdem activist, is another twist. It worries me for two reasons. The story will now run and run, particularly in the silly season of a UK election finale that has had surprisingly little of this type of stuff (the media are bored). Second, Chase will now be personally in the media spotlight. Whatever he's done, that's got real life implications. On that note, I fall back into silence again. But everyone involved in this needs to be aware there will be intense and partisan media scrutiny in the UK.--Scott Mac 15:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Mac, I trust you realise the implications of what you have asserted on this user talk page (and even at Risker's talk page) - particularly in light of the assertion made by Chase that he is not and has never been a Lib Dem activist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've done anything than record an assertion, made by Gilligan, that's clearly in the public domain. To be clear, I have no knowledge or opinion concerning its veracity.--Scott Mac 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• For clarification: Richard Symonds/User:Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry (self-identifies on-wiki with link HERE) is "Office and Development Manager" of Wikimedia UK (See: LINK). So this affair is probably going to have lasting implications for WMF no matter how this turns out... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've spent a huge chunk of today looking into this and talking to people about it. We should all expect the press to jump on scraps of non-information to try to spin this story according to their agenda. The sad thing is that there is no easy or firm definition of what counts as being a "LibDem activist" - to most people it conjures up someone who goes to party meetings and volunteers to door to door campaigning, as opposed to someone who has said online that they support a particular party. But if you want to leave the impression that someone is an activist and is acting in an activist way it's a phrase you can use more or less with impunity. So, there you go. Hopefully Chase can get a correction out of the paper.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The big issue here isn't whether Mr. Symonds has political beliefs or engages in group politics, but whether or not a sock puppet investigation and subsequent "behavioural" block was leaked to the press with a view to damaging a political candidate. The timeline is unclear. We saw during the recently completed GamerGate ArbCom case how easy it was for an opinionated blogger to manipulate Guardian content — it is not a far-fetched question to ask as to whether this might have been done again here. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. See my comment below. Peter Damian (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This can also have political consequences. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And some light relief at Wikipedia's expense... [11]--Scott Mac 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This gets it spot on. Early this month, a left-wing newspaper contacts with a Wikipedia administrator and checkuser, a function "only assigned to administrators in good standing and in whom the community has the utmost trust and confidence in their integrity, judgment and discretion". The administrator confirms on the record, for attribution, that the account was run by Shapps. Some have argued that the evidence was all in the public domain and perhaps no confidential checkuser information was used. This does not matter. The newspaper was investigating a prominent British politician from the other end of the spectrum in the run-up to a nation-wide general election. The newspaper's reason for contacting a Wikipedia administrator was to confirm the suspicion that the account was run by Shapps, and to get a statement on record. The article says "Wikipedia’s administrators told the Guardian they believed that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed ... the account is clearly controlled by Shapps". That's appalling. But not the first time this kind of thing has happened, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed the Guardian story says:

The site’s administrators, selected Wikipedia volunteers who patrol the site, told the Guardian that they “believe that the account Contribsx is a sockpuppet of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia ... and based on the evidence the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.”

When the Guardian first approached Shapps saying that Wikipedia would be closing down this user account because Wikipedia said it was linked to him, a spokesman for the Conservative party said: “This story is completely false and defamatory. It is nonsense from start to finish.”

That suggests a longer and more complex timeline, namely (1) Wikipedia administrators tell the Guardian that they believe the account is operated by Shapps, then (2) Guardian approaches the Conservative Party with this then (3) Guardian publishes story. At what point were other Wikipedia administrators and checkusers given the information that the Guardian had already been told? What exactly was the sequence of events? Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. It should not matter who brings a problem to our attention or by what route. All that matters is: does the evidence stack up. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Which statement is 'not really no' applying to? On whether it matters who brings a problem to your attention or by what route, no it probably doesn't, but that's not the point. It's not what goes in, but what comes out. Symonds appears to have told the Guardian the identity of the account. That's the problem. Peter Damian (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The immediate problem is a looming election. We should try to bring some clarity to this situation before election day by finding out (1) whether the evidence before Chase at the time of the block justified the block and (2), most importantly, whether in light of that evidence Chase exaggerated the likelihood of the account being controlled by Shapps. If ArbCom focusses initially only on the limited evidence related to these two questions they'll be able to answer them publicly in a couple of days - well before election day - and then they can examine the other issues raised in relation to this scandal at their leisure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Welywn Times "The Tory candidate said he had spoken to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales yesterday (Wednesday).Mr Shapps told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “He said that the administrator who had posted (we now know he’s a Lib Dem activist) quote to the Guardian didn’t represent the ‘corporate position of Wikipedia’.” Mr Shapps said the Wikipedia boss told him the administrator should have escalated the matter to his bosses, rather than ban the specific account. The Conservative candidate added that the administrator had been “chastised”, and said an internal investigation had been launched." What on earth is the 'corporate position of Wikipedia’. You mean the WMF? Peter Damian (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read in the press. Or very much of anything you read in the press, for that matter... Carrite (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I found this most disconcerting, and of course very disappointing, as I know Mike Adams doesn't lie: www.naturalnews.com/049422_Jimmy_Wales_Wikipedia_porn_king.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} This is a strong indictment and requires a response.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a moron. Fuck off back to la-la land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on your WP disallowed verbiage, your edit appears more suitable to the porn sites in question. Further, your name seems particularly appropriate for your writing style.--Pekay2 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You asked for a response. I gave one. Feel free to go complain about it if you want to draw attention to your woeful ignorance and abject inadequacy even as a troll. Jimbo's history in soft-core porn is common knowledge (you can read about it in Wikipedia...), and nobody is going to take the ravings of conspiracy-dingbat Adams remotely seriously. Even the regular anti-Jimbo trolls here know better than to link to fuckwit websites if they want to attract attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Its such a secret that it only fills a paragraph of Jimmy Wales and has only one entire article, Bomis devoted to it. Monty₈₄₅ 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He's certainly a bit slow on the uptake. And it's not exactly quite like finding out that your church minister is Ron Jeremy now is it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm........ seems dubious to me. We might need to probe into a full scale investigation to find the playboy magazines hidden under Jimmy's bed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not censored, I do not consider it surprising that Jimbo was once involved with a website that featured images of beautiful naked ladies. As a matter of fact, I think that I have known that for years. Who cares? And why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lazy and sensationalist journalism by Mike Adams in the article mentioned by the OP. Bomis has never been a secret and nothing in this rant piece is new.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Damn. I'd have been thrown out of class if I tried to pass such an article as "journalism" back in school. Critical research failure, much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has presumably qualified for this attack piece because of his criticism of alternative health practitioners, who he described as "lunatic charlatans" in March 2014. If the cap fits, wear it, as the saying goes. This story in today's news is worth a look. The mainstream media loves to criticise inaccurate information in Wikipedia articles, but it often gives an easy ride to people making alternative health claims, particularly if there is a heartwarming human interest story involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The NaturalNews article page is turning into quite a lunatic charlatan's convention - Jim Humble, archbishop or whatever of the 'church' created to promote his 'drink industrial bleach as a cure for HIV/malaria/etc, etc...' nonsense is amongst those commenting. Along with the usual pharmaceutical-conspiracy-mongers, someone claiming it is all a socialist plot, and someone who seems to think that Jimbo is "a closet homo". We clearly need to add more fluoride to the water supply and turn up the chemtrail dosage before this disparate bunch cottons on to the real truth behind Jimbo's reptilian charm... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've already informed the Illuminati to play with the supply and demand of tinfoil. Might as well make a pretty flat penny while we're at it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Wales has apparently gone to great lengths to try to bury what you're about to read here", er no he hasn't. What is in that article has been public knowledge for some time now and has even published on Larry Sanger's website.

As for the claim that Wikipedia was structured by Jimmy to be an "online defamation engine to defame and slander people" that he doesn't like, well that claim is just laughable. If that was the case then we would not have policies such as WP:RS and WP:BLP would we?

"When the truth about Wales' sleazy business activities surfaces from time to time, Wales seems to exploit his control over Wikipedia to delete the information from his own page". No he doesn't. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that.

The whole article is absolutely laughable. It tells us nothing new and the fact that it's been published years later, it comes across as very POV pushing and an attack on Jimmy and Wikipedia. What a shame that no proper journalism appears to have been carried out.--5 albert square (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Y'all do know that NaturalNews is not an actual news site, and Mike Adams is not a journalist, right? Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

From the NaturalNews article on Wikipedia: "It is dedicated to the sale of various dietary supplements, promotion of alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, and various conspiracy theories". Sounds a legit source to me (!). Prioryman (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, to be honest I'm not sure what the OP expects Jimmy to respond to!--5 albert square (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"...Jimmy Wales ran a porn network called Bomis, which sold membership access to pornography."

But then WikiMedia isn't run by ISIS, so there is no reason why this is controversial, there are no motives to keep such information secret. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm less curious about the Bomis stuff than the Rachel Marsden stuff with respect to the NaturalNews article. Everymorning talk 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Pekay2: Porn built the Internet. If we'd waited for the desire for cat photos to drive the construction of high-speed ethernets, we might still be on dial-up BBS. A couple of DARPA-funded supernetworks for government labs wouldn't have driven the creation of an industry, at least not this quickly. Not that the old dial-up BBSes weren't better than the censors' paradisaical notion of an Internet totally under the control of Facebook/Twitter/Google/Microsoft, that is used only for people to push resumes at one another and to legitimately cyberbully anyone who says a word out of step with the National Party Line in the hope of stepping on them on the way up some ladder of ambitions that don't really even exist anymore. Wikipedia follows an older dream, a dream of universal access to the sum of all human knowledge... and we all know the first question a boy will typically want to ask. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

^^^Wnt You're in the wrong section. This is thread is about COI and fringe views. Move your post up one section. Atsme☯^Consult 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for moving. Atsme☯^Consult 19:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright - I've demoted this section one = = level in order to keep that from happening again. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing this thread, and its source, pop up here, makes me reflect on a question I've had for a while. COI gets discussed here a lot, in a vein of "fierce moral urgency". However, I think most everyone who's been paying attention to that discussion in wider venues (e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks) has noticed that there's an active group of editors that are enthusiastic about new mechanisms to prosecute and enforce real or suspected COI here. They seem to be united by a desire to promote alternative medicine, non-genetically-modified foods, and the like, to denigrate the safety and efficacy of conventional medical treatments, and in general, to advance similar minority POVs. I have no reason to believe any of them have a COI as we define it; they're simply acting as what WP:COI calls "biased editors". I don't recall seeing that discussed here.

The principle of "it's not the editor, it's the edits" has been decried as a cop-out; a way to wash our hands of responsibility, so that when a Keasbey & Mattison IP posts that asbestos is harmless and a useful source of dietary fiber, we can shrug and say, "well, we can't watch every article". That's a pretty compelling argument for doing something more. But I think it's also clear that any new COI enforcement policy is going to be used to bludgeon any editor who makes an extended effort to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in cases where mainstream opinion and evidence support the position of a large, moneyed interest.

I think people putting forth new ideas for the control of COI really ought to address this point. It sort of takes the moral luster off our self-congratulation for saving future Indian students from educational scams if within a year we're telling people with psychiatric disorders that smoking cannabis and taking coffee enemas are great alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Choess (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

COI and fringe views, indeed. It's a bizarre conflation to say anyone interested in COI disclosure is interested in fringe medicine or science. Certainly, it is the right thing to do to disclose COI or not edit (and Wikipedia should insist on that over and over again) but it is a nonsequitor to equate that position with anything fringe ('disclose or don't write' - is a sourced standard, mainstream take on COI). That you run into someone pushing fringe, or someone who does not understand COI is just another error to correct in discussion - tell them they don't understand COI, or they don't understand fringe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a bizarre conflation, but as you're the first one to introduce it to this thread, I'll let you bear the burden of defending it. If I thought the whole project for special mechanisms to detect and remove COI editing was a stalking horse for fringe views, I wouldn't bother posting about it. I think the people posting here advocating a corps of Auditors or whatever the proposal of the week is are responding in good faith to a real problem with the encyclopedia. I am raising this because I see it as a fairly concrete example of how a poorly devised policy for detecting and neutralizing COI editing could be used, by good-faith editors with a strong POV, in ways that damage the encyclopedia by driving off productive editors. My perception (perhaps incorrect) of discussion of COI on this page is that it tends to focus on the urgency of shutting down problems like the Wifione debacle, but does not adequately consider the adverse consequences of making it easy to make accusations of COI and forcing the accused to defend themselves in extenso. Choess (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But it's not anymore difficult to defend a COI claim than it is to defend a POV claim or most other behavioral claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how closely you've been following the threads, Choess, but from what I have been witnessing, your take on the situation is far from accurate. I invite you to take a gander at the editors most interested in COI according to most edits at COI talk. None of those editors are actively promoting alternative medicine. In fact, a look at the most edits to Monsanto shows that there is a conflagration between defenders of GM foods and pharmaceuticals/ProjectMedicine and COI conversations. petrarchan47คุก 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

so FUNNY, P. the initial post was not about the mainstream WP:COI guideline but the fringe-y and FRINGE-attracting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks not to mention its current version User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks.

Choess at play here is the pharma shill gambit, glommed onto the recent concern about Wifione. i believe the thread tying those two things together is a belief that I (jytdog) am a Corrupt Abomination Destroying Wikipedia From Within (of whom Petrarchan is one of the chief prophets) - and I met each of them at articles about GMO or fringe health topics, where i hold down the mainstream view.... and have earned some juicy hate for doing so. I also find the conglomeration of sloppy concern with COI and belief in FRINGE disturbing - but c'est la wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, Jdog as I've told you before - it's not all about you. The above is pure conjecture, and really does sound paranoid. It's also false. At March Against Monsanto you argued against the wording used by the vast majority of sources (regarding the number of march participants), and later agreed that the one source you glommed on to was not a proper estimate and never claimed to be. Your retelling does not adhere to the facts. petrarchan47คุก 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

oh right when you talk about GM articles, you are talking about someone else. In light of this and this followed by this, and especially this.... sure, that is about someone else... . Please tell me who you view as the "head of the GMO articles here, who is known on the web as a Monsanto shill going back many years, is also very active in the Pharma (or "health") articles.." and who are you talking about, when wrote to me "Further, the editing that has held sway over the GMO articles since you have been in control of them is being called into question,... The best encyclopedia articles are written in a dispassionate voice, showing all sides of the story with due weight, and not by industry insiders" (emphasis added). Who are you talking about? (real question) You cannot understand why it is clear as day you are talking about me? (real question) (this is copy paste from April 5 here which you still haven't responded to)Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. I am No. 3 on the list and have no interest in alternative medicine and personally am averse to it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are mistaken as is Choess. Claims that even hint at the possibility the Advocacy ducks essay was designed to attract fringe or promote snake oil remedies sounds pretty paranoid to me and even more far-fetched than the fringe that has big pharma advocates wheeling. The lady doth protest too much. The essay addresses behavioral issues and doesn't discriminate against any particular topic. An essay doesn't trump or change our PAGs - it's an essay. If there's noncompliance of PAGs in an article, it isn't the fault of the essay. The same applies if fringe is being pushed and it's noncompliant with PAGs, or if MEDRS is being abused to keep information out of an article, or if paid editors are whitewashing corporate articles, or if paid political advocates are pushing a liberal or conservative agenda in an article. Jiminy Cricket, the unwarranted criticisms are tiresome. Atsme☯^Consult 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Choess's point is true, as was pointed out to you here, where DGG wrote: "But frankly, I consider the present attempt contaminated by the origins of it in an anti-establishment medicine POV. " These origins and the ongoing efforts by the group around it to push FRINGE views about health and conspiracy theories about editing in WP, are not helpful in the broader effort to address COI and advocacy in WP. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The deleted essays are bygones. The current essay is nothing like the preceding two. The criticisms being made now are just plain silly...which reminds me, BDD, who deleted the first essay, stated rather succinctly: Atsme, let me say more simply what I was getting at: if you leave "big pharma" out of the essay, any critics railing about that are going to look silly. [12]. And then of course there's your comment about the current essay, Jytdog: i gotta say that the essay has come a long way; much of the stuff that got this deleted is gone. i made some edits just now, you can of course take them or leave them. [13] Nuff said. Atsme☯^Consult 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You must think we are Mary Poppins. The same people doing the same thing using the same phrases for the same reasons, means that the result will not be what it needs to be in order to comply with policy, which is a complete reversal of the original thesis. The one person who cannot possibly judge whether the very obvious faults of your original essay have now been rectified, is you. I will be interested to see how you change your advocacy if the RfCs on Talk:G. Edward Griffin close against you, as currently seems rather likely. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme remind me never to try to be nice again, next time i do it. please. i didn't say it was great nor that it was free of disturbing stuff. i do think it has come a long way. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The responses from Guy and Jytdog tell the story. To begin, I didn't consider what Jytdog said about the essay as nice. It was accurate and I thanked him for it. [14] Regarding Guy's off-the-wall statement, You must think we are Mary Poppins. Uhm, not that it's important but he actually stated at Griffin talk: We are here because I have a streak of Mary Poppins buried under my mean, heartless exterior. I like Atsme. [15] Perhaps he was lying? I also find his interest in me rather curious, particularly in regards to wanting to see how I respond when the poorly formatted RfCs close against me. He obviously overlooked my response to him wherein I clearly stated (using the character name, Bert, from Mary Poppins): "Thank you for the explanation, "Bert".   I actually do understand how consensus works which is why I conceded as demonstrated by the absence of my edits. I have no desire to see anyone TB or blocked and hope that never happens, more so for you than me." [16] Yet even after I conceded he continues here. The lady doth protest too much. Hmmm. Curious to say the least. He also went after me on the TP of SlimVirgin as did Jytdog. So editors who aren't familiar with this situation are probably asking what the hell has she done to cause such a stir? I authored an essay they didn't like, and I pointed out the policy violations at G. Edward Griffin. And that is what has made me such a horrible person. See how easy it is? My concern then and still is over the unsupported contentious material in Griffin which does not closely follow MEDRS, FRINGEBLP, or BLP policy. Don't be misled - I'm not the one who is trying to source contentious statements in a BLP based on 30+ OR and SYNTH as was pointed to Guy numerous times by several editors, including most recently by TFD here April 24, 2015, but I'm the bad guy? He gets away with insulting me and repeated bad behavior at Griffin and the response from the article's overseer was For goodness sake and hatting? [17]. And I'm the bad guy? And here he is now at Jimbo's TP to further advocate for his cause as a self-professed quack skeptic while trying to make others believe I'm the one with a cause?? It's laughable. However, the part that is not laughable is Guy's intense desire to defame a living person in Wiki voice based on SYNTH, while citing 30+ year old OR, Popular Paranoia and Media Matters - and I'm the bad guy?   Atsme☯^Consult 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I do like you. I also find it maddening that you are unwilling to accept that you are wrong about the Griffin article in general and laetrile in particular, and equally unwilling to take wise counsel from dozens of people and accept that the deletion of your essay was due to it being a terribly bad idea. It is founded on an invalid premise and it advocates profoundly un-Wikipedian behaviour. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, I'm not sure if my similar ideas have been presented to you before but it the following idea actually came to me recently when I authored an essay that focuses on the behavioral aspects of paid advocacy editing, User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks. My stance on paid editing is neutral as long as WP allows it and the editing/articles are compliant with PAGs. I believe Wikipedia:COI declaration has good intentions and reads well but I also believe it can be further refined to eliminate much of the disruption. I think it all pretty much boils down to whether or not the paid editing aspect actually encourages articles that are encyclopedic or promotional, and therein lies some of the problem. Perhaps a more efficient, organized format would prove beneficial to organizational growth and recruitment, and I think it's doable with a few modifications. My idea is to incorporate separate divisions within the encyclopedia. When I say separate, I mean each division would have its own set of administrators, and a more specialized outlay of PAGs, categories and the like. For example, WP Science and Medicine, WP Health, WP Business, WP Sports, WP Politics and Wikipedia the Encyclopedia, the latter being more closely held to an encyclopedic format. I think it may resolve many of the problems facing editors today and may even be the catalyst for recruiting more qualified editors or experts in a given field. I will be happy to further explain the concept if there's any interest. Atsme☯^Consult 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Which division would be responsible for this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Science and Medicine seems appropriate. Atsme☯^Consult 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. There is next to no debate within the scientific and medical communities regarding the 'controversies' discussed in the article - the argument comes from people who generally reject the scientific method and/or the medical consensus, making it a social/political issue more than a scientific one. I brought up this particular example because it illustrates an obvious problem with your proposal - many legitimate encyclopaedic subjects can't be neatly pigeon-holed into categories. I could no doubt fill this page with further examples, but frankly I can't see the point, since you haven't really provided any evidence to suggest why this proposed division would be beneficial. It is already open to contributors to specialise in subject matter they are interested in and/or have particular knowledge of - and I suspect that most probably do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. To take an even more problematic example, what about climate change? This topic would intersect "science", "health", "business", and of course "politics", at a minimum. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a declining number of admins, we can't afford a proposal to use them less efficiently by balkanising the pedia. Also any reduction in controversy would likely be more than outweighed by turf wars as to which group of admins were responsible for particular articles. Worse we would risk a citizendium style meltdown as the alternative health lobby would be lobbying for a "healing arts" section for a group of articles that the medical community would be loathe to legitimise by officially classifying as medical. There's also the problem that we need uninvolved admins to take decisions, and compartmentalising doesn't help this. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree which probably stems from the vast differences in our background experience regarding organizational structure, experience as directors/founders of nonprofit entities, recruitment of volunteers, publishing experience, and the like. Not that the experience of those commenting here is better or more advanced than mine, but the fact that there are stark differences between them. What I am proposing may be a hard concept for some to follow. Let's see what Jimmy has to say about it. Thank you for your input. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You may know some or all of my background including directorships of non profits etc, but I don't know your background, nor should either of our backgrounds count here other than as evidenced by the clarity and quality of our submissions. So thanks for the flattery, but if you disagree with my points I'd have preferred a response that explained why you disagree. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, WereSpielChequers, I was actually responding to Andy and should have stated so, but I incorrectly believed the indent would be adequate. Atsme☯^Consult 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah threading, not perfect but we will miss it when Flow errh floeth upon us. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have some mixed feelings here on this idea myself. I can and do think that there are a number of articles or topics which logically fall within the scope of several topics. Maybe even most of them, to some degree, will fall within multiple project's scopes. This includes even most of the kinds of animals, which have been, to some degree, given attention in religious systems, occasionally philosophical systems, popular culture, literature, and the lists go on. As a personal ideal, I would like to see all of what we would today consider reasonable encyclopedic content of any sort included somewhere in wikipedia, even if that means the creation of a lot more spinout articles than we even have today. And I could see something like the existing Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles expanded to include other topics, so that it would be easier to quickly determine just how many significant spinout and potential spinout topics are already covered in other encyclopedic sources. And having something like more of those pages would also make it a lot easier for major topics which don't get a lot of specific attention or interest here better coverage. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

John, having multiple project scopes doesn't affect the division. Think organization of the projects in their respective divisions. What we have now looks more like a hoarder's spare room. Atsme☯^Consult 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always possible to imagine ways to 'organise things better'. What we need is evidence that it would actually work, in the face of topics that can't conveniently be categorised. An encyclopaedia needs to accurately reflect the messy realities of human complexity, not impose a bogus order on it for administrative convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see the exampled division Wikipedia the Encyclopedia which will contain all the general encyclopedic content that doesn't fit in the other divisions? Atsme☯^Consult 05:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What I see is a vague proposal, with no supporting evidence that it would actually achieve anything beyond giving us all something else to argue about. We have enough problems deciding whether a subject deserves coverage at all, and if it does, what such coverage should actually consist of. Adding another layer of complexity doesn't look like a way to "reduce controversy and encourage recruitment" to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the exact proposal; it would not be useful to attempt to force editors to focus on specific subject categories or assign them to divisions. However, I could see people accepting nominated positions as experts within a specific area of the encyclopedia and then being a point-person, when editors need help or advice within that area of expertise. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea sounds more easily workable to me. I'm not sure we would want to call them by the term "expert", because that might not be particularly accurate, but something like "[topical] factchecker" or "[topical] researcher" or something like that might work. If, and it is obviously a very big if, I can ever finish the bloody Bibliography of encyclopedias set of pages, that might make it easier for all sorts of people to in general do some sort of fact checking. Maybe with a bit of material included in one of the project banners on the talk page to the effect of "this [specified] version of the article has been checked against "reference source x" and found to contain no particular deviations" might also be something which could be useful. For a lot of really broad topics, it might also be one of the ways to most easily ensure that all the major subtopics are discussed or at least referenced somewhere in the main article or its main spinout articles as well. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So what happens when a "business" admin, a "science/health" admin, and a "politics" admin disagree about the factual quality and weighting of our articles on climate change? MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But sometimes the reference sources disagree, so it wouldn't be enough to check against one source, even if that was the generally well-regarded Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I'm working on an article now that has exposed several errors in otherwise reliable sources, including the ODNB. Eric Corbett 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the questions, the first would probably deal more with the matter of spinout articles and matters of WEIGHT, which could be referenced I suppose in the banner template in some way. Regarding errors in reference sources, even the best make mistakes, sometimes clearly intentionally, as indicators of possible copyvio or something. Errors in reference works and similar would be worth including in articles on the reference works themselves, I would think, and I wish we had more of those sorts of articles. I'm kind of in the early stages of making that easier myself. These are valid points, though, and clearly no source is perfect, but, having said that, making it easier for people to know what others say, and at least mention them, might in some cases be better than the alternative. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to example it a little better. Let's say the topic is about climate change as MastCell suggested. It would be included in the Science division under the category Oceanic and Atmospheric. Science would also have a Biography category, among many other categories relative to that division. Science will have its own pod of admins. Admins will be limited to their respective divisions rather than across the board, the latter of which should encourage recruitment of admins to specific areas (specialty fields) because we are now targeting volunteers based on their interest in a particular topic area. ARBCOM would comprise selections from the different pods.

Analogy - one pod of admins oversees the Atlantic Ocean and land masses within its territory. Another pod oversees the Caribbean and its land masses, another pod the Pacific Ocean and its land masses and so forth. Admins in the Caribbean do not have jurisdiction over the Pacific and so on. What that does is create pods of admins who are well versed in their respective areas of interest rather than lump summing all admins to cover the entire world. Expertise in a particular area also allows for a broader conceptualization of behavioral problems because now some degree of focus can be on content which provides for a better understanding of where the problems arise. More active/populated topic divisions get more admins while the less active areas get the minimum. Atsme☯^Consult 20:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The major problem I could see here, unfortunately, is whether there would be sufficient departmentalized admins to adequately maintain each department. Also, it would seem to me that it would increase the risk of burnout, because it would have a tendency to make specific admins think they were in some way obligated to specific content areas. Dealing with the same wearisome discussions over and over would burn out anyone, and I know from experience there are a lot of seemingly endless arguments in various places. If admins were actually employees of the foundation, then this might work, but otherwise I can and do see that there would be a tendency to either force admins to remain "on topic", even if they get exhausted by it, or relinquish the admin bit, or retire.

And I tend to think that it might also, to some degree, lead to a form of involuntary POV pushing by these pods. Theoretically, depending on the degree of balkanization we're talking about here, we might have a bunch of religion admins arguing that certain completely non-scientific religious beliefs are scientific or something like that.

Lastly, it would likely make it that much harder for cross-pod vandals to be caught. As is, someone who has tracked a problem editor or puppeteer in one area would have to hand off the baton to another pod if the vandal attacks a related area, and the amount of time that would have to be expended in preparing and transmitting the damning evidence against the problem editor would be a real drain of time, particularly when there is no guarantee, depending on unknown circumstances, whether an admin in the other "pod" would get to the complaint any time soon.

Those are at least a few of the problems. Personally, I wouldn't at all mind having some sort of content committees created, and this effectively looks like something along those lines, but it also maybe looks like it might create a potentially unworkable degree of bureaucracy, particularly for content areas that don't have many particular experts in them. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find the notion that only admins are capable of judging the accuracy of content to be quite revealing, as the requirement for admins to be able to do so has been repeatedly rejected at RfA. Eric Corbett 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It was indicated in the first post to this thread that the groups would be admin only. To a degree, I could support that, provided we opened up the admin corps a bit more than we have. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's always possible that Hell will one day become exothermic, but I wouldn't be holding my breath. How long ago was it that Jimbo declared his intention to sort out RfA? Eric Corbett 21:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your well thought out input, John Carter. I have also mentioned (in other discussions) task forces or what you termed as content committees because I think they would be quite valuable to the project. The disruption stems from content disputes and elevates into behavioral disputes. It makes sense to nip it in the bud and will save our admins a lot of burdensome work. I would support such a plan. Atsme☯^Consult 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Atsme, the original version of your essay was deleted because it actively invited people to assume the "pharma shill gambit". The new version does so less explicitly. A load of people wioth vastly more experience in managing COI and advocacy have told you that your approach is wrong, and the entire motivation for it appears to be that you consistently fail to gain consensus for your edits at Talk:G. Edward Griffin, where you seem to want us to pretend that laetrile is not quackery, the New World Order conspiracy theory is a valid approach to understanding the Federal Reserve, and that a mainly self-published truther, chemtrailer, AIDS denialist and so on, is somehow not a conspiracy theorist. It's become very boring. 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Very disturbing post, Guy. FYI - the essay is coming along beautifully with a great team of collaborators. I am truly concerned over your behavior right now. I've seen you out of sorts before, but right now it appears you are losing it. You do realize you just spewed a toilet full of unsupported assertions don't you? What exactly is your purpose for this unwarranted PA and your relentless attempts to discredit me? I'm actually embarrassed for you at this moment.   Atsme☯^Consult 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, Guy - that's not at all what's happening. petrarchan47คุก 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Atsme's point above that content disputes escalate into behavioral disputes, because we do not have a means to resolve them when the focus is still on the content. Regarding the assumption that any new sub-set of editors would be admins; on the contrary, I would think creating a new user-level would be a good work-around to the inability to reform RFA; it could reduce the level of administrative items by fixing issues at the content level, instead of the conduct level. CorporateM (Talk) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It will never happen. Wikipedia does not do binding decisions. The issue is well documented: it is the disparity in motivaiton between those with an ideological or financial commitment to an idea, and those committed only to neutrality in the abstract. That's why articles on quackery have to be policed all the time: the quackery advocates will never rest until articles reflect the world as they wish it to be, rather than as it actually is.

Atsme is right, I am losing it ("it" in this case being: patience with Atsme's relentless attempts to change WIkipedia so that she can have a flattering Nice Article on a minor crank). Go and read the talk page archives of G. Edward Griffin and look also at the history of the deleted version of Atsme's essay.

This idea originates in a campaign for content that has failed, time after time, to achieve consensus. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your obsession over Griffin is getting a little scary, Guy. You need to remove the tinfoil hat your wearing and back off because your advocacy behavior is making you look like the very entities you are fighting. Atsme☯^Consult 16:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea would create thousands of POV forks, such that the science division version would host the science-friendly version, the politics division would host the tit-for-tat debating style where everyone gets an equal say no matter how wrong they are, and the business division would host the capitalist-friendly version which dismisses science as an annoyance. If we want to give up on WP:POVFORK as well as NPOV then by all means, implement this idea. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...are there any librarians in the house? Atsme☯^Consult 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few real ones, and me, who isn't, but is at least working on Bibliography of encyclopedias. Unfortunately, even in encyclopedias, and I speak as someone who has looked at a lot of them, there will be problems. I myself think that pretty much anything covered in any recent "real" encyclopedic type source should be included somewhere in wikipedia, but also acknowledge up front that articles on animals in the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends probably contain material which is not gonna be really directly relevant to the main article on that animal. That content would probably better fir in an "[animal] in popular culture" article. Spinout articles of all sorts probably are one of our major weaknesses. And there will also be real questions regarding WEIGHT based even on encyclopedic sources. So, as a fictitious example, if the Encyclopedia of Urban Legends has a 5 page article on housecats, but cats in popular culture is given such brief coverage as a percentage of the total page in Encyclopedia Britannica and other general reference sources, the question of how much material to include in the main article, and in which section, is probably still going to remain. The same might hold true for content relating to housecats in individual countries, religions, and so on. And there may not, in all cases, even be a subject specific reference book which deals with the topic directly. And, although there are such for housecats in particular, they may be so limited that such peripheral topics aren't mentioned at all. Even consulting all the reference books out there won't necessarily solve all the problems, and I can unfortunately honest see at least a few cases where it might manufacture a whole number of new ones. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Boys, since when did IP addresses start sending registered users messages like this? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP means well, but I'm concerned why an IP is following a draft in someone's userspace. Kinda stalkerish and sounds like maybe an established user is hiding behind an IP as a sock.Camelbinky (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I was appreciating the IP's message. I have never seen any IP giving such long and useful advice. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Older users, including Jimbo, will recognise the future of the draft as being of interest. There are many experienced IP editors, and I don't know who this user is, but one can often see the ghosts of long-gone registered users wandering the halls of recent changes as IP editors, carrying wise words. You lot underestimate yourselves. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Flipping around the TV, in a Volvo ad my eyes tune in on a familiar-looking "W" next to the word "WikiLocations", so I look up ... [18]

"WikiLocations gives you access to Wikipedia-based content, a service which is not included in the car's navigation system. You can view articles, images and summaries relating to your car's position and destination...."

"...Use the steering wheel knob for the safest use of the app while you drive."

I'm afraid I still can't cut-and-paste that second part with a straight face. :) Now on the one hand, yes, as an inventor you know you have arrived when the ethics of using your product while driving becomes a matter of public legislation, and you can't be far away from that by now. On the other hand ... I think that browsing Wikipedia while driving may be one of the few things that nobody thought of while writing the WP:General disclaimer! Wnt (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is very similar to what I proposed that Wikipedia should look into with TV commercials and TV shows. Have the familiar W logo and "to learn more about _____ look it up on Wikipedia", would be perfect for TV shows like History Channel's Vikings, or even for Greek yogurt commercials (so you can actually learn what the difference between it and regular yogurt is?). Shazam even does that for some commercials.Camelbinky (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope that human car drivers only access Wikipedia by screen readers. Listening to Wikipedia whilst driving should be no more distracting than listening to the radio, reading it while driving should be as illegal as reading a book whilst driving. (Note to digital archaeologists combing through these archives in the future, yes the driverless car has been invented but it is not yet in normal use). ϢereSpielChequers 05:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Well, the text I quoted said "view", and searching around I found [19] which certainly suggests that small but nonetheless possibly lethal amounts of text might be viewed; I don't see anything there about a screen reader. Wnt (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wnt, yes I share your concern and hope that drivers only access Wikipedia by screen readers. But if occasionally drivers do try to read and drive simultaneously it isn't for us to stop that anymore than newspaper publishers need to print strictures against reading whilst driving, traffic offences are for traffic cops to enforce. It would be within the licensed use of Wikipedia to use it in many ways that one might not support, we only have a moral duty to put a "health warning" up when a misuse becomes common enough that it makes sense to act. Where I live we now have lots of legislation about knives, but I'm still allowed to have them in the kitchen despite the risk of cutting myself when chopping up vegetables. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed... but I feel that way about many other things in the disclaimers, like not taking the articles as professional medical/legal advice, yet there are many who push for us to act as if that disclaimer isn't even possible to make, let alone automatic. And it would feel strange if you read that someone had had a distracted-driving accident while reading an article you started, or if you knew that article had come up only because you'd added the wrong location coordinates (or even the right ones), etc. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a picture of this in my Volvo. You can search near the car using its GPS location. Content is downloaded using the inbuilt 3G modem (I know, only 3G, but you can pair with a 4G phone or MiFi if you prefer). Did I mention the onboard WiFi hotspot? This is a Volvo. Distracted driving? You really think the Swedes allow that? This is a car that automatically brakes if a pedestrian steps out in the road in front of you. The safety features have safety features. Srsy: mine has radar, lidar and shape-recognition cameras. There's a camera on the fornt giving a split vision view of the road you're about to enter. There are cameras in the door mirrors linked to a blind spot warning system. You don't need to worry about a Volvo having this. About the only thing I still need to do in mine is steer. And that's not actually much of an exaggeration. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I am curious as to what you think about this new video about you and Wikipedia. Everymorning talk 18:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Health Ranger" is Mike Adams, the same guy being discussed in the above "Porn history" section. Sunrise (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah, the guy behind www.naturalnews.com/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} - having a fit against Wikipedia. What's new? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

From the same people: Unbiased: The Truth about the Healing Arts on Wikipedia @ Kickstarter - Funding for this project was canceled by the project creator 1 day ago. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very unlikely to bother even watching such a thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't. It's more stupid than you might imagine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ernst's Law: if you are investigating alternative medicine and the quacks don't hate you, then you're probably not doing your job. That video is a ringing endorsement of Wikipedia's reality-based stance on quackery. You are threatening Mike "Health Danger" Adams' bottom line. Don't ever change that. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done!

$75,000 - very nice!--5 albert square (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does Jimbo have a stronger jaw than even Bon Jovi there or is it the beard haha? Two guys you'd never expect to be photographed together.. Bon Jovi's hair now looks like my dad's, although more of a bouff! Never saw that one coming either, 10-15 years ago he looked a lot like my mother. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the beard @Dr. Blofeld: :)

Jimbo, I hope you enjoy your award :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think you will add the $75K to your Jimmy Wales Foundation (how is that going, by the way?) endowment, or do you have other plans for the money from PNC Bank? - 50.144.0.138 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, if that tie is ready-made, ping me an email and I will teach you how to tie your own. Dead easy and way cooler :o) Guy (Help!) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the tie @JzG: :).

IP, just be happy for him :).--5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking healthier these days. Good for you. Nice tux.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Over a few last few weeks, I have inquired the copyright department of wikipedia and they are not capable of stopping the serial copyright abuse that has been carried out by a single user on wikipedia for years and the friendly environment of wikipedia finally contradicts its core policies. Such exemption from a serious violation is becoming damaging for our publishers leading to endless court battles and plagiarism disputes. Not only the copyright violation is the problem but also using the content in wholly incorrect context is a major problem.

I've been advised to contact you, you and anyone else who would like to help us in this cause may email me.

Thank you and let me know if I can be helped. Jake Heidelberg (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What user, what copyright abuse? We are very strict about such things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jake Heidelberg:, first of all welcome to Wikipedia! As Jimbo says, we need more information in order to act on this. Do you have any diffs that you can please provide us with?--5 albert square (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, a good question from a registered user with no contribution history, Do I smell a sock? Nyth63 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gonna ask for a "citation needed" to point out the "good question"... poor English for anyone, especially for some one who is in the publishing industry, and then there's the fact- what lawyer, of any nation, would encourage someone to contact a potential defendant in a civil case, and one must assume that if this person was to work for a publishing company that they'd have plenty of lawyers to ask before coming to Jimbo.Camelbinky (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm always puzzled when people post complaints utterly lacking in specifics. There are dozen of admins watching this page itching to block malicious users. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the information regarding the content should and the disputes should be kept private, I cannot paste the copyrighted content here. I have emailed to 5 albert square, he may report back. Jake Heidelberg (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While it's true that you can't post copyrighted material there is would not be an issue with simply mentioning what article the viloation comes from and where it was copied form. if we don't know who posted the viloation or what it is there is literally nothing that can be done.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the email @Jake Heidelberg:, I have replied to you. I am a she though, not a he :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Feeding trolls. Lovely.Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors just take copyright seriously enough that they are willing to risk feeding a troll, just in case there is a real copyright problem that needs to be dealt with. Probably a good thing actually. Monty₈₄₅ 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that. But I'd like our editors to also learn the difference between plagiarism and copyright abuse for one, and what exactly each is. Plagiarism does not have to be word for word and most often is NOT, it is presenting an IDEA as one's own, I have seen plagiarism accusations thrown around on something that has a citation, thereby making it NOT plagiarism, but very well could be copyright infringement and therefore it isn't that the accusation has no merit, it is that the person is using the wrong terminology. Technically copy/pasting something from a book that is not copyrighted, and then citing it, would make it not plagiarism, nor even copyright infringement. Something we still don't want happening though and I hate articles that are lifted verbatim from old pre-1920s Britannica articles. Most college professors, and post-grads, write their papers, and THEN go back and research each idea and sentence to see if it is mentioned somewhere before in a published work and then throw those citations in to avoid plagiarism charges because a professor doesn't realize he once read a paper or heard a symposium speaker say the same exact thing. In the case of professors this is what they make their TAs and post-grads do for them before sending the paper on to be published.Camelbinky (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: Thank you, that's exactly it. I'd rather run the risk of feeding a troll in case there is a genuine copyright issue as I know how serious copyright issues are for Wikipedia. Better to be safe than sorry. As it is, from the editor's email, this may be a legitimate concern.--5 albert square (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The annual move request is on. Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit "consensus can change" applies here. I myself would have opposed such a move request 10 years ago, but the facts of the matter show she is referred only as Hillary Clinton since her presidential run in 2008.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the byline of her own books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what she prefers to be called? The important thing is this: how are our readers searching for the subject? What is easiest to type? Carrite (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the table at the top of Political positions of Joe Biden. When are the Clinton supporters going to get a nice table like that? How do they expect to earn my vote if they can't even keep up with Biden? Although Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Free-market capitalism (permalink) made me laugh, I think our readers would be better served by learning what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks of her stance on issues of free commerce.

For example, this article could be a more accurate description of Clinton's and/or Biden's stance on unfettered commerce than the permalink, or what the Chamber of Commerce says about them. It would really be nice to have honest political positions statements.

Luckily, this cycle we have quality assurance. It turns out that fact checking is how news sites sell ads. Why were the venture capitalists not informed? EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because I always vote based on what the US Chamber of Commerce thinks about the positions of a candidate... Oh, wait, no... nobody should. Ever. And for the record- yes, I plan on voting for Hillary unless some how an even better liberal candidate runs in the Democratic primaries against her.Camelbinky (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary thinks it's high time we had a woman in the Oval Office. I thought Bill already did that? Guy (Help!) 22:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

All I can think about is that when Robert Mugabe finally kicks off Zimbabwe will need a new president, and I wonder if they'll consider Grace a suitable replacement. Without comment on my political leanings, anyone who's worried about Hillary should feel fortunate they're dealing with the Democratic party and not ZANU-PF. As to the move... have fun resolving that, I'll politely decline to join in so that others can have a greater share of the good times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Camelbinky - Hillary Clinton a "liberal"?!?! Let me quote GOB Bluth: "COME ON!!!!" Carrite (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hillary is REAL liberal. Too many people who think they are "liberal" themselves don't realize what liberal really means. If you oppose all wars- you are NOT a liberal. If you believe in the legalization of marijuana and think that makes you a liberal- in reality that is NOT a liberal position. Some people even think being pro-Palestinian is some how a liberal position and pro-Israel is conservative!!! Some people think being liberal is allowing the conservatives to be the "meanies" who play rough and insult others, and you should take the high road; that's not true, liberals do and always should fight back. A very simplified (and biased) look- Being liberal is believing that the USA, though a great country, has its problems and you are willing to acknowledge them and try some thing different to fix them. Being a conservative means you believe the USA is perfect, always has been, and whatever today's problems are they are new problems caused by liberals changing things from how they were in the past and if some how we go back to how it worked in the past (eg- before Blacks and women could vote, for instance) everything will be perfect and Jesus will get elected President.Camelbinky (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good lord. Arkon (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is a corporate centrist. HERE is what a real liberal looks like. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've got news for y'all: All mainstream American politicians are conservatives, some just more so than others. Actual Liberalism (as defined in dictionaries) hasn't existed in US mainstream politics for a very long time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This can go into a very heated debate but I will nip this now and say that is just your opinion, others will disagree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Is it that time of year already? I haven't even got my "Hillary move request" lights up yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a complaint about numerous inconsistencies with genres of music artists. I find it very frustrating that sometimes the artists have only one genre listed whereas others have many. I very strongly feel that either only the main genre should be shown or all of their genre influences. I believe that this should be consistent amongst all of these entries. The reason for this is that very evident that at least 99% (probably all) artists have elements ( some insignificant but still listed in some cases) of more than one genre. So it is meaningless to sometimes just show their main genre and sometimes more influences.

I have noticed that in the article about ABBA, one user has been said to have been blocked for unsourced changing (in this case removal) of genres. Despite this, his changes have not been undone. Many people have made changes since then, so this highlights a general failure to fix up these sorts of violations. I sometimes get the impression that people don't worry enough about music genre accuracy and yet when I have tried to make points and valid changes they are always undone and not properly considered.

If the reason for this lack of consistency is because music genres seem unimportant, I don't see why they are there at all. I home this gives you and others something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.228.230 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no central editorial board. Your best bet is to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and work to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I think this kind of consistency is important, and the WikiProjects are usually the best place to figure out the right solution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

…general observation, [20]. With regard, Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)