User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 223

It seems that a weakness of the Wikipedia editing system is that determination or numbers can in some cases prevail over competence and neutrality. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a really nice, concise stating of a real problem which, of course, emerges only on the small fraction of pages with disputed content. It is probably closely related to a phenomenon observed by former ArbCom member turned WP critic Kelly Martin, as follows: "Battles over the appropriateness of a source for use in Wikipedia have always been settled through collateral attacks such as accusing one's opponent of incivility or other violations of the rules. This is largely because Wikipedia has no mechanism at all for authoritatively deciding disputes over content, but does have mechanisms for settling disputes over conduct, which causes disputes over content to be transformed into disputes over conduct."

The bottom line is there probably does need to be some sort of mechanism to ensure that expertly generated content is preserved over the contrarian activity of individual fanatics or mobs. I'm not really sure how to accomplish this without creating a more bureaucratic editing process, however. Any ideas? Carrite (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Former ArbCom member turned WP critic Kelly Martin" is technically true, but could politely be described as "misleading". She was a member of Arbcom for three months (Kelly is generally the first to point out that she was an Arbcom member in name only as she never participated in any significant decision), and is less a "WP critic" than a "critic of anyone on WP who ever disagreed with her". If she's a "former ArbCom member turned WP critic", you could say the same about me, Floquenbeam, or even (until his recent return to the committee) Newyorkbrad.

When it comes to the OP's point, this is an unfortunate reflection of reality. Despite what assorted ideologues on both the Marxist and Randroid/Thatcherite fringes would like to believe, the world isn't populated by rational actors, and "sometimes the best option isn't the option taken" is just a fact of life. Short of a true zero-tolerance civility policy in which any comment which could be taken as rudeness or bullying is sanctionable—which would give Wikipedia a lifespan of about a week from its introduction—then "some people don't get on, and a discussion in which the participants are arguing is hard to moderate" is just going to be a reflection of reality. The steps Wikipedia already takes—easy mechanisms for people to get a second opinion when they feel they're being treated disrespectfully, discussions closed by a weighing of the arguments rather than by headcount—are probably about as good as you're going to get, without adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to moderate the moderators. (Alternative proposals like "jury service" wouldn't work, as there's no way to compel people to serve on it so the juries would be composed of the usual self-appointed busybodies who already hang around ANI, this talk page and Wikipedia Review/Wikipediocracy.)

Wikipedia has no mechanism at all for authoritatively deciding disputes over content is complete bullshit, incidentally—WP:RFC is one of the few Wikipedia processes which does work relatively well. What Kelly actually meant was "Wikipedia has no mechanism at all for authoritatively deciding disputes over content in favor of the result I want". ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I give a +1 to virtually all of this!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

When you have a system like Wikipedia where any majority can simply dictate that "Elephants don't exist" or that can simply continuously submit RFC's or propositions until they get the result they want, that is a severely broken system, not just a system where people don't get what "they want". The Wikipedia model for change has severe problems and Kelly has very clearly articulated that many times. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:9558:271B:8FAC:74BC (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia really were a system where "any majority can simply dictate that 'Elephants don't exist'" or that they can "simply continuously submit RFC's or propositions until they get the result they want" then this would really be a broken system. It also isn't true at all, not in any way shape or form. It is true that our model for change has severe problems, but the problems you identify as possibilities (which fortunately don't exist) are also a very good reason to be quite conservative and slow about change. A lot works really well here, and most of the self-styled critics make about as much sense as you did in your two major false claims here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare information that appears in Wikitribune to corresponding information appearing in Wikipedia on the same subject. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Some part of this is of course attracting editors from different backgrounds. It's fairly interesting to note that articles in some controversial areas have some significant differences across different language editions of Wikipedia. Probably the application of WP:CRYSTAL and other core policies should not change from topic to topic, but I think the only improvement in these topic areas will come from attracting editors with more diverse views and backgrounds.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Bob K31416 WikiTribune is a news source that should welcome scoops, but may remain a series of dated and un updated articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which tries to follow the secondary sources, sometimes we get enthusiasts and fans who want Wikipedia to be first to publish some new information, but at the moment that feels like being of of scope. Of course to the historians of fifty or a hundred years time that may seem a quaint hangover from the days of dead tree technology. In the next half a century Wikipedia or its successors may have evolved into something that takes full advantage of electronic technology and the concept of book v tabloid and of newspaper, encyclopaedia and indeed dictionary are seen as very second millennia. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are good points. When Wikitribune comes out I'll be better able to see what comparisons can be made. Also, who knows what influence Wikitribune might have on Wikipedia regarding how recent information is presented. It would be nice if Wikitribune could gain a reputation for being more neutral and unbiased than other news organizations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As for ideas on what to do---assuming that there is indeed a problem in some contested areas: The "thank you" system could be converted into, or re-interpreted as, a way that editors identify and tag expert contributions. Dependent on the topic areas where the "thank you" was awarded, one could then give more weight to the opinions of the so identified experts.

For instance, if I identify an expert edit on the page List of power stations in Namibia, the editor could get a credit point for Category:Power stations in Namibia because it is the main article for this category. --Pgallert (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

From what I recall on this talk page, most of those who express an opinion on the matter are against giving any editor extra official authority with regard to content.

Even so, there may be a way to see how ideas like this, or the Wikitribune idea of screening edits, would work on Wikipedia. Starting with the present state of a given article, it could be copied to an area where a new idea can be tried, without affecting the development of the original article, which would continue being edited in the usual way. There would be a notice at the top of the talk page of the original article informing editors that there is an experimental parallel article being developed and there would be a link.

For example, the WikiTribune idea of edits being first reviewed by an expert staff before implementation could be tried. Note that it would be impractical to have an expert staff for every article, but it may be useful for some articles some of the time. In any case, the process using an expert staff would need to be tested first with a parallel article to see if it is useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiTribune does not have the "idea of edits being first reviewed by an expert staff", by the way. I think it's a bad idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going by an excerpt from the Wikipedia article Wikitribune,

"The public will be able to modify and update articles; however, the update will only go live once approved by staff or trusted volunteers."

and this excerpt from the source used for the above,

"However, while anybody can make changes to a page, they will only go live if a staff member or trusted community volunteer approves them."[1]

Did I misinterpret these statements or are they false, or is something else going on? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

A minor misinterpretation. "staff or trusted volunteers" differs significantly from "reviewed by an expert staff". Think more along the lines of flagged revisions / pending changes in the MediaWiki world, rather than "staff approval of community submissions". And "expert" to me conjures a view of "subject area expert" rather than "expert in the rules and norms of the community". I wouldn't call Wikipedia admins "experts" in the normal sense, although clearly they are generally experts in what's ok for Wikipedia or not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a mistake for me to use the term "expert" since it is usually presumed here to mean subject area expert, which was not what I meant. I presume that the professional staff of Wikitribune will be qualified for the job with abilities that have been checked as part of the hiring process, and there may be periodic performance reviews. If that's the case, personally I would be looking at how Wikitribune fares and think about how that model would work on Wikipedia for some articles some of the time. May I add that I think there is a difference between the Wikitribune model and Flagged revisions and WP:Pending changes because the deciding editors for the latter two are not being qualified according to their abilities, from what I've read at those two articles. Also for flagged revisions and pending changes, the reviewers are only looking for obvious problems, not problems such as a source not supporting the material, etc. I presume at Wikitribune the staff or trusted volunteers would check whether an edit suggested by a regular volunteer was supported by the given source, for example. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say anything about "expert editors" - where are you getting this idea from? "Edits by new users aren't visible to the public until they're approved by an experienced editor" is standard practice across most non-WMF wikis (and isn't uncommon on Wikipedia itself, particularly when it comes to contentious topics like breaking news stories). It has nothing to do with "expert review". I think Wikitribune is a bad idea which is likely to fail and is diverting editor time away from areas where they'll be more useful, but on this occasion Jimmy is demonstrably correct and you're making things up. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of mainly expert editors (good reading compression, good writing ability, and an expert understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines), as I mentioned in my message of 19:33, 22 August below, rather than experts in the subject matter. Since all Wikipedia material needs to come from reliable sources, good reading comprehension of the reliable source will suffice, rather than expertise on the subject matter. In some cases an editor needs to be an expert in the subject matter to have good reading comprehension of the subject, but that's pretty rare in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

One issue here is that expert editor identities would have to be verified (as in WikiTribune). Looking at the broken RfA process, I don't really have confidence that this type of approach would do anything but make the issue worse and lower the quality and reliability of articles. I think our editors are generally very good (at least in the areas I edit in like ARBPIA and medieval history) The occasional problems with WP:CONSENSUS are not stemming from lack of expertise on the part of our editors. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of an expert editor, i.e. one who has good reading compression, good writing ability, and an expert understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Professionals may be needed for this in the way that professional journalists are used in Wikitribune, although it's not quite the same situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

See below, "#Ask subject experts to assess other experts". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject experts weren't the type of experts I was trying to discuss. See my above message of 19:54, 22 August. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, Aside from the ideas I was trying to express, were those two above excerpts (see my message of 19:29, 22 August) correct about Wikitribune? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I formerly believed that subject-matter experts needed to be real-name users with documented credentials. However, I now think other known experts could assess the expertise of anonymous subject experts. This was an issue addressed to quality-control expert W. Edwards Deming, when he advised to seek advice from masters outside an organization, and suggested to ask known masters who the other masters might be. It is possible to combine a series of impromptu questions with formal questionnaires which could test an expert's knowledge, as judged by the speed and accuracy of responses, without knowing a person's true identity or seeing documented credentials. For example, for computer scientists, some questions could be asked from sources about the Advanced Computer Science Graduate Record Examinations (GRE), or equivalent, related to procedural coding, sorting, database design (third normal form), compiler theory, GUI graphical interfaces, stochastic modeling, numerical integration, finance amortization, or Internet HTTP protocol, etc. Other computer scientists would be familiar with such topics and could assess the level of expert knowledge, for the task at hand, while keeping a candidate anonymous, with some cautionary rules to avoid personal identity. Hence, many subject experts could be verified yet remain anonymous. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The "village" community (multiple people working together) can use a combination of control and compassion to handle fringe members, who typically are troublemakers but perhaps know more than the other villagers. In many cases, a wp:Wikiproject can act as the village to control fringe users. However, in cases where a rare expert is considered odd, then it also "takes time" to explain issues, as well as "taking a village" to handle the problems. English Wikipedia currently has severe issues of instruction creep (thousands of guideline rules), endless wp:data hoarding (of sports scores, etc.), and wp:template creep with many thousands of templates, some having over 100-200 parameters, and the wp:VE Visual Editor has become nearly unusable for pages written in multi-nested "template-speak" rather than simple phrases and plain tables. Plus get this: we even have some doc-text pages written in the complex Lua script (which does not even allow wikilinks as in wp:wikitext markup). Hence, the 'pedia has become enormously complex, and everything seems headed to a "wp:Wikitower of Babel" as if overrun by babbling idiots. We need more experts in information science to work with the villagers to reduce the immense towering complexity, to develop simpler templates which are smarter about errors, and curtail the excessive wp:data hoarding, such as combine most television episodes into summarized yearly lists, rather than keep a separate page for each of hundreds of TV episodes (are they really that notable every week?). We lack quality coverage of basic, core topics because we are overrun by complex rules and thousands of pop-culture templates and pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that the MW template scripting language now supports variables (in the code – I don't mean passed template-parameter input), like any sane scripting language has to. I saw this at another wiki. It doesn't seem to be implemented here yet (presumably it's a plug-in). Implementing it here would allow us to greatly reduce the complexity and length of templates (what everyone else in the world calls scripts) that are written in this language rather than in Lua. It would probably necessitate protecting more templates from anon and non-autoconfirmed editability, but that's a small price to pay. We want noobs writing content, not trying to monkey around with automated output, other than on sandbox pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the matter raised by the OP, "determination or numbers can in some cases prevail over competence and neutrality", most of the above has focused on expertise, competence, and complexity problems, but there are other issues that are tied directly to the OP's clear observation. The description of it as "a real problem which, of course, emerges only on the small fraction of pages with disputed content" isn't accurate. It's very frequent on low-interest pages, which are innumerable. Typically, it is sufficient for a single WP:OWN-oriented editor who will not compromise, or a WP:TAGTEAM who coordinate to enforce their shared viewpoint, to almost completely control an article or even entire category against all comers. It works as long as those who disagree with them only arrive and challenge the "local consensus" individually or in low numbers, object infrequently, or do not pursue change as doggedly as it is resisted. Well, and provided that the policy violation or consensus-ignoring by the regular(s) at the topic isn't too obvious or egregious. The more geeky or obscure the topic, the better the stonewalling, "slow editwar", and "civil PoV" techniques work.

This now describes the nature and activities of most wikiprojects (that still have any active participants). They have come to serve as barriers to entry for new editors (and experienced editors newly arrived at the topic) rather than mechanisms for collaboration. It's time they were retired. That time was probably actually ca. 2010. (I say this as founder or co-founder of several wikiprojects, back when they were arguably useful, i.e. back when we had a firehose of new unorganized and undirected volunteer labor to organize, instead of a slow bleed of talent, mindshare, and experience leaving us.)
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that WP is enduring a "slow bleed of talent." Actual participation numbers show an incremental growth in the number of Very Active Editors over the last several years. I do share your view that there are only a few actively engaged projects, a couple of which (Medicine, Military History) effectively serve as barriers to new participants. This is not entirely a bad thing for a maturing encyclopedia, however. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/ Anyone know anything about this? I notice the history pages aren't linked and it hasn't been updated in awhile. I did find this discussion but it doesn't cover if "appropriate credit" is given or not or if the Foundation supports that method of making Wikipedia accessible. Their Github appears to be at https://github.com/ipfs/distributed-wikipedia-mirror where they state that their "(Goal 2) [is to create a] Fully Read-Write Wikipedia on IPFS". Thoughts? --Endercase (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

An Australian social science academic working in the field of harassment and power relationships responds to what he believes to be biased treatment of his BLP with a paper using his own BLP as a case study. LINK Harsh words for a couple Wikipedians for their behavior. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article. User:Gongwool was a sock master and User:JzG (aka Guy) is an administrator here. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the Judy Wilyman thesis guy, isn't it? I see. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was caught up in this. Many of Martin's concerns seem accurate, although he makes a number of errors based on not understanding how Wikipedia functions or how reliable sources work here, and he doesn't come across as unbiased as he is trying to be. However, this means that he was also unaware of some of the significant errors we made with the article, in particular when problems were raised with it at BLPN and ANI. While I don't agree with everything he said, I think we'd come out worse if it was a more accurate but more complete account. - Bilby (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

After a quick glance at Martin's article, it appears that the lead does not match the body, and that most of the body is UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I dunno; the body of our Brian Martin (social scientist) article seems to strike a reasonable balance to me. I mean, the elephant in the room is that Martin did attract a fair amount of reliably-sourced criticism for his role in supervising Wilyman's Ph.D. thesis (and, to a lesser extent, for his role in promoting the debunked notion that HIV was originally spread through contaminated polio vaccines). One can't write a neutral biography of Martin without noting those items. I know that Martin himself denies promoting these ideas (and we note his denial), but his approach is to provide a megaphone for this stuff while maintaining a pose of personal deniability. You know, along the lines of: "Of course I'm not necessarily saying that the US government invented HIV as a bioweapon and then systematically killed off everyone who knew the truth... but isn't it worth at least asking the question?"

The body of the article mentions these issues, as well as other, less controversial work that he's done. Frankly, Martin's essay reads to me like a standard-issue complaint about his Wikipedia page, dressed up (not very convincingly) as an academic work. If one were seriously trying to produce a scholarly study assessing the impact of editorial bias on Wikipedia, or the ways in which our policies work or fail to work, then the last thing one would do is to focus anecdotally on one's own Wikipedia article. The essay's most controversial claims are cited (using academic style) to decidedly non-scholarly sources such as Wikipediocracy and aidsorigins.com (a clearinghouse for HIV-related pseudoscience and conspiracy theories). Meh. Of course, the article could be improved; the "Criticism" section could be axed, or better yet shortened and integrated into the "Research" section. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If he was interested in doing actual research, he would have selected a random sample of biographies to analyze. Using one that he's both familiar with and clearly has a bias toward makes this nothing but ax grinding in the format of academic research. Not the first time, won't be the last. We certainly still should make sure the article is neutral and BLP compliant, but beyond that, articles are meant to show the whole picture, and reasonable people can certainly disagree about issues of due weight and similar considerations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "now debunked" is needed. 'Debunked" seems to be a new fad word used to dismiss ideas, similar to "conspiracy theory". But overall, the bio is ok but needs lots more content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I do like the way he framed his complaint as if it was an objective analysis because it makes me wonder to what extent academic works and even historical works are merely a reflection of the opinions of the authors. For example, I know for a fact that a lot of generally accepted American history is total opinionated and/or propagandized bullshit pretending to be objective and fact based. So, its great to see such an obvious dressing up of opinion as an academic work as, if nothing else, it proves that such dress ups can and do occur. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the main concerns that Martin has with the article are based on the current version. He has concerns - some justified, some not - but the real issue he had was with the earlier state and the process. In particular, the article as it stood after the first rewrite, which is here, and which he correctly describes as a hit piece; and the version that stood after various attempts to raise it on talk pages, BLPN and ANI, which adds to the hit piece label a number of serious errors here. The current version is the result of work to bring it back to something closer to NPOV. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with much that has been written above, although, despite some improvements, this article is, in my opinion, still all over the place. My suggestion is to make the article more concise and factual. For instance, I'd suggest something along the following lines: Introduction BM (born xxxx) is an Australian academic and writer, with research interests in blah-blah-blah. He currently is a professor of blah-blah at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Professional career BM initially trained in mathematics and physics. He served as a mathematician with the Australian National University, and since xxxx has served as a professor in blah-blah with the University of Wollongong. Recognition BM has been an invited contributor to a range of international encyclopedia and dictionaries, including blah-blah-blah. In 2002, Australian Museum scientists named the species blah-blah in honour of BM's work in the suppression of dissent. Community involvement BM has been actively involved in the not-for-profit organization Whistleblowers Australia over a long period of time, initially as President and more recently as International Director. In conjunction with Whistleblowers Australia, he runs a website in support of whistleblowers. Select publications Blah-blah. Now, those who have followed my comments on the BM article talk page will note a change of mind on my part, in that I've previously argued for a maximalist approach, and now I am arguing for a more minimalist approach. Reason? On reflection, I think the maximalist is just too darn hard - Judgement Day will come before we manage this! Research17 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like I did it. I contributed to a list article until it is, currently, the largest article on Wikipedia. About the sense or nonsense of having such extended sortable tables, referenced by external links in nearly every row, see current discussion at Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert#This article is far too long. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Congrats, Francis! On the talk page, I argued that a comprehensive sortable list in one place is easier to use for our readers than a dozen partial lists split by time period or by type of work. As the English Wikipedia comprises a finite set of articles, there must be one article on Wikipedia which is the longest. If we decide to split this one simply because it is the longest, then shall we split the second-longest when it becomes the longest? Recurring over this "rule", we would soon have an infinity of 0-length articles.   — JFG ^talk 06:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. We would have a large amount of 1-length articles, as these cannot be split ;) --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: - as the editor responsible for three of the top four longest articles, I'm not convinced that there is a need to split them. I found a work-around to the limit on the number of templates that may be used in an article, which is partly responsible for the size, as each template replacement means an extra 88 characters. Apart from the article size, there is no pressing reason to split. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I totally agree these articles should be left in peace (and in one piece). — JFG ^talk 21:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• That is fantastic, congratulations to Francis Schonken and Franz Schubert! I'm very glad the largest is not a list of K-pop characters. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And they share initials. Francis I hope you live longer than dear Schubert! — JFG ^talk 21:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like the 1830s was a bad decade to be a sailor. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. And 1918 was the best year to die for the Empire… — JFG ^talk 21:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder if anyone's ever read this one? Not that they'd be reading anything useful, since it's 99% unsourced. I'm also amused that it's longer than Timeline of United States history. There's a meme for Wikipedia if you want one. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that splitting articles is one of the most intellectually demanding tasks you can do on Wikipedia. Most other tasks are routine - you find sources and add what they say to the right section. Even organizing articles, though a neglected and somewhat related art, is typically simpler. But to find the exact way to split something up so that it is manageable in pieces, without losing anything, without having to repeat yourself, takes a fairly good overall comprehension of what the article is about. So it is often best to leave an article unsplit, since it is hard to do it right - yet, it might be done. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Re. "...splitting articles is one of the most intellectually demanding tasks..." – disagree, I have split quite a few articles (and would split a few more too): there's nothing really "intellectually demanding" about it, rather tedious trained monkey kind of stuff. That's however not the question here: the question is whether the sortable list with Schubert compositions *should* be split? I'd say no, and the fact that there's no intellectually satisfying way to split it plays a role in that choice (i.e., if it becomes "intellectually demanding" to figure out how to split, unless because the article would be a mess before the split, that usually means there's no good reason to split). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

When reading the page of the current Texas cyclone ("Hurricane Harvey (2017)"), I noticed how 2008 Hurricane Ike, a massive storm with 22-foot (6.7 m) storm surge, was not considered a major hurricane, perhaps because Texas landfall windspeed was recorded somehow as only 96 knots (178 km/h; 110 mph), I mean splitting hairs below the 111-mph "major hurricane" threshold, but the reality of wind damage in Houston was much higher, with tall pine trees along the eyewall dropped into residential streets or leafy tree limbs broken across one-foot-diameter (30 cm) branches. It seems a wiki-reporting group is needed to find true measurements during hurricanes, perhaps by "deputizing" residents of hurricane locations and using top-quality windspeed montitors (or such) to gather the real data, without sending outsiders into dangerous storm areas. A similar "fake news" was given in July 2005 for the U.S. Gulf Coast storm Hurricane Cindy (2005), originally reported as only a minor tropical storm, but the storm actually caused extensive damage, and the NHC finally upgraded 2005 Cindy as a "hurricane" in the post-storm analysis later. Of course there has been debate about redefining the official measures (of "hurricane strength"), but in the case of 2008 Hurricane Ike, I think the windspeed was underreported, perhaps as with the Katrina storm surge in Mississippi when the limited 30-foot (9.1 m) water depth-gauges were over-topped in all three coastal counties of Mississippi (Hancock, Harrison, Jackson) where the seashore depth exceeded 32–42 feet (9.8–12.8 m) but could not be measured that deep by those gauges (since improved). Perhaps these problems are already being considered by crowd-sourced weather watchers. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:20/20:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Action this day, Jimbo, action this day. Thincat (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, ok, on this day, we could: (1) note at what hour (typically 8pm?) the electricity fails around landfall area, Corpus Christi, TX, (2) note the NHC windspeeds of gusts coming onshore, (3) note at what hour(s) the windspeed is recorded as increasing since prior advisories, (4) note if/when mobile-phone service is lost in the region (but landline phones are powered and could still run when grid electricity is off). Perhaps the actual windspeed is so fast, the typical anemometers cannot run reliably at such speeds so cut-off when windspeed exceeds 96 knots (178 km/h; 110 mph), also where volunteers would be terrified of the raging winds, sand-blasted by horizontal rain debris, or unable to move for fear of becoming airborne, unless calmer inside the eyewall at their locations. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Click-bait has infested much of the media, and I think it should be something we eschew, not encourage. Using "fake news", the hot phrase of the year, in a post that doesn't have anything to do with fake news, is irresponsible. Your post simply makes the accurate (but boring) point that recording of hurricane characteristics isn't easy. Nothing in your posts hints at deliberate mis-reporting. While getting assessments of hurricanes is important (and as someone who has helped developed Hurricane models, a subject of intense interest to me) but it is hardly a burning question for Wikipedia editors to address.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, "fake is as fake does" and I think some people are posting fake news but think it is true. In fact, U.S. television news had been reporting Hurricane Harvey (2017) as the most powerful hurricane to hit Texas in "almost 50 years" (since 1971), while the reality is Hurricane Ike had 9x times larger hurricane-force area (120-mile radius) than Harvey (40-mile; 64 km), and Hurricane Rita (2005) hit Orange, TX with massive force. Reporters are deliberately stating false comparisons whether they intend to be fake news or not. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is hardly "fake news." The term is in no way appropriate here. In the National Hurricane Center's public advisories (which provide wind speeds in increments of five), 110 mph is Category 2 while anything higher (e.g. 115 mph, 120 mph, or any equivalents in knots or km/h) is classified as Category 3. "Major hurricane" is just another way of saying "Category 3 or higher." A hurricane can be plenty destructive while being at Category 1 or 2 intensity. Master of Time (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, American television news had been reporting Harvey as the strongest hurricane to hit Texas in "almost 50 years" as ignoring Hurricane Ike (2008) or Hurricane Rita (2005). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And a storm can be destructive even it is isn't a hurricane. While "Sandy" was a hurricane for part of its life, it wasn't even a cat one when it hit New York. Many news reports were wrong on this point, but they were simply wrong, not engaging in "fake news" which ought to be reserved for deliberate misstatements, not ordinary incompetence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is original research to promote an agenda. Who cares if it's a "major hurricane" or not? There has to be some cutoff, and some hurricanes will fall just below that cutoff, measuring and re-measuring to get the result you want is clearly biased. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there is an agenda, it's called "the truth" and if hurricanes cannot be described without fake news (or fake data), then there is an issue of finding knowledge which a wiki-group for original research might solve. Now, as for Wikipedia, perhaps someone knows of other wp:RS reliable sources on hurricanes which can be cited to give accurate assessments of hurricane strength, not omit Hurricane Ike as a "minor" storm as compared to the 9x smaller or weaker Hurricane Harvey (2017). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what point is being made or what actions we are being requested to take. As close as I can tell, User:Wikid77 doesn't like the way that the NHC defines hurricane strength. That's a reasonable viewpoint but it's not a matter for Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the American news is still saying fake conclusions such as Hurricane Harvey is the strongest storm to hit the U.S. in 12 years, as also ignoring 2008 Hurricane Ike in Texas, which had massive hurricane-force winds covering 120-mile radius (190 km) versus 40-mile radius for Hurricane Harvey. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Harvey had stronger maximum sustained winds than Ike. That's how strength is determined in hurricanes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

One way to avoid bias in this situation is to see what sources outside the USA are saying. The BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Times of India and Straits Times are all reliable sources, unconnected with the immediate area. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is an interesting point to check those sources, considering all the monsoon floods in India or elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with SBHB. Maximum sustained winds is a metric which is imperfect, but has an important advantage - a long track record for comparison. Maximum sustained winds ignores, by definition, gusts, which are often a standard multiple of sustained winds, but not necessarily. Gusts can be important for localized damage. Of much more importance, maximum winds ignores radius which can be very important for aggregate damage, even though it doesn't have much effect on localized damage. Forward speed is important, as a hurricane that moves slowly causes more aggregate damage than a faster storm. I think ACE is a better aggregate measure, but it didn't exist (or was estimated) for older storms. Those are the high points if you care about the storm itself, but if you care about the damage it creates, then you care about the path, the values of buildings along the path, and the hurricane rating of the buildings. Two different publications could talk about two different storms as being the strongest and both be right. Knowledgeable people in the industry know all this, and aren't going to be confused by a media report which might prefer one definition over another, but to label differing reports as "fake news" misuses the term. There are issues regarding fakes news to be concerned about but this is not one of them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, beyond windspeeds, false data has a very "long track record for comparison" and is not a reason to continue false ranking. No wonder people are fed up with Sapir Simpson scale for (mis-)ranking hurricanes. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have sources noting the 2008 Texas windspeed gauges failed as Hurricane Ike made landfall at Galveston, TX in September 2008, as I suspected (or perhaps vaguely remembered from 9 years ago). One NHC advisory at landfall suggested windspeed might actually be +30 mph higher than 110 to 140 miles per hour (180 to 230 km/h) re tall skyscrapers inland, but regional wind gauges failed in power outages due to "high winds" (see NHC report: "Hurricane Ike 2008 wind analysis" which notes gauges at [northern] Houston Intercontinental Airport failed with power outage ~5am (after Galveston landfall at 2am over 60 mi or 97 km southeast). Of course, the severe tree damage could have been result of Ike's wide wind swath hammering region for hours gusting above 110 miles per hour (180 km/h) for "1.5 minutes" rather than the 2-minute limit needed for declaring a hurricane as higher Category 3" level. Anyway it seems news outlets seized on "minor hurricane" windspeed to consider massive Hurricane Ike not powerful after 2005's Hurricane Rita or Hurricane Wilma. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP needs to rank hurricanes by several measures, to avoid omitting massive nearby storms. Even a report on Hurricane Harvey (2017) by Times of India concluded no major U.S. storms in 12 years, omitting massive 2008 Hurricane Ike (perhaps because wind gauges failed at 110 mph), as stated for Harvey, "making landfall in Texas with a force not felt on the US mainland since 2005" (with whose wind gauges? see: [2]). Whether called "false news" or "fake news" or "WTF huh" we can avoid bizarre claims of a multi-$billion storm as insignificant or "minor" by including a few alternate ranks in related storm pages. I'm thinking to write a few hurricane storm-rank templates (cleverly calculated for speed, size, surge, rainfall, cost, landfall-duration, etc.) and then mention perhaps 3 related rank storms in other storm pages, by transcluding rank templates which would auto-rerank among perhaps 60 storm pages. So when a storm is the first in 9 years, then mention Hurricane Ike in nearby region, as 3rd most-clostly, or 9x larger hurricane-force area, rather than imagine 1961 Hurricane Carla was the only significant nearby landfall, etc. Although hurricane reports have a long, sordid history with misleading omissions of storms slower by perhaps 5 knots (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph), such reports are an excellent example of why readers could think, "Fake news!" and be justified in their concerns over distorted viewpoints of a situation. This issue is also an important lesson: How does fake news happen? When a topic is described by just 1 narrow facet (measured by "broken gauges"), while omitting other facets of 9x to 20x greater impact, then fake views can overpower a topic (to the exclusion of a massive storm) while claiming no significant storm in 12 years (since 2005). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with Jimmy Wales? ‑ Iridescent 06:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

^^ This.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The connection to Jimmy Wales is left as an exercise for the reader (just kidding). For years, Jimbo has discussed "verifiable and true" but Hurricane Ike is a key example of misjudgment (or "false news") where the windspeed was measured a hair too slow (as Category 2, before gauges broke) while surge was Cat 5, and storm-wind radius exceeded Katrina, and hurricane duration was a staggering 11-day period, but Ike often ignored in world news. "Fake; Sad". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

If we get a source of some kind that provides that information, a reasonable argument could be made for inclusion. We can't make stuff u[. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As suggested above, to avoid U.S. news perspectives, I checked reports re 2017 Hurricane Harvey in both The Sydney Morning Herald (smh) and Times of India (itimes), and both gave dubious hurricane news as if prior strong Texas hurricane was 12 years or over 50 years ago (Carla), ignoring 2008 Hurricane Ike, which had Category 5 storm surge, 120-mile (190 km) hurricane-force radius (same as Katrina), and low pressure 944 hPa (13.69 psi) as in major hurricanes (per source: hurricanescience.org../ike). Again, WP could avoid such misleading comparisons by ranking storms along 3 or 4 common aspects, such as surge, rainfall, force area, cost or hurricane-strength duration (Ike 11 days, Katrina 7 days). Although Hurricane Ike might be an extremely rare misjudgment of storm power, it really quantifies the gross misleading reports which justify claims of "fake news" from reputable sources which severely got-it-wrong on a huge, massive, enormous judgment error. I could compare to saying a professional basketball player was only 5 ft (1.5 m) tall (when playing hunched down) yet 8 ft (2.4 m) long if lying down, to misreport by technicality when people expect height measured standing tall, or storms considered powerful when massive, surging and hurricane-force winds 11 days. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2017, convert 944. 09:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The flooding across southeast Texas has reached Biblical proportions, but we can't say that in an article page. Otherwise, I'm thinking, "Noah's Ark and The Flood". The affected area is so vast, it spans over 260 miles (420 km), as if the distance from London to Land's End were the axis of dozens of small towns partially flooded all along the way. Anyway, the event is expanding weather knowledge about topics such as "bay-effect rain" for why Galveston Bay continued to rain across the Houston area despite the eye of Tropical Storm Harvey moving across the region. The issue of brown ocean effect might apply more to areas with shallow bays east of the flooded area. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: The slow track of Storm Harvey was explained as a weak cyclone trapped between 2 high-pressure zones, which finally separated to allow Harvey to drift northeast up Louisiana, but after days of spinning the Gulf humidity north to cause heavy rainfall along the path. As of Friday, 1 Sep 2017, the flooding continued east of Houston out across 100 miles (160 km) through Beaumont and Orange, TX, due to weekend drainage south along several rivers, such as Old River, Trinity, or Sabine River at Louisiana state line. BBC World News noted the Texas highways were designed to act as drainage channels to quickly pour flood waters into local waterways as protection of nearby towns, as explanation for why towns were isolated by 300 underwater roads, pending reasonable rainfall to fit inside underground drain pipes and culverts. However, pushed far beyond capacity, those central drainage roads became all-day rivers, and likely all-week. Hence, the underground pipes or ditches would need to be even larger/wider to drain the feeder roads alongside major highways, but deeper ditches could be fatal in roadside car wrecks, so there are risks and costs if this event is just once-per-millennium. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope you are yourself out of harm's way, Wikid... Carrite (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Physically I'm ok but mentally in shock with friends who had Texas homes on waterfront property. Fortunately, my neighborhood was specifically designed to avoid flash floods (by clever people of the G.I. Generation) by elevating houses 5 ft (1.5 m) above street level, on mounds of crushed concrete topped by black clay (Texas gumbo soil) under the lawns, with sloped driveways where streets can flood 60 ft wide (18 m) acting as if 12 ft deep (3.7 m) without flooding homes. All side streets drain to lower central streets which lead to a deep bridge culvert, near the park, and empty into a Texas wetlands area (not developed, yet). Not many neighborhoods had elevated yards or border on wetlands areas. Anyway, I focus on how the immense Houston flood-control system could pump water into larger retention reservoirs faster. Also warn people to stack furniture above flood level before evacuating their homes. There are more topics WP could cover to help people reduce disasters. For example, why are modern electric outlets installed so low to floor (at infant height) when all light switches are high above? Some older houses had outlets over 3 ft above floor (0.91 m). What's up with that flood-hazard confusion? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:12/00:16, 31 August 2017, noted act 12 ft deep. 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In the US, The Code of Federal Regulations 28 Part 36 (American Disabilities Act) Section 4.27.3 states that electrical and communications system receptacles on walls shall be mounted no less than 15 inches above the floor and no higher than 48 inches from the floor. This is for spaces that only allow a forward approach by a person in a wheelchair. The limits are 9 inches and 54 inches if the space allows a parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair.

An exception is made for outlets not intended for use by building occupants (for example ceiling-mounted receptacles to power garage door openers).

Also, the National Electrical Code requires residential convenience outlets to be spaced so that a six foot cord can reach any spot along the baseboard. If you raise your outlets high enough, you may be required to place them closer together to meet this requirement, depending on how particular your inspector is.

GFCI-protected outlets are safe (shock or fire) even if submerged in a flood. Get them if you think you may be flooded some day. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation of baseboard-cord regulation, and I imagine higher outlets would prompt people to stretch electric cords as dangled across walls, and bend prongs at plugs, so perhaps outlets would need cord anchors to deter yanking cords across walls. I think the main use would be for above-flood plugs of phone chargers or TV sets to watch news of rescue efforts, or flood drainage forecasts, or in Houston, the eventual evacuation of all flooded neighborhoods once more heavy rains were forecast. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Frontage roads are very common in Texas, where they are often called feeder roads. Less common in other states. Neighborhoods can have better protection against flooding, but it costs developers money to do that. Houston prides itself on its lack of zoning regulations. Unlike the federal government in Washington, DC there was never a swamp to drain. Houston is an anarchy of development, every builder out for themselves, to maximize their profits. If the buyers are stupid enough to buy a house built on a flood plain, without demanding adequate drainage facilities in their neighborhood, well tough luck on them. And why should the builders put in the effort if the buyers don't demand it? That's probably going to change now. Houston has had a lot of floods in its past, and built vast "reservoirs" on the west side for flood protection: Addicks Reservoir and Barker Reservoir. Most of the time these reservoirs are mostly dry, so dry that there is a park, Bear Creek Pioneers Park, inside Addicks (roads run right through the reservoir). These are about the only lands that were put off limits to the money-hungry, entrepreneurial developers. They made people complacent about the flood risk, but have proved inadequate. Wikipedia is kind of like Houston, a swamp-free anarchy of encyclopedia development. Most of the time it works well, to most people who don't look too deep inside the engineering, until a flood-like event like the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident exposes system weaknesses where adequate flood-protection systems were not installed. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems most of southeast Texas is/was a swamp, and it appears Interstate-10 was built on "bottom land" in Texas connecting across Louisiana to the elevated Atchafalaya Swamp Freeway near Lafayette, LA. I see WP has stub for Houston "Harris County Flood Control District" and "Category:Protected areas of Harris County, Texas" which both need more expansion. Also need more on "Ranking of hurricanes" to explain what are plans beyond "Saffir-Simpson scale" for better storm rankings. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, sections of I-10 through Louisiana are long bridges through permanent swamps. The main project of the Flood Control District was to build the reservoirs. There used to be a lot of undeveloped land between the reservoirs and downtown, available to act as a sponge when needed. But as, beltways upon beltways have been built in ever-expanding rings of development, much of the former sponges have been converted to asphalt. It's true that only a small portion of DC was ever swampy land (there's a good reason for the name Capitol Hill), while Houston has few or no such hills. The biggest hills there are the freeway overpasses. Even "Houston Heights" has an elevation of only 59 ft. while Houston is listed at 80 ft., go figure. Yes, the "Heights" had flooding too. It's funny how the politicians talked as if Houston's swamp was successfully drained, while DC's still has yet to be drained. But Trump's working on it. For further info, see "Drain the swamp". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Scary; CNN tested the shitty flood water that so many have been walking in. Contains not only lots of shit but maybe "flesh eating" bacteria says their expert. Seems like City authorities should have seen this aspect coming and at least warned the people ahead of time that any flood waters could have health risks. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The amount of water on land is so huge that this has dropped global sea levels by a quarter of a millimeter. I asked here if this can in principle be detected, but it turns out that it's an order of magnitude below what's measurable. Count Iblis (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the rationale that the results are " too in-depth and disgusting" is no rationale at all for removal. No wonder we have trouble getting and keeping new editors when such simple, well sourced and important content gets thrown out for no good reason at all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, no wonder people do not realize sewer systems need special holding tanks along the drainage routes. Also in general, I think major hurricane pages tend to get pruned or reduced too much, so perhaps try to add into another page (or just note on "Talk:Hurricane Harvey" for now). As for discouragement, I have warned other editors to keep adding facts elsewhere and avoid some pages where facts get rejected too often. We could create page "Dangers of floods" to emphasize how sewage can rise from drain pipes or overflows the pump systems in sewage treatment plants, or when people are stranded for days in flooded areas then how do they handle bathrooms. Part of the deletionist advantage is to quickly delete and edit elsewhere, while inclusionists often try to add in one spot rather than keep editing elsewhere. Must keep moving faster to add key information. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea. How about having some volunteer Wikipedia editors who would be willing to fact check a comment on a talk page if requested. Such an editor would be required to never have posted a message on that talk page (except as an uninvolved fact checker) nor made an edit to the corresponding article. There are further details, but for now what are the thoughts on this idea? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) WP:3O? There may not be strictly defined policy to define what uninvolved means, though... —PaleoNeonate – 15:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In the second sentence of my previous message I tried to strictly define what uninvolved meant for the purpose of this idea: that the editor has never posted a message on that talk page (except as an uninvolved fact checker) nor made an edit to the corresponding article.

Re WP:3O, it would be different from that because fact checkers would be registered on a WP:FactChecker page and directed to examine the facts of a specific message, rather than express an opinion on a more general issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the very places where you probably want to use this are the ones this would be gamed often. Create an account that avoids a topic, but use it as a "fact checker" and push a particular POV. Ravensfire (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There would be a Wikipedia page WP:FactChecker where editors would register to be fact checkers and there would be a Wikipedia experience requirement before an account could be designated a Fact Checker. Also, fact checking would be subject to appeal at WP:FactChecker to other Fact Checkers. If there have been too many appeals upheld against a given Fact Checker, the Fact Checker account would lose its status as a Fact Checker and it would be noted on the registration list or removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is a really good idea, on the face of it. The devil is in the details, of course. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting the message that this is a lost cause for no good reason. But hey, that's OK, and this is my last message on the subject. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You should look at Wikitribune if you are interested in fact checking. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

They haven't even done a reveal of what Wikitribune is yet, let alone made it a new home for former WP volunteers interested in fact-checking. So far it is a blog that runs fairly lightweight interviews and does fundraising for itself. There is no factchecking because there is nothing beyond a prospectus that they are putting out there... Carrite (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, how many pictures should any one article have? Does there need to be sixteen pictures in the article on public nudity? I think the concept is fairly self-explanatory, but one or two pictures might help illustrate the concept for visual learners. Naturism (which is a separate article) has twenty-one pictures, but at least several of those are historical. I'm definitely not a prude, but when you open an article and it's picture after picture of tits and dicks, it feels like there are no adults keeping an eye on things. What do you think? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the article has more images than I would have expected. I wonder if there's an easy way to get a rough statistic for number of pictures for articles of a similar length, in order to illustrate the point factually? Of course, the mere length of an article wouldn't be completely definitive - some concepts don't really lend themselves well to photographic illustration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what I expected to see on an article called "public nudity". Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing some of the images might produce the usual complaints from the "not censored" brigade. However, the use of images in the article is indiscriminate and many of the images are mediocre Commons fare. This sort of thing happens because it is easy to go off to Commons and find another one. Some pruning would not go amiss.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Think this falls into value judgements of what images to included to compliment 'any' article on 'any' subject. The fact that World's Lamest Critic has brought it up, shows that it is being watched by some and some are questioning the balance and choice. Don't think the answer is in statistics, rather than continued diligence. Whilst WP doesn't have a policy of censorship we do have a intrinsic sense of balance, in order that our articles are as neutral and informative as possible – which includes our selection and number of illustrative images . So my suggestion to the OP is to treat this like any other article that attracts newbie editors and just patrol it and do one's best to improve it at every opportunity. You may well find that in these cases on these types of articles , your deletions of images doesn't cause much fuss by the editors that have added it. So, - Be Bold – and trust in your judgments more – and in the same breath, also prepared to revert, if an editor come back with a good reason to reinstate. Add all the pluses and minuses together and I think your efforts will improve the article overall. Aspro (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would remove the majority of the images. Then I would swap some of the images of young white people for others which show older browner people. But I know better than to try that here, or with this article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Are editors supposed to explain their reverts on non-vandals if the purpose of their revert is not immediately clear? 92.2.73.254 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason for reverting your edits was explained in the edit summaries. The reverting editors probably didn't think a long explanation was necessary, as the edit you tried to make has been a persistent problem on that page. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The terms "again" and "reinvention" without further context are unintelligible to me. Are they intelligible to you? 92.2.73.254 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I commented on the talk page and neither of the editors replied. No wonder wikipedia is losing editors. You go by the book as per wp:disambig guidelines, and established editors get a free pass to revert I.P.s without so much as an explanation or reply on the talk page. Maybe I ought to look for an alternative website to Wikipedia. Everipedia.org here I come!! 92.2.73.254 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And, yes, those edit summaries are plenty intelligible to others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy,

It looks like Bell Pottinger is all over the UK news, e.g. Financial Times, The Times via CNN, Guardian, BBC. Short version: Bell Pottingers was kicked out of the UK PR self-regulatory group the Public Relations and Communications Association for enflaming racial division in South Africa by using the term "white monopoly capital" and is now believe to be going out of business because of the blow to their reputation.

Any comment, Jimmy, considering that you and Wikipedia have had a run in with them before?

It should be noted that released (and confirmed) emails show that Bell Pottinger edited Wikipedia, thru a proxy, during the period of the scandal without using the words "white monopoly capital". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have any comment, other than to say that I'm not surprised by any of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply - I didn't even have time to add some relevant links paid editor history, Bell Pottinger’s wicked Wiki ways 10 July 2017 from the Times (South Africa) which explains the Wikiediting in detail. My feeling is that we should have banned them and made a public statement earlier. And I blame myself for not pushing harder for that. Perhaps banning them now would be appropriate given that Bell Pottinger hid their involvement with editing Wikipedia during such a sickening PR campaign. Sure, they'll likely be closed soon, but just in case they don't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while but we finally have two months of new WP participation statistics up. LINK The operative word at English-WP remains "stability," with the count of very active editors today almost identical with the figure logged 5 years ago — 3,426 in July 2017 vs. 3,462 in July 2012….. 3,379 in June 2017 vs. 3,311 in June 2012. (NOTE: The count always falls in 30 day months vs. 31 day months). Quoting Mark Twain, "The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated." One is stuck by the constancy of the count, not just at En-WP but across all Wikis, which further emphasizes that there are a set core of active volunteers that are here month-in and month-out. It would behoove WMF to start databasing who these people are and surveying them about what tools they need to do their jobs better.

I also notice that French WP has surpassed German WP as the #2 Wikipedia in terms of very active volunteers, with the count of German volunteers continuing to slide while French WP approaches record levels.

In terms of New Articles Per Day (LINK) English WP continues to attenuate, which strikes me as pretty normal as the encyclopedia matures and the proverbial low-hanging fruit continues to vanish. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't fully agree with stability re active editors. If we compare to the nadir of 2014 the 7 months of 2017 that we have data for are all up more than 10% compared to the same months in 2014. I'd prefer to say that after two and a half years of gentle growth the rally in very active editors is looking sustained - up >10% on our low point in 2014, and as you say back to 2012 levels (or I could argue between 2012 and 2011 levels). Both new and active editors do seem to have stabilised with levels sticking at 2016 levels. One exception being new editors in June and July where it looks like we either had a successful test last year or an unsuccessful one this year. This only partially fits in with Wikipedia:Time_Between_Edits - the same nadir in 2014, but a much stronger subsequent rally. I'm not sure why our total quantity of editing would be growing faster than any one of those other indicators, perhaps bots or our hyper active (1000 edits a month), or the growth of areas like AFC/draft is masking community growth based on counting just mainspace. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It is good to see the major European languages stabilizing now for 3 years, but most fell 10%-20% after 2012, such as Norwegian WP, with others falling in 2013-14 such as English enwiki, German dewiki (-22%), French frwiki, Polish plwiki, or Swedish svwiki. That is why French edits now total higher as German edits fell more, but both lower than 2012. Meanwhile, since 2015, the far-east languages have grown ~15%+, such as Chinese zhwiki (20%), Vietnamese viwuki, Thai, or Korean kowiki. The tragic language is Turkish, down half (~45%) in 3 months May-July.
However, I wish we had stats to count edit-size, such as >150 bytes for added text versus thousands of small typo corrections caused by new-user errors or bonkers-bot warping of hack edits. Hence, we could compare rates of added text against small edits, mostly typos. Perhaps German dewiki edits are down 22% because their stern rules deter typos as fewer fix-it edits, and fewer topics are added than English. Among cite-template errors, about 10% seem generated by bots, but that is a small portion of typos to edit. Because 2012 had +10%-20% more Euro-language edits, we know we can grow back to those higher edit-counts with current MediaWiki software not improved much for wp:edit-conflicts or current rigid templates which do not autofix parameter misspellings yet. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I was actually struck by how few Very Active Editors there are on Chinese-WP, given the number of people who speak Chinese. Obviously, there are huge political obstacles to WP participation that are in place but the count (June-July 2017 average = 377) still strikes me as very, very low (11.2% of the participation level at En-WP). That said, the July 2017 number at Chinese-WP is a new record, so there's room for optimism. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Chinese Wikipedia, The Chinese Wikipedia is the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia after Hudong Baike (互动百科), Baidu Baike (百度百科) and Soso Baike (搜搜百科). That may explain the difference. Isn't Wikipedia #1 in most languages? wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me this morning is that the difference in Very Active Editor counts which we observe between 30 and 31 day months is probably a fairly regular and closely estimable number, in percentage terms. If a mean for this constant were calculated and that treated as a proxy for a daily editing count, it could quite possibly be used as a mechanism of approximating the number of Editors contributing, for example, 75 edits a month or 50 edits a month. There is, after all, nothing really sacred about the number 100 edits per month — the number of core volunteers, people with an active, weekly, interest in the project is greater than that. Nor do I find the WMF-favored statistic of 5 edits per month (LINK) particularly revealing, as this is doubtlessly too fine a net. Anyway, failing a published series of 50 edits/month "Serious Volunteers," that might be a means of approximating the count. I leave that little statistics problem for those who enjoy them. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a better metric would be useful, especially if it was sufficiently robust as to be calculated on historic data. My concern with the "active editor" statistic is that >5 edits in mainspace in the same month will include an awful lot of vandals - remember those 4 warnings and then a block..... With all the editing in draft space, FAC reviews and so forth I'm not convinced that we should only count mainspace. We also need a way to weight edits so as to balance gnomes like me against people whose occasional edit involves a screed of text. So my preference would be to build stats that only included a maximum of one edit per half hour. I'd also like to see stats on the level of churn within the community. At the moment we have no knowledge as to whether the very actives are the same three thousand every month with a couple of thousand more who count as very active once or twice a year, Or there are a thousand core very actives who are in the stats ten or more months a year and there are tens of thousand who count as very active once or twice a year. ϢereSpielChequers 09:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

WMF is in the position to grind out these sort of answers. I think the solution is old school — just building a physical database of the top 10,000 or so most active editors in Month Zero and then tracking their editing counts over time. My sense is that there are approximately two times the monthly Very Active Editor count who bounce around over or under the 100 edits per month count but all of whom can and should be counted as Core Volunteers, for lack of a better term; and that this population is very stable. This sounds like a big job but it really shouldn't be for one or two fairly technically proficient people in the WMF's employ working seriously on the question. Once identified, a random sampling of these people be taken to complete a survey or surveys about their actual editing practices and experiences — cultural and technical. The information garnered would be invaluable and might help guide WMF to improvement of the software. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I rarely post here and don't think I've ever started a thread, but I'd like to suggest that the red link above needs to be turned into a blue link, and I'm surprised that we don't have an article on it yet. Loads of sources.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Targets seem to be both on the right and the left. I'm not sure if the article should include Fake News as well. Anyway, I don't have the time, so hopefully something will come of this. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We do have Web brigades. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See also: Disinformation. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And Manipulation of social media. Why single out the Russians? Surely they're far from the only government or organization trying to control the way the world spins.

But to the extent that we do think of Russians before anyone else may be indicative of a successful spinning campaign. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and Carrite: I meant in the West, mainly the US. Bots, etc. I'm not saying they are unique but they seem to be doing the most. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You should also look at Trolls from Olgino and Kompromat. The trolls article surprised me when it first came out by how well the activity could be documented. Kompromat is simply an organized and competitive blackmail scheme that infuses Russian political activity. It's difficult in a Wikiarticle to properly describe this because of BLP concerns, but one case I saw (on the main national TV channel about 1 am on a Monday) involved the equivalent of the Attorney General. I thought to myself at the time, "I wonder what would happen in the US if a person resembling Janet Reno appeared on national TV apparently cavorting with 3 apparent prostitutes?" Not much happened in Russia, the Prosecutor General lost his job and the investigation into corruption at the Central Bank was wound down slowly. I'd also consider the editing history of that guy who used to promote the Russian aviation industry. While none of this can be rock solid nailed down (but remember Olgino!) our reasonable suspicions should lead us to taking some reasonable precautions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: What does "I'd like to suggest that the red link above needs to be turned into a blue link" mean? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, the linked section title above was red when Doug started this section, but since then a redirect has been created. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The sheer number of bots and intensity of the campaigns is astounding: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/08/twitter-bots-use-likes-rts-for-intimidation/ 223.104.3.152 (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant that we should create an article. I don't actually agree with the redirect. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly different than Web brigades. Is this what Putin means by leading in AI? 117.136.38.58 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon's link above, particularly table 3 and table 2, indicate the USA are doing about 5 times as much of this crab as Russia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedic coverage from a NPOV would cover all known government manipulation of social media, with appropriate caveats about the fact that there are secret programs (some of which get unmasked by whistle-blowers).

Another caveat is the existence of a CIA tool called Marble Framework which was leaked to Wikileaks. Marble is used to hamper forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the CIA. It allows someone at the CIA creating malware to make it appear that their spoken language is being Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic or Farsi, making it appear as if it came from another country. Marble even has the ability to take a virus written in English by the CIA to look like it was written by a Russian speaker, who then imperfectly attempted to make it look like it was from a Chinese speaker. This is to fool anyone analyzing the virus to conclude that it came from Russia, not China, without realizing that it really came from the US. These state actors have put a lot of effort onto being able to successfully pull off a Joe Job. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much Guy for the info and especially the University of Oxford "working paper". I am particularly impressed with the CV of one of the 2 authors, i.e. "Philip N. Howard is a statutory Professor of Internet Studies at the Oxford Internet Institute and  a professorial fellow at Balliol College at the University of Oxford. He has published eight books  and over 120 academic articles and public essays on information technology, international  affairs and public life. Howard’s books include The Managed Citizen (Cambridge, 2006), the  Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Oxford, 2010) and most recently Pax Technica:  How  the  Internet  of  Things  May  Set  Us  Free  or  Lock  Us  Up  (Yale,  2015).  He  blogs  at  www.philhoward.org and tweets from @pnhoward"

Just to add some "senior in life" observation, I can say that most all people who are "brainwashed" (lesser definition) by propaganda, advertising etc. do not realize it. And, after knowing quite well people who grew up in communist Czechoslovakia and comparing their level of brainwashing to my own, growing up in the USA, I can also say that the levels of influence and control of the opinions that people had (not formed)by peer groups, media, teachers, and government propaganda, was much greater where I grew up. So, Caveat emptor when you sit down in front of the more popular news programing or pick up the New York Times.....it may as well be Pravda or RT, imo, and definitely sometimes a whole lot worse. So, bottom line, as Guy Macon says, any articles about such social media manipuilation by vested interests, and regarding Wikipedia, I especially support Guy's statement that "An encyclopedic coverage from a NPOV would cover all known government manipulation of social media"(emphasis mine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Add the Washington Post's Russian firm tied to pro-Kremlin propaganda advertised on Facebook during election to your list. It is about the company known as Internet Research Agency, aka Trolls from Olgino. We should also look at how this might have affected Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why the TfO wouldn't target us. One article that, in retrospect, seems quite obviously affect by pro-Russian propaganda is International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Weighing in at 183,482 bytes the article is a freak - everything that needs to be said about the "International recognition of ..." can be said in a short paragraph, e.g.

"In total, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been recognised by Russia and 4 or 5 other UN member states, though Vanuatu withdrew its recognition of Abkhazia in 2013 as did Tuvalu of both in 2014.[5][6][7] The two regions recognise each other, and also have some recognition from other non-UN member states."

Of course it is hard to distinguish between unpaid nationalist editors and paid Olgino trolls, but this article would be my top pick for an article showing the affects of paid Russian propaganda. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I am not suggesting an article about government manipulation in general of anything. I'm suggesting one on Russian manipulation of social media - I guess I should have been even more specific and made it clear that I was not thinking about them manipulating Russian social media, but I assumed people would understand that from my sources. Some editors here want something quite different. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

So I removed the good faith erroneous redirect so anyone who wishes to write the specific article Russian manipulation of social media may do so. It appears to me that this subject is just starting to heat up on MSM and will be Russia focused, so a "Russia only" article is likely unavoidable, notwithstanding reality. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Thanks very much. It's heated up in the last day but focussing on the US again with the Facebook disclosures.[10] [11] [12] [13] Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Diff #800000000 was about 20 minutes ago. [14] Power~enwiki (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:diff/800000000 might be an easier link -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is "800 million diffs" just a fancy way of saying "800 million edits"? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. It's 800 million rows containing information about edits that have been inserted since the Phase II software was installed. This would include page moves, protections, imports, etc. Most of these would be straightforward edits, but there would be quite a few duplicates, thanks to quirks in older versions of MediaWiki. Graham87 12:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, as you might have heard, Hurricane Irma now has doubled in hurricane-force area from 40-to-70-mile radius (64 to 113 km) [π70² ÷ π40² ~= 1.96]. This is what I had feared after the massive 2008 Hurricane Ike, to have strong hurricane-force winds reach very far inland, despite "Category 2" and drop tree limbs on houses and powerlines everywhere.

However, when Hurricane Irma was still a small storm (like Hurricane Harvey at Corpus Christi, TX), it fortunately passed out of range at Puerto Rico as people there noted moderate wind gusts below 70 mph (110 km/h), but the result was reported "Deaths, Power Outages, and Downed Trees in Puerto Rico" and sounded like more "fake news about hurricanes" until explained by a reporter for BBC World News, when she noted how 30-foot waves (9.1 m) crashed ashore and toppled some powerlines and large oceanfront trees with broken concrete at their roots. It was not strong hurricane-force winds but rather huge, Category-5 storm-tide waves that had caused major tree damage. We need to clarify our hurricane pages to note such facts which are often posted in NHC advisory updates but omitted from wikitext as if a hurricane had the same size or storm surge at each location along the way.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Irma has now grown into a larger (wide) hurricane, still 3x smaller than Ike at Galveston, but now a real hurricane with fierce winds that could reach over 60 miles (97 km) inland but "skirt the coastline" without so-called landfall there. It seems a miracle that Irma had stayed so small until near Cuba, but perhaps Puerto Rico now can act as a staging area to greatly assist other islands, and we might note that when confirmed in later reports. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm watching it closely of course because I have family in the Tampa Bay area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma has weakened 15% and not turned northwest yet, still westward WNW at 8am EST. I was remembering WMF employees would have friends/family near Tampa, so it is scary. Perhaps if Hurricane Irma fails the expected pivot today (Saturday), and does not turn solid northwest ("NW") by midday (by UTC 18:00), then West Florida (Tampa/St. Pete) could avoid the worst. Also weathermen think Irma would slow in turning, but no signs yet of slowing west at 12 mph. Several prior storms have defied Florida predictions and travelled further west, such as 2008 Hurricane Ike (to Galveston), and even 1969 Hurricane Camille was expected to go northeast after crossing up west Cuba but headed away from Florida, northwest into Waveland, Mississippi/Alabama, destroying all boardwalks along Mobile Bay when flooding Biloxi over 24 ft deep (7.3 m). In fact, a Camille windspeed rumor claimed a guy grabbed a telephone pole and his fingers were left in cracks of the wood, perhaps good "fake news" to convince people to evacuate when windspeed exceeds 150 mph (240 km/h). Hopefully, Irma will drift further west and fade fast tomorrow, and then we can write why it happened! -Wikid77 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. My family are now safely outside the hurricane zone but still on an exhausting drive even further as all hotels are full in places just north of the danger zone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK the UK has never been hit by a hurricane so let's all move there. Nyth63 19:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not quite - Great Storm of 1987, and others in Category:Weather events in England 1,000 dead in 1703. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Memorable day, that 1987 storm - I woke up to find I'd got a new swing for the garden, until my mother pointed out we really should give it back to the Johnsons four doors down from our house. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I like how you word your stories. :D It could have been worse, you could have woken up with the swing in your house.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

But then the extremely powerful storms in Europe cannot form like hurricanes do in tropical waters, as it's too cold there. Instead what can happen is that two or more different powerful (by European standards) storms merge into a huge superstorm. The probability of such an event is extremely small, but it is bound to happen on a time scale of a thousand years. In fact, the Netherlands has imposed the standard that their flood defenses should be able to cope with a one in a ten thousand year superstorm that could be as powerful as a category 3 or 4 hurricane. So, while powerful storms can form in Europe, they are rare and in the US such one in a thousand year outlier events would be even more catastrophic. Count Iblis (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There's that term "fake news" again. I really don't see how it is relevant. This "so-called" landfall term has a specific definition. The NHC has made it plenty clear that hurricane-force winds will overspread the peninsula. The NWS has issued Hurricane Warnings across the area. On the part about including certain details about tropical cyclones that you think tend to be lacking, I think you would be best off bringing it up with WP:WPTC or on specific offending articles' talk pages rather than on only Jimbo's talk page where many or most weather editors will never see it. Master of Time (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a nice and hopefully worthwhile place to have thoughtful philosophical discussions about what we are doing and ought to be doing, but for practical work, it's best to go to the appropriate places.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the issue of hurricanes in "fake news" or "false news" (or misleading bull) is not only inside Wikipedia, nor U.S. reports, but rather appears to be a worldwide problem, as suggested by checking eastern sources such as Sydney SMH or Times of India which also omitted 2008 Hurricane Ike as insignificant where prior intense hurricanes in Texas were imagined to be 12 years ago or 50+ (1961 Hurricane Carla) because the windspeed gauges broke ("due to high winds"!) in Houston during Ike landfall and thus windspeed was measured as too low to be "intense". As for practical updates to WP hurricane pages, well I have not mentioned them here yet, but editors have reverted (of course), as perfectly happy with prior descriptions of hurricane comparisons, which I found to be a rat's nest of comparing storms 60-100 years apart while ignoring storms in recent decades which many readers could relate, such as 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette (Houston), which dropped a one-day U.S. record 43-inch rainfall (1.1 m) in Alvin, TX during July 1979 but omitted re Hurricane Harvey flooding because if they weren't in Texas in 1979 maybe they didn't know and recent news wasn't reporting it as heavier Texas rain than Harvey. Long story short, I am bringing concise issues here, summarized, and getting diverse opinions which Jimbo sees (such as check if false news in Times of India). Jimbo also sees people here demanding not to talk hurricanes. Meanwhile, in hurricane pages, I am getting mass resistance beyond people here claiming "not fake news" just how it is, and nothing to fix in Wikipedia. The broader reality is current news reports are getting "truer" as describing Hurricane Irma as twice the size of 1992 Hurricane Andrew (storm-force area), not just windspeed comparisons, as hence the wp:RS reliable sources noting to compare storms by size (not just by Category 3 any more), which gives WP ample reason to change how hurricane pages compare storms. Sorry if I didn't clarify earlier, but in path of hurricanes now. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• NHC advisory confirms dreaded NW turn in Irma: The 3-hourly NHC advisories ([15]) for 5pm+8pm EST have posted distance-figures which confirm Hurricane Irma moving slower and turned northwest since midday (as predicted), moving over 7 mph (11 km/h) closer to Key West, Florida, which will likely enter hurricane-force winds within 6 hours (before 3am EST). If predictions hold, Tampa will get severe hit in coming days near 2am EST, on the horrific dirty side of the storm with 115 mph winds (185 km/h). WP could have windspeed pages to explain "115 mph wind" in human terms, such as 115 mph (169 feet per second) as breaking large tree limbs, or debris flying across lawns within 1 second, or most wooden fences flattened (or boards blown off fence posts), or waterfront waves of 25 ft (7.6 m), etc. The devastation will be heartbreaking and could reach far inland. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• On a related side note, I've pulled up some live cameras if anyone is interested. [16][17][18] They're still functional at the moment.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing loss of strength at coastal Naples, Florida, as Hurricane Irma is weakening rapidly, with winds of only 88 mph (142 km/h) near eyewall, in daytime storm. Many trees show little damage, and several mobile-home house trailers seem untouched. As if more "unbelievable news" the storm is staying inland due north as forecast now predicts Category 1 (or less) at Tampa, FL, 75–100 mph (121–161 km/h) winds tonight around 2am EST (Monday morning), on the clean, weaker side of the eye. It looks to be a mere heavy rainstorm, and perhaps people will be safe, flooding or damage will be minimal, and electric power could be restored in days (not weeks). Now help can concentrate on Keys or Cuba, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Storm surge warnings in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina mean "there is a danger of life-threatening inundation," the hurricane center said.

"Jacksonville -- the largest city geographically in the country -- is grappling with a record storm surge and immense flooding. "We have very serious, significant river flooding along the banks of the St. Johns River. It's bad now, it's going to continue to get worse," meteorologist Angie Enyedi said. "We've already surpassed historic levels, the levels will continue to rise." The entire Georgia coast is under a storm surge warning as Irma continues her destructive march north." Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The many news reports of Hurricane Irma in Florida+Georgia have increased notability of "reverse storm surge" such as afternoon drainage to empty Old Tampa Bay (crab traps at bottom sand) on 10 Sep 2017, when north-westerly winds pushed bay waters from Tampa Bay out into Gulf of Mexico, but the return storm surge was minimal as core winds faded and the eyewall moved along eastern Tampa, FL. The rapid weakening of hurricane-force winds, after Florida landfalls, seemed to reveal a case of "hypeicane" (or "hype-icane" exaggeration) after recent hurricane fatigue, but what really happened in Florida so fast? We need sources to explain why/how Hurricane Irma then also tripled in tropical-storm-force area, growing 220–415-mile radius (354–668 km) as 3.5x times larger while core windspeeds decreased, especially at east side toward Orlando, FL, 77 miles (124 km) from Tampa. Also, the effects in Alabama or South Carolina could help document the wider storm-force area. Because of extensive news coverage, WP should finally have numerous wp:RS reliable sources to support notability of those "new" hurricane issues and others we had not written yet (edit-wars permitting!). -Wikid77 20:26, 11 September 2017, +AL+SC. Wikid77 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you giving running commentary on Jimbo's talk page on a news story of which all those affected are already aware? If you want to write a blog, I'm sure Livejournal still exists somewhere. I really hope this isn't going to be a new trend of everyone posting live updates on whatever their local top news story happens to be. (If it helps, mine are currently "Leader of Birmingham Council resigns over mishandling of bin strike" and "Corrie actor's daughter murdered at Bestival".) ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you think WP has systemic bias against coverage of similar, notable topics, such as if daughter's rent money or house-keys were also missing at time of murder and WP continually omitted that fact to obscure other motives, plus if you think Jimbo might have a related interest, then I think you could mention here. Otherwise, Jimbo has often closed discussions when he thinks a general topic has run its course on his talk page. For example, I omitted "2017 floods in Bangladesh" as perhaps too remote or specific for discussion here. Perhaps look for a widespread problem that spans many pages on WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Irma was very strong before it interacted with Cuba and after that interaction it weakened but it regained some of its strength. Part of that was not simply energy loss due to being cut off from water vapor a bit while over Cuba, it has had to do with the eye of the storm being disrupted by the interaction. As noted on CNN, at the second landfall, the backside of the eye was gone. If the eye had been intact the winds near the eye wall would have been stronger. But these effects due to the eye being disrupted only cause the winds to spread out more and that then doesn't affect storm surge all that much. E.g. if in the front side the winds are very strong then the mass flow of the air there has to come round, so if on the back side the wind speed is less, this simply means that this mass flow is less concentrated at the back side compared to the front side. But what matters for the flood surge is the wind speed and the area on sea affected by the wind and this then doesn't change all that much. Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• More new pages: That effect of Cuba's mountains on the eye of Hurricane Irma sounds beyond the article "Eyewall replacement cycle" as perhaps new page "Hurricane interaction with mountains" as some extra explanation for the fading windspeeds in Florida and also with mountains at South Carolina. It is amazing we had missing articles about these crucial topics, but of course there had been lack of sources along with loose terms, such as "reverse storm surge" formerly called "anti-storm surge" as confused with protective anti-flood tactics to block storm surges. So beyond affecting millions of people in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina (etc.), the end of Storm Irma seems to have increased wp:RS reliable sources for WP to finally write those topics. Behind this, the long duration of prior Hurricane Harvey, with August flooding of numerous towns in East Texas and southwest Louisiana, likely inspired many news reporters to camp a week in Florida then Georgia to write these new reliable sources (without getting killed). Perhaps future NHC advisories will now include "reverse storm surge" to warn mariners how the drained waterfronts will ground boats before they can sail to safety, or cause moored yachts to break loose on seabottom until the tide returns inland. In Alabama, even upper Mobile Bay drained empty yesterday due to the reverse surge. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo. On July 15, 2016 US President Barack Obama declassified the previously classified 28 pages of the FBI's investigation report on 9/11 attacks. I finded article describing the content of the 28 pages and added brief info of the article to the article about the event on Wikipedia. But David J Johnson reverted my edit, naming it "speculation and unproven". But David J Johnson did not prove that the source is a speculation and unproven. What do you think about it? Кадош (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

We already have an article The 28 Pages that has references to many high quality, English language sources describing and analyzing this document in detail. The document does not justify the sweeping accusation that the OP tried to add to September 11 attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you but further note that the main article where Кадош wrote, seems to be out of date regarding the status of the 28 pages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I expected to see mention in that page of declassification date "July 2016" or the group name "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities" as crucial opinions among tertiary sources, but did not find. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Hello, I would like to report an annoying problem to the founder of Wikipedia. There is a Polish person, known as Wikinger, who has been having a very problematic behavior since a few years. Perhaps you have already heard about him or her, who just vandalizes regularly this project and has been doing that for a long time. He or she uses only open proxies to do nothing but disruptive editing and trolling, and is not going to stop I fear. Not only en.wikipedia is involved, since the problem concerns also other languages and other projects. Here is an example: [19] (recent but one of the lightest). I wish it was possible to do something to stop this troll, maybe by contacting Polish authorities. He or she is a mere vandal whose aim is to enjoy himself by ruining a great resource as Wikipedia. This should not be tolerated, on my humble opinion. I have read that an Italian SysOp, Vituzzu, had to deal with Wikinger lots of times and knows a lot about him or her, maybe it is possible to ask for more information to this SysOp, who will be glad to help. I hope this report of mine was useful, and I also hope it will have some effect to solve the problem definitively. 151.64.181.175 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In many cases of unusual or hack edits, such as removing extra blanks in talk-pages, a good tactic is to keep posting messages on that user's talk-page, with polite explanations, to establish a documented pattern of trying to reason against the variety or flood of peculiar edits. So as other users tend to join the discussion, then the editor's actions can either be improved or reduced, or else admins can see the written record of several polite attempts to address the problems before blocks or topic bans are imposed. Otherwise, it can be too tedious for a lone admin to handle and discuss all the hack-edits as a lone effort. Instead, try to discuss several unusual edits, on the user's talk-page, before asking for an admin to expend further effort to control that user. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This person is a globally domain blacklisting of long-term abuser in Wikimedia Foundation, see this Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Permalink

Hi, previously I reported different things about WP:CENSOR up here this time you can see the Paradox in the Wiki En , the user insist on completely deletion of the Hadith having multiple reliable sources including the Official website of the Mosque but the corresponding article in the Wiki Fa is not even nominated for deletion by this user :v (because in Fa many people are familiar to the language) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you send some specific links so that we might better understand?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is what is being referred to, which is not about the Haddith [[20]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Because this has been posted here before, I'm leaving a note for Jimbo-talk watchers: WP:ACTRIAL just became active a few hours ago. It is scheduled to run for 6 months, followed by a month off, and then a community discussion to decide how to deal with new content created by new users moving forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Special:Permalink

Hi, previously I reported different things about WP:CENSOR up here this time you can see the Paradox in the Wiki En , the user insist on completely deletion of the Hadith having multiple reliable sources including the Official website of the Mosque but the corresponding article in the Wiki Fa is not even nominated for deletion by this user :v (because in Fa many people are familiar to the language) --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you send some specific links so that we might better understand?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is what is being referred to, which is not about the Haddith [[21]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales Oh sorry, Special:Diff/801051835 I forgot to provide the diff ID in my last msg (later I was in the discussion). Watch the translated sources yourself in the the Diff link. Slatersteven can't translate باب in Arabic to Door! Excuse me for using the word "fallacy" I'm so tired of these useless replies by Slatersteven there. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 10:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you ban people from your talkpage who mention WMF incompetence? It doesn't seem to be an effective tactic, and it sends the wrong signals.

Its not likely that the community will stop complaining about WMF incompetence and overspending any time soon (because the situation seems to be getting worse, not better).

Silencing critics does not fix the problems. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that people are banned from this talkpage for criticizing the WMF. I regularly criticize the WMF here and elsewhere (See WP:CANCER), and have never been banned. Of course I also praise thge WMF when they get it right; See User:Guy Macon/Proposals and especially the last paragraph of User:Guy Macon/How to get a response from the Wikimedia Foundation. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See User_talk:Only_in_death#After_reviewing_your_recent_contributions_on_my_talk_page. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad example. If one editor who criticizes the WMF is banned and another editor who criticizes the WMF is welcomed with open arms, it isn't the criticizing of the WMF that results in the ban. And in fact, the link you just posted gives another reason: "your fact-free insults to staff are simply no longer acceptable". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Criticism of the WMF is always welcome here. I prefer very strongly that it be worded in a positive and constructive way, assuming good faith in the usual way, because I think that's the best way to be heard by them when you have a problem (it's general life advice I would give to anyone).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to an example of those "fact-free insults to staff"? I didn't find any (but I was on my phone and that made finding them more difficult). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that Jimmy Wales has the power to ban people from this talk page. Written policy indicates otherwise. See WP:OWN for more information. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See Winged Blades of Godric's comment below and follow the link. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For context, if anyone doesn't know, I've asked Carrite politely more than once to stay off my talk page. He persists in a campaign that reflects poorly on him to continue to do so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it reflects poorly on you that you treat Carrite this way unless you have a really good reason (and I haven't found one yet, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). Your strategy of asking Carrite to stay off of your talkpage clearly isn't working, maybe try another tactic. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inspite of the huge fanfare with this page, this is just an user talk-page.Nothing more or nothing less.And Jimbo is always within his rights to ask someone to avoid his t/p.See WP:NOBAN.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. He is totally allowed to, but to me it doesn't seem to be an effective tactic, and I think it sends the wrong signals. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it sends one very important signal that is a positive signal: we don't have to put up with insults. I'll continue to politely ask Carrite to stay away from here - he is not being helpful, obviously dislikes me, and should spend his time more effectively elsewhere. Whether this escalates anywhere else very likely depends on how persistently abrasive he intends to be about it. I rather think he'll just wise up and stop the campaign soon enough - as I say, it reflects poorly on him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Carrite is not a co-founder of Wikipedia, and his role in the community is different than yours. When and if Carrite starts swearing at you then you can ask him politely to stay off your talkpage, but I don't think that that is what happened. Carrite may have made statements you disagreed with, and you may not have liked his tone, but it is important to interact with people you disagree with (even if you think they don't like you). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

[Carrite] is not being helpful, obviously dislikes me, and should spend his time more effectively elsewhere. — Taking these three things out of sequence, I've said before elsewhere and will repeat again here that I think Jimmy Wales has done a good job as the public face of Wikipedia, personalizing the fairly vast volunteer community, and communicating the Wikipedia idea and ideals to the general reading public. I have been critical or sharply critical of other aspects, such as, to name one, his treatment of certain WP dissidents (Doc Heilman one recent example) and think there is value in the defense of freedom of thought and freedom of expression on this de facto project page. To the first point, I don't think any reasonable review of my participation at this page would categorize it as "not helpful," whether one agrees with my ideas or not or finds my tone excessively snarky. As to whether time could more effectively be spent elsewhere, with that I do rather agree at the present moment, so with a tip of the hat I will leave for now. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carrite: with the volume of people who watch this page, pretty much everyone knows that comment amounts to fake news and isn't true. If it's arguable at all that you don't like him it's due to the fact that he dodges questions and doesn't do anything to solve the concerns brought here other than half hearted statements like "I'll look into it", "let me do some digging", both of which, and others, basically are Jimbo's way of saying I have no time for this. The statement itself stating you clearly don't like him are typical of the non helpful snarky answers we have come to expect from the great god king and why the atmosphere on Wikipedia is the way it is, because he contributes to it in his comments and refusal to do anything about it. As you pointed out, Jimbo has done some things really, really well but in other cases he hasn't and refuses to accept fault and fix it. I am also critical of that conduct. Now I expect this comment to be deleted using one of the usual excuses of "Personal attack", "Block evasion", "trolling", etc. since Wikipedia doesn't allow it's members to be critical of the god king or the WMF but I wanted to let you know that you are not alone. In fact, I would argue there are a lot more of us than anyone wants to admit but since our comments are frequently deleted to evade scrutiny and make things on Wikipedia look rosier than they are and sometimes we are even threatened, it's hard to prove or do anything about it. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's but an obvious observation that Jimbo rarely ever fails to toe the lines of WMF in case of one of the foundation's ever-flowing debacle(s) with the community is brought to his attention but IMHO, the problems lie essentially on the fact that his t/p has become some sort of pseudo-Vill. Pump in the eyes of many people.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all. What is true is that I'm diplomatic and I assume good faith as a matter of personal style. You're not likely to hear me rant against the Foundation (imagine the headlines!) but neither are you likely to hear me rant against the community (imagine the headlines). Instead what you'll hear me doing is reminding people that the Foundation is part of the community and the community is part of the Foundation. Setting up a dynamic of opposition is less productive than setting up a dynamic of collaboration. If you'd like me to make a list of areas where I think the Foundation has screwed up in the past, I can do so, but I'd love to know the point of it first. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you apologized yet, Jimbo, for calling Doc James's account of his abrupt termination from the WMF board "utter fucking bullshit"? That was a time of massive dysfunction on the board and at the executive level, under your leadership. Thank goodness that Katherine Maher has restored some order. The editing community responded, of course, by returning James Heilman to the board. Isn't it hypocritical for you to claim to be "diplomatic" and then try to quash good faith criticism by Carrite when you have not yet given a full public account (as far as I know) of your role in the Arnon Geshuri debacle? I hope that Carrite continues to ask tough questions of you. It seems to me that you far too often prefer to evade them. Disclosure: I consider Carrite a friend and colleague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 with respect to the prior disagreements between Jimbo and I, from my point of view the issues have been satisfactorily resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is good to know. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, I am pleased to hear you say that the dispute between you and Jimbo has been resolved. I just wish that Jimbo had given a full explanation of his conduct to hundreds of editors who found it deeply disturbing at that time. Hope springs eternal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I worry that at least some of the people you've asked to stay off your talkpage weren't actually insulting you or specific members of WMF staff, but were simply disagreeing with you and perhaps venting about WMF incompetence (please correct me if I am wrong, I have not read every single diff ever). Maybe you think their comments were unhelpful and negative, but asking people not to interact with you is something I would do with nazi trolls, not with good faith editors. You are totally allowed to ask anyone not to post on your talkpage, and they are allowed to ignore your request, but I don't think that this strategy is working very well. I am trying to be helpful and give you constructive criticism, so I hope I won't end up on the blacklist  . For the record, VE is a good idea and Flow is a horrible idea. A WMF staff member fixed a problem I complained about in the community survey and I gave them a barnstar. I am concerned about WMF overspending, and I do think that the WMF as a whole needs to interact with the community better. If you see the world in black and white, you're missing important grey matter -- Jack Fyock. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you hit on an interesting point here.. YOU think VE is a good idea (and so do most), but there is a considerable group who think it is a terrible idea. There is a large group who think Flow is needed, and there is a group who thinks it's a terrible idea. There is a large group of people who think Wikidata is a great idea, and there is a smaller group who think it's the worst idea ever. There is a large group who think that only Wikipedia matters, and there is a large group who think we should spend more attention to the sister sites. Some think we need to hunker down and some who think we need to open up. There is people who like maps, graphs, citations, search, video, 3d video, 360 photos, editing news, fighting vandals, or offline wiki content etc. etc etc. And no matter what you do, someone will be unhappy. Try doing product development for that.

At events, staff tells me "I just don't know anymore who [they mean who in the community] to listen to... Every time, we think we asked everyone for feedback, they say completely different things and at then end there is yet another riot..." And I have no answers for them. Working for the foundation is the most idealistic thing most of these people have ever done. But it is for sure a whole lot harder than any other job that is not clouded by not only your own ideals, but most of all, the ideals that everyone else puts into the project and thus on your plate. These people are being asked to be everything for everyone and that is not fair to ask from any person. And that's why I'm always so dismayed when people start attacking individuals, or being absolutist, uncompromising, inflexible. You want better communication ? Have them ask for more opinions ? More cat herding ? If 1/100 people can upset all your plans, it doesn't really matter to ask 500 people instead of 50.. you are still playing Russian roulette. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been working in IT my entire life. The company I work for works for a multinational. My experience is that all clients, big and small, are basically irrational (because humans are irrational). Heck, I've doubted the sanity of some of them. People, in general, do not understand software, and unless you have a lot of experience writing software it is very difficult to understand what is going on. This means clients lash out when they should be thankful, and praise you when you didn't do much. I've received loads of praise for simply rebooting a server, and I've been yelled at after my team did a lot of overtime to meet a deadline on a big project and the client should've been thankful. The feedback I've received from (upper)-management and clients is often incomprehensible. This is a weird planet. Some ambulance drivers have been physically attacked when they were simply trying to help someone. We do not have (nor want) an aristocracy where you need to be able to write Hello World in at least a handful of languages in order to be able to voice your opinion about software-related matters. I do think there is a major difference between complaining about the WMF as a whole and personally attacking specific individuals within that group. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a place where WMF members can describe the projects they are working on and invite the community to give feedback. I think it would be a good idea to have a centralized place where the community can post feedback and ask questions and the WMF members can respond. Currently, the community isn't able to see what the WMF people are working on. More transparancy = more trust. Another problem is that the community is unable to give feedback on projects that are unfinished. I think a lot of time and money is wasted because the WMF does not ask the community for help when it should (in the earliest stage possible). Certain members of the community are ready, willing and able to point out the mistakes made by the WMF and some can even fix/improve the code written by the WMF. Because the community doesn't know what the WMF is working on we have to wait until the WMF releases something, and then everyone complains and the WMF is forced to undo the changes that were made. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of places where WMF techies describe what they are doing. Try the Signpost Tech News and newsletters, various e-mail lists, a monthly live presentation on YouTube, the WMF blog, conferences. If you work in a particular area, you'll likely run into staffers on Wiki in that area. They usually give their general areas on their User page, there's a list of employees by department on the foundation wiki - together with a bit more detail. Whenever I've emailed a staffer, I've gotten a polite response and it's usually quite informative. Perhaps we need a centralized area where staffers describe what they do (some of the above might already be considered centralized though). I'd say "just spend a bit of time, or just ask any knowledgable editor, and you can find out where you should go." Where do you want to go? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The contestant who answered centralized area wins the cordless vacuum and electric knife with our compliments!

When people talk about WMF developments they mention meta and Phabricator (whatever that is) and all sorts of stuff. I can't keep up with all of these things and would guess that I'm far from alone. It would be super cool if there was a central place where folks can go to see current WMF projects, their status, and a point of contact. Nothing fancy -- in fact the simpler the better. Just a simple table with a row for each project containing links for the aforementioned items would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"I can't keep up with all of these things" That's because it is physically impossible to do so. :) I'm probably more aware than most and even I still get surprised at times (and definitely no time left to write for Wikipedia). But WP:VP/T usually keeps track of everything pretty well and Tech/News can be delivered on your talk page if you so desire. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I am talking about something like this:

Username	Team	Projects	Comments
The Quixotic Potato (talk · contribs)	Contributors	VisualEditor	Mainly working on right-to-left language support
Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)	Editing team	citoid	Trying to improve ISBN metadata

I can find some of this information if I spend a long time looking for it, but it would be nice to have it in one place. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm biased, but if you want to do the minimum to be informed, Tech News is your best bet. One step beyond that is the Wikimedia Audiences page on MediaWiki.org. Annual roadmaps and quarterly goals are listed and updated regularly there for all product teams (including the names of individuals if you want to reach out to someone). Also, as a community liaison, a plug for our team. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Times article linked above tells about Elsevier's new project. It doesn't quite seem to be a "Wikipedia killer" or even real competition, as suggested by the headline, but it is a response to Wikipedia.

I've briefly looked at the site e.g.on melatonin. It's just an automated summary (more than the abstract?) of a dozen articles, together with a link to a bit more material, which is linked to - you guessed it - an invitation to spend $31.50 to get the whole article.

There's something like 1,000 entries just starting with F, including 7 that start with "False". They say they are adding new topics all the time, beyond the pure science topics they have up now. And it's probably going to be updated every time a new journal volume comes out.

So definitely not a "Wiki killer" but it could be very useful to our editors as a way to get basic academic information on a topic, especially on scientific topics where I feel our articles are the weakest. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Now there's an apocalypse for you. Overpriced copyright freaks versus free and open. Articles written by machine versus articles written by people. Maybe we should amuse ourselves by building a bot to warn us what articles they cover that we haven't written yet... Wnt (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Elsevier missed the boat, this initiative would have had a lot more potential 15 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have been using Wikipedia since sometime in 2016 and have participated in making a few edits here and there. I recently came across a user page that amused me. I have since been trying to edit my user page to look almost the same; till I came across a button that led me to your guestbook. I would therefore wish to sign it and if possible change my username from 'Kamara Ka-Wanjiru' to 'Kamara'. Please help. Thank you. Kamara Ka-Wanjiru (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'd never seen the page before, but it is a great idea. Go to the page User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook and enter the text "# friendly message [[User:Kamara Ka-Wanjiru|Kamara]] " (without quotes) at the bottom of the page, right before the note "sign above this line" and right after I signed. You'll be number 398. You probably want to put your own message to replace "friendly message" But if you wait until 2 other people sign then you'll be number 400 ! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the WMF currently have any initiatives to increase participation on en.wikipedia.org from the Indian subcontinent?

I find that articles on Indian and Pakistani topics often have incomplete content, tend to linger at AfD when nominated there, and generally could use more attention from people with either direct knowledge of the subjects, or the ability to read at least one other language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There was such an initiative at one time, but it turned into a catastrophe due to inadequate planning and oversight. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Education_Program/Pune_Pilot_Program_lessons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Independent_Report_from_Tory_Read#Overall_Assessment. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Power~enwiki, as the participation levels of Indian Editors at Indian Subcontinent articles, is very less, and this puts lots of burden on other editors. So yes, lots of more encouragement is needed.Junosoon (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

An MIT PR announcement is here titled "New Study shows the Surprising Power of Wikipedia in Science". Rather amazingly IMHO it quotes the researcher "Our research shows that scientists are using Wikipedia and that it is influencing how they write about the science that they are doing," says Thompson. "Wikipedia isn't just a record of what's going on in science, it's actually helping to shape science."

And they are presenting at Wikimedia Monthly Research Showcase on YouTube 26 minutes from now. (I'll have to watch later) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper (44 pages) is here. Another media article is in TNW "Forget what your school says, MIT research proves Wikipedia is a source for science". Perhaps, combined with the effect of the new Elsevier "sorta free, sorta Wiki style" site [25], this paper might start a snowball effect, i.e. more scientists (or their grad students) editing Wikipedia, because they know it will have an effect on their colleagues, perhaps stopping by at Elsevier for some of their "freely available" material to better explain on WP. Followed by other scientists doing the same thing for the same reasons.

We can at least hope that this will increase our quality and article counts in science. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday, and made it the topic of breakfast conversation. It's quite interesting, both in terms of results, and methodology.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Judging hurricane power is a tough news task. In an almost miraculous transformation last night before 11pm AST (0300 UTC 19Sep17), the formerly small, "intense" Hurricane Maria weakened when it widened 3x bigger as 35–60-mile hurricane-force radius (56–97 km). Previously over Dominica island, the storm had ripped roofs off many houses, but at Puerto Rico, the winds were much lower, as if the wider area had softened or muffled the prior storm strength. Wild claims of "monster storm" seem more like "hollow storm" of a few strong winds.

The result is like seeing a group of short small children led by a 7-foot man (2.1 m), then the news says, "Group of people over 7 feet tall" but only one was so tall. Instead, hurricane power needs to be measured in many various samples of wind speed, plus estimate the slowing rate of reduced winds. Currently it is very misleading to hear hurricane "winds 155 mph (249 km/h)" perhaps from an over-long 61-second gust, but then local gauges show "windspeed 88 mph (142 km/h)" with a gust of "118 mph (190 km/h)" as more like a Category 1 storm when people are warned of winds which could push cars across the streets.

So many hurricane reports still seem like fake news, and that might be a systemic fault in the current hurricane-measurement technology which likely is being improved but not quite yet. Perhaps hurricane experts thought hurricanes would be mentioned in the broad Saffir-Simpson "Category x" but news reporters realized those categories seem meaningless to viewers and so added "155 mph winds" to help clarify, not mislead listeners with scary high-speed numbers, as the "inverse consequence" of forecasts as general category windspeeds. Maybe in future, winds could be better reported as "slowdown ranges" such as landfall high winds estimated as 155–120 miles per hour (249–193 km/h), and then people would be more aware of potential wind slowdown rates. Even though damage is still extensive in Puerto Rico, just wonder how many people had overly intense fear all night, from exaggerated reports. Because landfall occurred near dawn, there might be numerous videos or photos to provide evidence of real wind intensities, rather than overnight fears of all roofs flying away or cars sliding along streets in Puerto Rico. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of causing unnecessary public dread, please stop ending your posts with "More later". --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mixed damage and moderate wind speeds: The hurricane weather reports from Puerto Rico, as Hurricane Maria entered the central island, gave several readings of wind gusts near 110–118 mph (177–190 km/h), but then the wind gauges stopped similar to 2008 Hurricane Ike landfall near Galveston Island, when electric power soon failed over 80 miles (130 km) inland. On Puerto Rico, reports showed moderate mixed damage of tin sheets scattered, some roofs half-torn, and various tree limbs down to block streets but several multi-branch trees still standing, as in a minor hurricane which does not break most tree limbs. Another issue has been people taking wind photos as reports before the storm arrived. As for distorted or fake news, some reporters scavenge the site for the worst damage photo or some easy video reports were showing scenes of Puerto Rico streets interspersed with earlier damage scenes from far island Dominica or St. Croix. Such reports could mislead Wikipedians into thinking sturdy concrete buildings perhaps gutted by storm waves on St. Croix were mistaken as if scenes inland on Puerto Rico (but not). Plus Wikipedians have a long reputation for hostile, mistaken viewpoints during edits, such the guy who constantly deleted "actor" from popstar Michael Jackson's biopage when unaware of his 1978 performance in The Wiz (film). The combination of sensational news reports, mixed photos, and Wikipedians obsessed that a popstar is NOT an "actor" can deter factual writing about various other topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's best to abandon the smaller of the Caribbean islands, sea level rise and hurricanes are going to make it impossible to maintain the infrastructure on the long run. Before Irma hit, some of these Islands had not completely finished rebuilding work from a hurricane that caused problems ten years ago. Then with sea level rise and more frequent devastation due to hurricanes, it's going to be impossible to fix things well before the next one destroys everything again. Parts of Florida may also become uninhabitable due to sea level rise. Count Iblis (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless the People's Liberation Army brings in Dutch consultants when they take over. The Dutch could have handled this in the 14th century, and are a bit better at it now. Wnt (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but they'll lose their appeal to tourists as huge dykes will have the be build on the beach. With the beach located behind the dykes and the view of the ocean blocked, you could just as well book your vacation to the Netherlands. :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, beaches are usually located next to the ocean. Even if the dike is built outside the former beach, they could still just truck in sand from the Bahamas to put a beach outside it. "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept". Wnt (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Explain storm-resistant structures: With true news about the issues, there are options for sturdy central shelters, versus traditional wooden boardwalks or beach bungalows designed to be rebuilt or reused as patch-boards. The topic of "Hurricane-resistant construction" (or related) could explain how boardwalks or houses can be built to withstand 20-foot storm floods (6.1 m) or high-speed winds as rounded or domed structures, allowing ground-floor spaces as wash-through storm drains, but reinforce the underground foundations, not topple condos as rows of dominoes tilting in the storm surge waves. After the storm, rebuild tourist bungalows or such for beach-front access. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Short story - we learned in the spring that the WMF had decided to play mixmaster with content from Wikidata and en-WP -- they decided to insert the "description" field from Wikidata into the start of en-WP articles on mobile. That led to an RfC 6 months ago where the community made it very clear that:

• a) this is a governance issue - the WMF has no right whatsoever to mess around with content
• b) issues with BLP and Verify in en-WP arise when content is imported from Wikidata, which has no such policies.

That RfC was focused on mobile views, as that is what we were focused on. And we were told they would stop doing it.

They had also been doing this overstepping on the Android and iOS apps, and they kept doing it there even after the RfC, and are pushing this a step further and have proudly told us they are making it possible to edit Wikidata from en-WP on the app. See here about that.

The arrogance and cluelessness of this is mind-blowing to me. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any high-volume uses of Wikidata which don't involve large for-profit companies making money from the work of volunteers? 117.136.38.57 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I would be willing to add fixing this to my proposals at User:Guy Macon/Proposals. Please discuss at User talk:Guy Macon/Proposals if you would like me to do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Everyone has the right to take Wikipedia content and create mash-ups with it. That's a fundamental consequence of the CC licence which states, "You are free ... to Remix — to adapt the work for any purpose, even commercially." So, the WMF is as free to do this as Google or any of the other forks and mirrors. The main constraint seems to be that they are supposed to take "reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." This doesn't seem to be happening in the iOS app. This has a one line description for Jimmy Wales as "Wikipedia co-founder and American Internet entrepreneur". I suppose that line comes from Wikidata but it doesn't make this clear. But one can understand why as it might look messy if they had to label that and the pictures as coming separately from Wikidata/Commons. But you can touch the pictures to drill down to their source and it's good if they are extending that to the Wikidata contribution too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no legal or "rights" issue here. Framing this as "the WMF has no right whatsoever" is not particularly helpful. But I do agree that there is a real problem if the mobile experience is pulling data from Wikidata (which has different policies and different issues) and Wikipedia in a way that leads to errors or lower quality. I'd be more interested in seeing examples where this is actually causing a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I would hope that editors can deal with the WMF without using phrases like "arrogance and cluelessness", but I do have some concerns about Wikidata intruding into en:Wikipedia (desktop version) in a non-transparent way. There's an official website that's given by Wikidata for some (all?) company articles unless you can figure out that in the infobox you have to put "website = hide" to get rid of the external link to the "official" website. Of course we *usually* want to have a link to the company's website, but not always (examples, Banc De Binary a defunct rip off firm, or FXCM a broker that was kicked out of the US for defrauding its customers and already has the official website listed elsewhere in the article). Another example that I'm not entirely sure is from Wikidata involves a photo in the infobox. I was considering replacing the photo at Arecibo Observatory and can't find the text that calls up the photo. I figured I just need to check it 10 times, but still haven't found it. Must be Wikidata, right? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is something from Wikidata, where I can't figure out how to change the infobox photo. The observatory photo was inserted with this edit. I'm not accusing anybody of trying to slip something in secretly that can't be changed. But I am saying that, I've edited here for over 10 years, and it took me over 30 minutes in both cases (the infobox website and photo) to figure out where the link or photo were coming from. I'd like to be able to continue editing Wikipedia without learning how to edit Wikidata. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo, I'm sure there are more recent examples but the obvious one is this, which caused a gross BLP violation to be presented to all readers of Larry Silverstein using the mobile apps for over two years because nobody on en-wiki could figure out where the problematic information was coming from. ‑ Iridescent 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We also have probable copyvio images from Commons automatically being transcluded to BLPs from Wikidata. Please see this thread at VP. Dr. K. 06:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, Andrew D, you are both dead wrong. It is one thing for some third party to make a mashup and publish it. This is the WMF publishing a WMF-branded, authorized "Wikipedia" (just like the online encyclopedia) that is not actually en-WP.

WMF has the power to publish -- it controls the platform. This is what it does. But it has extremely limited jurisdiction over intra-project content or behavior. Those are some of the most basic ground rules of this entire massive thing. What the WMF has done, is abuse its publishing power - "Hey, let's mash up Wikidata and en-WP!". Next they will be changing images with different from ones from the commons because they like those images better -- "Hey it is all movement content! Why not??"

People with power get sloppy and they over step and fuck up. This happens. (They were trying to solve a problem in good faith, I think. Article leads can be too cluttered. But it is not their role to change content. Not. Their. Role. Big. Exclamation. Point.)

What is "arrogant and clueless" is that we made it clear in March that the mashup was out-of-line on mobile version, and as an organization they failed to generalize the basic principles to the android and iOS apps.

There are fundamental intraproject relationship issues here. And if you really think it is OK for the WMF to unilaterally make content decisions, that would be a shocker and rather controversial. I will take what you wrote as just yet more sloppiness.

On the other hand if you really believe it is OK for WMF to change en-WP content before it publishes it, and to mashup content unilaterally and present that as "Wikipedia", then please say so and say it clearly. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Terms of Use: These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both. We want you to know that we host an incredible quantity of educational and informational content, all of which is contributed and made possible by users like yourself. Generally we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of policies like these Terms of Use or legal compliance for DMCA notices). This means that editorial control is in the hands of you and your fellow users who create and manage the content. We merely host this content. That is the fundamental deal here. The WMF broke it by playing mixmaster. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, if everyone else has the right to "mash up" content, then the WMF has that same right. I completely understand the frustration here, but you aren't going to get anywhere by arguing that there is anything illegal or against the TOS here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. Remember that one of the oldest philosophies in the wiki world is "Assume Good Faith" - in this case, we don't have to merely assume it, we know the Foundation is acting in good faith. There is a complex problem here, a real one, and one worthy of solutions. Jytdog, putting down the pitchfork and torch will be a good way to start moving things forward. Accusing me of "sloppiness" when I've been very precise in what I've said is just not a good way to convince me that you're willing to listen. Nor is trying to get me to make some kind of bizarre and unprincipled blanket declaration either "for" or "against" a principle that isn't at all at issue here. Put down the stick and back away from the horse, please.

For the record, I think that the WMF should (and does) take an approach of working carefully to find consensus and compromise that is broadly supported by the community for everything that we do. That doesn't mean that they should be expected to listen to insults - who would? I also don't want the WMF to be paralyzed into thinking that they can do nothing, can try nothing, because a lynch mob will be instantly organized to defeat any change. No, rather what I think is that all of us should work together in good faith to try to achieve our goals together. Everyone screws up sometime - as you screwed up here by being insulting rather than constructive. That's ok, that's human. But let's step back and take a deep breath and look at how to move forward in the best way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that insults are stupid and counterproductive, but with all due respect, statements like "a lynch mob will be instantly organized to defeat any change" are themselves somewhat insulting, and ignore the fact that such "lynch mobs" often form after years of attempts to address certain concerns being ignored. I would also ask you, Jimbo, to reflect and ask yourself whether it could be possible that when there is a conflict between the Wikipedia community and the WMF, you have gotten into the habit of being too quick to take the side of the WMF and of seldom agreeing with the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On that last point, I don't think so at all. What I often do say, and I stand behind this fully, is that an attitude of confrontation is not helpful. The idea that "they ignore us unless we behave in an insulting way and foment a community revolt" just doesn't fit the pattern of facts very well. What does fit is that when concerns are addressed in a constructive and collaborative way (on both sides) progress is made very well. And that, as a simple matter of human behavior, being attacked and insulted doesn't particularly incline anyone to change their behavior, whereas being approached with respect and collaboratively actually works quite well. And this applies to the Foundation just as much as to the community of course!

I don't think my statement about lynch mobs was in any way insulting. I didn't say that they do form. What I did say is that I don't want the Foundation to feel that way. The main reason they shouldn't feel that way is that it isn't true. But it could become true if we in the community fail to point out directly to people when they are being counterproductive and unfair to the Foundation rather than constructively helping with some particular problem at hand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, you just agreed with an account that I kind of suspect might be a sock of Greg Kohs, but that is a matter for different venues. My purpose in mentioning that, is that quick reactions are often unhelpful.

The WMF playing DJ with content produced by the various communities and presenting that as The Wikipedia is a deeply fucked up thing. Is is fraudish.

You can moan at how I am stating this - I don't care.

My goal here is to say WAKE UP.

Setting up a situation where en-WP editors end up edit warring with Wikidata editors through some bridging interface is the the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I understand the idealism driving this mixmatching.

But it is as stupid as me buying a house in the UK and expecting US law to govern there, and as naive as two teenagers in love who think they will always be blissfully in love Forever.

The living policies in the two projects are very different. The governance in the two communities is very different.

I have no idea how to address an edit war across two projects.

I have no idea what a clueful behavioral enforcement case at a board within Wikidata (like an ANI or Arbcom case here) would even look like. I have no idea. I don't want to have an idea. It would be stupid and arrogant for me to even try to enforce en-WP 3RR or BLP or any other en-WP policy in Wikidata.

Just like it is stupid and arrogant for the WMF to play mixmaster at all. We merely host this content.

But here is a more tangible question, from the perspective of an en-WP editor.

Generally before anybody makes systematic changes to many articles here in en-WP, it it good practice to get consensus first (at the relevant WikiProject, at VPP... somewhere). This is what we expect of each other.

Where and when did WMF get consensus from the various Wikipedia communities, to add Wikidata descriptions throughout each of the Wikipedias?

Now... if somebody doesn't get prior consensus, they generally pulled up short at some point, so things can be discussed.

We did that in March already. So why is this still happening? And why has the WMF not come and asked for consensus?

This is what i mean by abuse of power, arrogance, and ignorance. They aren't insults. They are accurate descriptions of behavior. Well intentioned behavior can be arrogant and ignorant and can abuse power. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not Greg Kohs. Your weaselly invocation of that particular bogeyman here speaks for itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI: some WMF follow-up is given here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That response contains this:

"In addition to Wikidata descriptions, there are currently several instances where information from Wikidata appears alongside English Wikipedia content. For instance:

• Numerous templates using Wikidata created by English Wikipedia contributors.
• Language links for finding an article in a different language"

Unless someone comes up with an objection, I think the language links are fine.

The templates, however, are something we can address without any WMF involvement. If, as has been argued, Wikidata allows material that violates our core policies such as BLP, we can forbid the use of Wikidata in templates. And no, addressing this on a case-by-case basis is not a good solution. If a template contains material from Wikidata that currently does not violate our policies, it could be changed later in such a way that it does violate our policies, and the change would not appear on anyone's watchlist of show up in the edit history. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That last point is a technical one that seems like a good place to focus our resources. A blanket ban on the use of Wikidata in templates is not a very productive way forward in the long run because the use of Wikidata in templates is obviously a huge overall positive benefit to Wikipedia. Making sure that wikidata in templates doesn't give rise to new problems like the one you mention (vandalism at wikidata not being visible in a timely fashion to most editors) is a solvable problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: No, Wikidata changes do appear on my Wikipedia watchlist (and if it doesn't for you, there's an option to enable it). If a change occurs to the Wikidata item linked to a Wikipedia page I watch, then that change shows up with a diff link to Wikidata. If you have issues with Wikidata's content, then you need to work with our (Wikidata's) community to work out a solution. Keep in mind though that Wikidata is a highly multilingual, mixed community where insisting that every Wikipedia policy be applied there is highly frowned upon.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an option in the Wikipedia preferences for "Show Wikidata edits by default in recent changes". do we know what percentage of editors have this option turned on/off? Do we know what percentage of edits are made by editors have this option turned on/off? (they may not be the same; it may turn out that newbies are more likely to leave it at the default setting and experienced editors more likely to change it). As for "If you have issues with Wikidata's content..." please don't confuse "having issues with Wikidata's content" with having concerns that Wikidata has different rules and thus being concerned about automatically adding Wikidata content to Wikipedia. There was an RfC ( Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Rfc: Remove description taken from Wikidata from mobile view of en-WP ) where this same concern was raised by 17 editors in the 10 hours it was open. We did get an answer [26] promising to "turn the wikidata descriptions feature off for enwiki for the time being." Now we discover that the Wikidata descriptions were not "turned of for enwiki" in the Android and iOS apps. You say "If a change occurs to the Wikidata item linked to a Wikipedia page I watch, then that change shows up with a diff link to Wikidata." Is this true if the change is in the description, which I do not see on my PC but users of the Android and iOS apps do see? According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#Hard to detect mobile vandalism it does not show up on my watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

...Sound of Crickets... -Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into an argument over what WMF has the "right" to do by us, I think it would be useful to examine what WMF could end up liable for with a mass mechanical edit. I mean, if you misassemble enough data by machine, I think eventually you're going to have teen beauty pageant winners illustrated with porn models, describe criminal convictions for people who only testified in the cases. No, I'm not a lawyer, but if enough people are affected simultaneously I'm thinking this is a big exposure, and it might really apply because there is no user to be blamed for putting those things together that way. If you change your "business model", make sure the new one works. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The only way that the en-WP can hold someone accountable is to block or ban them. I will be making a decision this week as to whether or not to re-open the RfC I started asking if we should ban the WMF people who did this. It doesn't matter that much in the real world but it is somewhat symbolically powerful. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal will undoubtedly fail. What's the symbolic power of failure? Why not keep talking to the developers instead of trying to ban them? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, "ban the WMF people" is not really a productive attitude. This is another kind of situation. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, rather than written by a magic machine, for a reason, and sooner or later they are bound to find out what that reason is. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, WP:CONSENSUS is a lighthouse, and the folks at WMF pushing Wikidata into en-WP continue to a) ignore it and b) not try to obtain it nor even assess it. We ban/block people who refuse to engage with key policies/guidelines/processes in order to prevent further disruption; we unblock/unban when people make it clear that they understand what they did wrong. Not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we'd all have preferred this topic starting off with a cool understatement instead of a heated overstatement. @Jytdog: the advantage of understatements is that they are more effective than overstatements. Sure, any side in the discussion could find reason for feeling offended on many levels, but please, no more "offence taken" than strictly needed to further the issues at hand. @Jimbo, can we get past the procedural analyses and get more exclusively to the topic at hand? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo asked for examples: here is one. Currently the lead sentence of the Bach article reads:

Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period. (+explanatory footnote on pronunciation)

The Wikidata summary (Q1339) reads:

German Baroque composer, organist, harpsichordist, violist and violinist

The word that drew my attention in that summary is "violist" – did anyone ever see that word? My Oxford English Minidictionary doesn't know the word. My Webster's Third gives two different meanings (depending on a slightly different pronunciation for each meaning). The en.Wikipedia bluelink violist links to one of these two meanings (but, I suppose, not the meaning intended by the Wikidata entry, which I suppose to refer to a rather speculative tiny sub-branch of Bach scholarship).

In sum, the "violist" qualification can be backed up with viable, although a bit rare, references (it is definitely "correct"), but it is not a qualification I'd put in a "summary of summaries" of what Bach is about, too peripheral for that, and too extraneous a word to present to anyone in the first sentence they might be reading about Bach. No "vandalism" in any way or format (the vandalism comparisons between en.Wikipedia and Wikidata are interesting, but as far as I'm concerned not central to this discussion).

At en.Wikipedia we put a lot of effort in getting the lead section of the Bach article ironed out. Honestly, I was a bit surprised to learn that all that effort can be somehow overridden, depending on device, but not through an intentional choice of the holder of that device, by a somewhat less fortunate first introduction to the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Francis, this is a beautiful example. It's not very dramatic, and that's part of what makes it so effective. The point is that English Wikipedians care deeply about getting it right, even at the level of nuance. Not mostly sort of kind of right, but right. I don't pretend to know the right solution here, but this is a wonderful example to illustrate the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, discussions at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (and yet another ramification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#Template:Cite Q) are getting more unwieldy by the hour – let's not use the d-word for them yet though. Practical suggestion: is there any way to bring the content of Jimbo's reply above (not the implied flattery but the "Wikipedians care deeply about getting it right" etc part) home to the participants in the debate? The "... (WMF)" participants in these debates in particular seem to be hardly aware of that specific dynamic in the Wikipedia editing community, at least, seem to show little inclination to grasp its practical consequences. Not sure whether Jimbo has a direct communication channel to WMF employees (etc), but still might be a task cut out for him to raise awareness on this issue within WMF ranks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Another example: "essay writing for deadly diseases" was the Wikidata description for Social history of viruses, a featured article, from November 2013 to August 2016, and duly appeared as a subhead in the iOS app. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked at that phrase and it seems freely editable [27]. Is there a problem with replacing this with the current article's first sentence or some hybrid option or at least taking out the violist? I mean, this is essentially infobox editing - done offsite with unclear policy issues involved - and that is often one of the most contentious kinds of article editing, but it seems at least doable by ordinary human means. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe best to distinguish between an en.Wikipedia editor "pulling" info from Wikidata, e.g. by placing a template ("template" in this instance being mostly an understatement for the tangled infobox topic). However complex, there is nothing here where WMF involvement would be mandatory to get things sorted out. For "pulling" of content from Wikidata there is also not much difference on how an en.Wikipedia editor "pulls" images from Commons (another topic I suppose too peripheral to draw in the discussions here). On the other hand, technology allows to "push" Wikidata through to en.Wikipedia articles, a technology on which WMF holds the switch. I propose to discontinue talking about the "pull" aspect in this discussion (it is another topic), and concentrate on the "push" aspect, which is the core of the topic we try to get sorted here I suppose. (and talk about "pull", as in my second proposal below, only for proposals that may smooth wikipedian-wikidataian communications). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's a first proposal, after the introductory subsections above: The WMF could "market" the mixed Wikipedia/Wikidata content as "Wikipedia⁺" or something in that vein (design a nice logo for it, somewhat similar to, but clearly distinguished from, the Wikipedia logo). I suppose that could address Jytdog's (and my) main concerns, if diligently implemented. Of course switching between Wikipedia "classic" and Wikipedia⁺ should be a reader's choice, where the reader should be clearly informed what the main differences are. Any situation where a reader expects to find "Wikipedia" content and gets "Wikipedia⁺" content instead, before having chosen that option, should be avoided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting a fork, but this seems more like a case where people don't want a fork. I've seen mobile users say they don't want to be sent to the mobile ghetto, they just want to read Wikipedia. Can we identify what real mobile access issues exist and adapt the formatting options so that there is clearly just one Wikipedia, even if some people view it differently? How an article reads should not depend on who or where or what you are. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Re. "You're suggesting a fork" – no, I'm not: where did you get that idea? Wikidata *is* a fork (type: supported Wikipedia:Content forking#Project-level forking). I don't think anyone doubts that (or are they?). The problem is: you can't push forked content back in the encyclopedia per WP:CIRCULAR. That policy doesn't have a problem with pulling such content back in the encyclopedia: the editor who pulls should see to it that the WP:V policy is followed for the content they are pulling, which can only be done on a case-by-case basis (not by an automaton that can't discriminate between duly sourced/NPOV content and content that isn't adjusted to such considerations). But you can market such mixed content, like one can market a mobile phone together with a subscription to an ISP. That is neither a fork of the mobile phone franchise, nor a fork of the ISP service provider. One markets something that is neither exclusively one product, nor exclusively another product, and gives a name to the combined product, thus increasing its marketability ("best of two worlds" and some such qualifiers may brand the product) and avoiding misconceptions that a phone manufacturer would have become a service provider or the other way around. This would avoid wikidataeians trying to "prove" they're better than wikipedians (or the other way around): each of them is respected for what they are, and they are giving their utmost to deliver an optimal combined product, without trying to overshadow the others producing the other part of the combined product. (sorry for the product placement lingo but the analogy makes sense to me). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Brainstorming some ideas for other names of the combined product:

• 'PediaData
• Datapedia

etc. Still think my original idea (Wikipedia⁺) would work best though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's another batch:

• Smartpedia
• Wikismart
• iPedia

Smartpedia may have some advantages over the original Wikipedia⁺ idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge Engine ? Sorry, couldn't resist. :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering how one gets from an en.Wikipedia article to the related Wikidata item. There's no clear link from a random Wikipedia article to its Wikidata counterpart afaik, and maybe some of the Wikidata-side frustration of Wikipedia editors not getting involved enough, and Wikipedia-side frustration of not finding a smooth entrance can be alleviated by presenting a clearer link (that is, apart from the somewhat less recognisable link under the "Languages" header in the left column on any page). Wikidata is a lot of things, and one of these is being WikiMedia's authority control system. The {{authority control}} template pulls authority control numbers (as issued by various instances) to en.wikipedia pages. The key is Wikidata's {{Q}} number. Nonetheless the Q number itself is not displayed in the {{authority control}} template. The template contains two cells, the left one containing

Authority control

Why not make that (example as it would be displayed in Bach#External links)

Authority control (Q1339)

or

Authority control
(Wikidata: Q1339)

or something in that vein? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: There are two links on the left side of a page to Wikidata; one is "Wikidata item" under the Tools heading and the other is the "Edit links" link under the Languages heading. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, missed the one under the Tools heading. Thanks for the info. The placing is not logical: all other things mentioned under the Tools heading are in-en.Wikipedia topics, while the "Wikidata item" link goes to "another WikiMedia project". Under the "In other projects" heading would be a much more logical place imho. Where do I propose that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: phab:T66315. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Pinging Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) who seems to have been active on that phab issue: I can't figure out very well where we stand on that issue: subtopics seem to have been closed, but the Wikidata item not yet moved to the "In other projects" header? What needs to happen if we want to go forth on that issue? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey :) Thanks for the ping. I did not consider this super important compared to all the other requests people have towards Wikidata from here. However if you all feel this is super important I will bump it up on the list. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Thanks for the reply. I have no frame of reference regarding what would mean "super important" in phab surroundings (as opposed to super-duper important? Lukewarm important?). I know I would like to see the "Wikidata" link moved from the "Tools" sublist to the "In other projects" sublist on every page in (en.)Wikipedia. I'd like to discuss that with my colleagues, but feel somehow that this user talk page is hardly the right spot for that discussion. The phab page is not really what I'm looking for either (can't really follow how the discussion developed, or how it is even structured, thus far – leave alone what I should do when I want to suggest a move in one or other direction). My reason for thinking it important is that everything that helps in turning off the heat in the current Wikidata/en.Wikipedia interchanges is a thing worth trying, and this might be a useful step in turning that heat down a few degrees. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Francis Schonken and Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I do agree that this would be a useful step forward, making the Wikidata item link significantly more visible within the article sidebar (and more logically placed?)

The one objection that seems to have been raised is what happens if there is eg a template or a help-page that exists on Wikidata as well as on other projects -- so that the Wikidata page ought to appear in the "in other projects" box. But in that case I would agree with the last commenter on the Phabricator ticket: the "in other projects" box can simply contain two entries, one "Wikidata" for the Wikidata page link, the other "Wikidata item" for the Wikidata item link.

As to whether or not it is "super important", is it not enough that it would be significantly helpful; and (I would have thought) in terms of the number of lines of code to change, it should be a not too difficult change to make? Jheald (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, there are 1000s of tickets with things that might be helpful, that doesn't cause prioritisation in itself (esp. if just a few people suggest it). And most changes are not 'too difficult', what is difficult is always to find the time and person to make them, while keeping focus in general. Super duper important is a casual qualification that might translate as: "we nominate someone who was working on something else, pull him off that and tell him to go do this instead and have it done within a few weeks". BTW. I do wonder if this is one of those "10'ish people complain about it, a change is made, 100 people come to complain about the change"-issues. I personally think it might make sense, but I can also see why some would want to keep it where it is now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So where do we discuss this? I'd be happy with a discussion at WP:VPT for instance, once this thread on Jimbo's talk page is archived. Or are there more suitable places where to discuss this for its application in en.Wikipedia? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: WP:VP/T is a good start. Another place could be meta, and then do some spamming on the various language/project variants of WP:VP/T. However I think you will find that it might be hard to get a lot of community engagement on something like this. Smaller non-evident issues usually have that problem (this is part of why they take so long in phabricator too). The best way might be to test with a volunteer developed gadget just for en.wp or something, before committing to proper development. Then hopefully that would result in enough information to better judge if it is unequivocally the better option or not. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As for authority control, that's a discussion for Template talk:Authority control and should only be implemented after discussion there. One oppose comment that might occur is that authority control is not listed on every page (I do not know if it should be either, but that's, again, part of that discussion over there). --Izno (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

True, but wanted to launch the idea here. Discussions here don't usually take very long (a few days or so), will take it there after gauging some initial thoughts on the matter here (unless these thoughts demonstrate that would not be a path to go). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jimmy. I'd like to add a subsection to the WP:BLP page, and would like to solicit the opinions of editors concerned with such issues. Can you offer your thoughts here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable request, but it needs some specific wording. The discussion is at WT:BLP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bringing back this old question --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, how much money has the Wikimedia Endowment raised so far? Where are you publishing the investment returns achieved? 47.89.49.38 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [replaced question archived prior to response 47.89.49.38 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)]

I will be having a catch-up with staff soon, and I'll let you know an update then. Ask around September 13th.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out, the best current public answer to this, according to staff, is [28].

The first question is answered there pretty clearly: "Approximately $17 million". A more specific answer is $17.3 million with around $5 million more pledged. The second question is unfortunately not answered there. In the interest of absolute accuracy, I will hold off on answering until I'm sure that I'm not mistaken on the precise details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The last time I checked, it was possible for the WMF to dip into the principal of the endowment and apply it to the general budget if times get bad. Is this still true? If so are there any plans to change this? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually just re-read the question, and answer, that you were given at that time. You may wish to review it now: [29]. The WMF can't unilaterally dip into the principle (nor the interest) without the approval of the endowment board. One of the key design objectives here is to make sure that there is an additional level of governance. Otherwise, we might as well just have a big bank account that we call an endowment. The last time you checked, you were given the opposite answer from what you seem to have come away with. If I'm mistaken about the time you mean when it was the "last time you checked" and if there's some loophole or problem in this area I'll be glad to look into it further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer you quoted contains the phrase "Because any such decisions on that sort of thing are years away (we are just starting to collect money) now is the time to be thinking about and formulating what the longterm policy should be about that". I am simply asking how that long-term policy is coming along ("not ready yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer). It also says "The WMF Endowment is being designed with precisely these kinds of questions in mind, and with reasonable safeguards in place". I am simply asking if "being designed" has turned into "has been designed". Again, "not yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

...Sound of crickets... -Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And now the cycle repeats. This discussion will be archived. Six months to a year from from now I will once again the same question (Do we have any protection against the WMF dipping into the principal of the endowment and applying it to the general budget if times get bad -- actual, in-place protection, not planned future protection or protection that the WMF can decide to remove any time they wish), once again Jimbo will tell me that the question was answered last time, once again I will point out that it wasn't, the discussion will be archived, and the cycle will repeat. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Related question: At m:Wikimedia Endowment#Funding several major contributors are mentioned. May we see any restrictions that they attached to those gifts? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? I mean, I don't know if it is possible or not but Lisa Gruwell told you, and I quote: "Per WMF's Gift Policy, we only accept restricted gifts over USD $100,000. Nearly all of our gifts into the endowment include grant agreements (gift instruments) that restrict the funds for the endowment." Is there some reason we should fight to release the exact details? I don't see it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's the wrong question. The question should be "why keep this secret?" The default should be transparency, with secrecy reserved for when there is a compelling reason to keep secrets. The WMF should release a report on the restrictions they have agreed to, with the names of the donors and the exact ammount donated (use ranges instead) kept secret to protect donor privacy. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the endowment and what it does certainly needs more discussion. In general I'd hope that the portfolio's return could be known at least once a month, or at least the return of the mutual funds that it is invested in. It's more complicated when there are large cash inflows or outflows in the middle of the period to get the return, which might be the case for the endowment for some time to come. So we might have to settle for return on the mutual funds invested in.

The restrictions on gifts would I hope be fairly minor and standard type things, e.g. that the principal can't all be spent in the 1st year, or in the xth year. Perhaps a list of these "minor, standard" restrictions might be drawn up and assume that many donors will include them. Beyond that I'd hope that there are few if any restrictions. I have mixed feelings on the following one, but would probably accept it if it was the only way to get a particular donation. Founders of companies often donate stock in their companies (to other endowments anyway) that can't be sold by the endowment for x years. They do this for purposes of retaining voting control in their companies, and perhaps for tax reasons. If the % of the stock that can't be sold was reduced each year so that it completely disappears over 5-10 years, I'd probably be willing to accept this.

I do think Guy's conception of an endowment is fairly simplistic. It might be "Every year interest and dividends are contributed by the endowment for use of the WMF in operations, but principal is never touched." I see that as unrealistically conservative. Sometimes I even think he is saying "The money in the endowment including interest dividends, and capital gains should never be touched, until (some event he hasn't defined)" But if you never use the money, what's the use of having an endowment? (It would also likely be against IRS rules)

If his conception of the endowment is the 1st one above, I'll just point out that even if we had $100 million in the endowment (instead of $17 M), interest and dividends would likely be under $5 million per year. Useful, but in a very limited way.

I instead view the main purpose of an endowment is the "bumps in the road" that any organization can run into over the course of say 60 years. These bumps might be fund raising shortfalls, caused e.g. by a political regime actively campaigning against the WMF, a scandal caused by editors rather than the WMF (maybe involving child porn or other very sensitive topic), or maybe some managerial problem (e.g. embezzlement, mass staff resignations). Those examples might be too dramatic, but over the long term every organization runs into these type of things, including the Red Cross and many other well-known non-profits. The biggest problem that I can foresee is some type of unexpected technology change. Another might be a fork run in a more popular or efficient manner.

In these types of cases, it is very common for an endowment to contribute more than usual to operating funds, just to keep the organization going. The first year they do such a bailout, it usually comes with an implied "management - get your act together" and if a second year bailout is required it usual comes following a news story starting "Following a management shake up, the embattled xxx foundation ..."

Enough for now.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is normal to publish the returns every month, although I see no particular harm in it. The funds are being invested in a very standard way, in the same sort of way that all endowments. Are you imagining a use case here in which the professional fund managers have a weak quarter, and the community selects better investments? Just what exactly is the goal here? I'm not a professional asset manager, and neither are you. Certainly a proper review of the longterm performance of invested funds is important - but monthly returns? It makes no sense to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not suggesting that the community selects stocks or any type of short term behavior from looking at monthly returns. My preference is quite the opposite, a long term buy-and-hold strategy with the smallest management fees possible, ala Vanguard.

I do believe that asset managers should be monitored. A monthly statement giving the dollar balance should be enough in this case. Even individual investors get that $ monthly statement. If we don't have those records something would obviously be wrong, but there's really no reason to publish them more than once or twice a year. It probably wouldn't be worth the time to calculate the monthly returns (that was my point above), but if you want somebody to do it, I am qualified. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"Every year interest and dividends are contributed by the endowment for use of the WMF in operations, but principal is never touched" is indeed what I am advocating, with a reasonable second choice being that they can reduce the principle by no more than 5% or 10% in any given year.

The potential future problem I am addressing is the possibility that sometime in the future the WMF gets into real financial trouble, spends all of the endowment trying to dig themselves out, and ends up not being able to keep the servers running. I am suggesting that the endowment be structured in such a way that there will always be enough to keep the servers on line no matter what. I think that this is a goal worth pursuing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Defining "keep the servers on" or even "skeleton operation" is key here.

• If "keeping the servers on" just means keeping all previously produced articles online, maybe that would take $500k-1 million a year(?). Setting aside $10-20 million just for that would probably do the trick until the internet is replaced with something else.
• If keeping the servers on means allowing new edits, adapting old software to a changing internet environment, and the board, programing employees, and lawyers that go with that - my guess is that it would cost about 10 times as much, and even then, without a push to renew the software (or even renew the staff or community) the WMF might fold in 10-20 years just from general obsolescence. So setting aside $100-$200 million for that leaves nothing else for the endowment to cover (other than given the interest and dividends to current operations before the fundraising problem hit)
• But what is almost sure to happen sometime in the next 60 years is one of those "bumps in the road" that I described above. Your second option is to spend 5-10% of the principal on the that type of thing (right?). What if $5 or $10 million won't do the trick of turning the WMF around? But say $20 million would? That's the type of question the endowment trustees (not the foundation trustees) will be facing. I'd hope that if $20 million was enough to save the Wiki, they'd have enough sense to spend the extra money. But if was a situation of $20 million this year, followed by some more next year, and then ..., that they'd have enough sense to go back to the skeleton operations. Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would be satisfied with keeping the existing pages online and allowing new edits. As for the rest, the WMF currently has $92 million dollars in net assets, up from $78 million last year.[30] And it will be more next year. I say they can keep the lawyers and programmers working with that, and use the endowment to make sure that we will always be able to read and edit Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• We're more or less in agreement here now IMHO. Variations on this view are, of course, perfectly normal and I encourage folks to discuss them. The final decision will be (or has been) decided by the trustees of the endowment and their lawyers, but I think they'd welcome input from the community.
• As far as the cushion that the WMF (not the endowment) keeps for unexpected events in the current year, $14 million looks a bit high to me and I'd prefer that they send a large part of that directly to the endowment. If contingencies do arise beyond what they keep, I'm sure the endowment wouldn't have much of a problem sending some of it back. Maybe a WMF contingency fund of 10% of the budget would be reasonable. The decision there is with the WMF of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I missed it, but I would like to see disclosure of the identity of the fund managers, if that is not already done, as well as the fees charged. Fees can often take quite a cut out of endowments. This is just idle curiosity. As a volunteer my interest in the Foundation is limited. Still, it would be nice to know. If this info is disclosed somewhere, and I've overlooked it, perhaps someone could point me to it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, wait a moment, I spoke too soon. I see the manager referred to here as follows: "The Endowment has been established as a Collective Action Fund at Tides Foundation, a public charity with a 40-year track record of holding and managing charitable funds for nonprofit organizations." It might be interesting to know the track record referred to therein, the fees charged, and how the WMF endowment portfolios perform in relation to benchmarks. Again, no biggie, but interesting. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy, here you say

... The WMF Endowment is being designed with precisely these kinds of questions in mind, and with reasonable safeguards in place. The whole point of setting up a separate governing body is to introduce a separate level of oversight for the endowment - checks and balances are important. ...

Is it therefore appropriate for you to sit on both the endowment advisory board and the WMF board? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. Checks and balances is a two part expression for a reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Could you elaborate? The word "balances" doesn't cancel out the word "separate." In government, "checks and balances" are a part of the structure that ensures the mutual independence and roughly equal (balance of) power of the separate branches. I've never heard of anyone concurrently sitting in the Senate and on the Supreme Court. On its face, your sitting on both boards undermines their mutual independence and separateness. If you think the endowment board needs someone on it who is intimately familiar with the WMF, I can think of a number of suitable people who aren't currently on the WMF board or otherwise formally tied to the WMF.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a fairly standard concern for endowments. A lawyer might be able to give a more exact answer, but I think it's common for there to be an overlap between the boards of 30-50%.

One question that I have is "Why are we relying on big money donors to fund the endowment?" i.e. why don't we ask our usual $15 donors to help out? They do when surplus WMF funds are sent to the endowment, but I mean more directly. For example, at the end of the annual fund raiser, we could change the banner to "help fund the endowment" and have an extra week just for these donations. Or there could be a separate 2 week long fund-raiser just for the endowment, maybe in June. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to a source for the claim that it's common for there to be a 30-50% overlap between a foundation's board and its endowment's advisory board? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, a lawyer might be able to give a more exact answer, - and this is a pretty specific field even for lawyers. As to what the general practice is, just check the boards of university endowments. Everybody on those boards is going to have a pretty close relationship to the university, e.g. alumni, faculty, the governor if it's a State U. And then there's probably an additional level of closeness for most, e.g. major donor, former trustee of the U. So I don't guarantee 30-50% overlap is correct. But I will guarantee that only 1 endowment board member (out of 6) who is also on the WMF board, is not going to be seen as unusually close boards. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just had a quick look at Yale and Yale's president and at least one trustee sit on their investment committee, so I'm getting a lot more comfortable with this. It's midnight here; I'll look at a few more universities tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that offering a different "product" to a different group of donors makes a lot of sense. The small donors are happy to fund the general budget - and large donors are not. But large donors appear to be quite willing to support the endowment, whereas they have not always been happy to fund the general budget. They like the additional layer of governance. They like the longterm perspective. Turning it around, it seems like a very good thing for the independence of the Foundation (and the community) that the donors are giving to something less "direct" and therefore less likely to give rise to questions of conflict of interest around content issues. (We all know that a donation to the Foundation is not a path to the Foundation changing content, but many people will be unaware or unsure of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This article by Wikipedian Peter Forsyth points to an instance where, at the behest of the manager of a foundation that had made a large donation the WMF, the WMF employed someone to work for that manager's husband, adding content to Wikipedia about US foreign policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The usual criticism that nonprofits face, usually well-warranted, is that they become too dependent on big donors, and those donors can be too influential on the nonprofits' programs and mission. Wikipedia is largely inoculated from that problem, as the central "product" is produced by volunteers who could care less who is contributing. So those large donors' influence, if there is any, tends to be on the margins. Personally I don't give a hoot about the endowment. It has little impact on me as a volunteer, and frankly I don't have much confidence that it or any sum of cash coming in to the Foundation will be deployed in a manner that I would consider useful (such as providing volunteers with legal immunity or purchasing good databases). But your basic point is correct, in that it's better to have 1000 $10 donations than one $10,000 donation. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a new and nasty wrinkle on abuse of Wikipedia for reputation management and PR: Behind Hearst’s Facebook Watch Programming Strategy: ‘Wiki What?’ and ‘Untangled’ aren’t tied to the company’s existing portfolio of legacy brands. Its a Hearst Communications produced web video series where a comedian "wikipediatrician" pretends to edit the Wikipedia page of a celebrity in real time in the context of providing a "Wikipedia consult" like a doctor, all on camera. Then the video gets all edited and posted to facebook, and then somebody circles back and cites the edited video production as a source in Wikipedia. Then Esquire magazine, another Hearst property, "reports" on it; the facebook citations were then replaced with the Esquire refs which is what you will see now, if you go look in our articles. One big money-making, PR-generating, celebrity circle jerk.

See COIN thread and a discussion about the sources produced by this Hearst play is at RSN, here.

The videos and facebook page (here) knock-off the WP earth symbol; perhaps WMF legal wants to call Hearst. Pinging User:Slaporte (WMF) in case you all want them to desist. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should lobby Congress and Parliament to enact WP:POINT as a misdemeanor. 62.7.83.243 (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough one but I think 2 important points are:

• This is a comedy show - clearly not meant to be serious - and if I may say so, being the subject of a spoof is both uncomfortable and complimentary at the same time.
• We could, if we have the will and the skills, use this to our own advantage to get the word out that what the actor appears to be doing on-camera and on-Wiki is against our rules

He is filmed talking to a "star", e.g. Kate Upton about the article on them, apparently making changes to the article. He is presented as a "Wikipediatrican" who is doing this professionally, but it doesn't show him actually getting paid or talking about it. Since the shows seem to be filmed in advance of being posted on facebook, and the apparent edits that result from them appear at the time of the video posting, it looks like the video is not entirely accurate. But the guy doing the posting on Wiki doesn't deny that he is related to the show and has said something on his talk page about not being a paid editor because Kate Upton et al are not paying him. Well somebody is paying him - it's a for-profit show - so he is clearly misinformed.

My suggestion is that any editors who want to let the show know that we don't take offense to comedy, but do take offense to people spreading the impression that anybody can break our rules, write and send a letter of protest. We should make it funny. Unfortunately my idea of funny is saying that they should post "No actual Wikipedia articles were harmed during this filming". Obviously, somebody else should write the funny parts. We should definitely explain our rules on paid editing and show how they seem to have violated them. Then ask them to explain our rules on the show. Both sides could be "winners" here. The show might get some extra publicity, we'd get the word out.

One request here. If people do go forward with this suggestion, they should clearly state that they are acting as individual editors, and that people who disagree with such a statement just recognize that individual editors have a right to make such a statement collectively. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if Kohs or Woods taped their "consults" with their clients, posted them online, and then cited those in Wikipedia - same exact thing as this. It is disgusting and has done nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia and everything to do with making money and celebrities getting eyeballs and managing their reputations at the same time. This is just Hearst abusing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bringing up Kohs, whom you well know is not permitted to post here, is not a nice touch. It might be defensible if it were a subject of the OP posting, but it looks gratuitous.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The framed WP-articles of Jimmy and Larry Sanger was a nice/fun touch, [31] (and Upton has Larry behind her[32]), but from the un-funny WP-perspective, a blank wall would be better, image-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

However, this image wasn´t very good: [33]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't watch the video, but from the description above the key flaw involves what is relevant to what. People get this wrong more often than a lot of things, but the general idea is that if Games Very Limited has a cyclops character on the fourth level, that does not belong in Cyclops because it doesn't affect the concept people have of a cyclops. But if the game manages somehow to be notable for its own page, then we can mention the link there. Similarly, if comedians play some kind of circular reference game about a famous celebrity who knows them not, then nothing they say about him is going to be relevant to that article. But if the comedians have an article about their show, we're more than happy to fill in properly sourced details about whatever kind of skit they do. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally understand what's happening here. A media company is making videos where celebrities correct or say what they don't like about their Wikipedia page. (I don't understand how that company makes money on that video, but that's a different question.) In the video, an actor pretends to edit Wikipedia, but does not actually edit Wikipedia. Later, a real editor sees the video and makes changes based on what the celebrity has said. What rule or guideline is being broken? If it is a sourcing issue, how is it any different than normal everyday sourcing issues? Where is the conflict of interest? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why I posted this here, is that Hearst is abusing Wikipedia to make money as described in the digital media strategy article I linked in my OP, and abusing the WP trademark, and this is something that Jimbo and the WMF should be aware of. Other issues (the conflict of interest of the SPA editor who is spamming these refs into WP; the reliability of the spammed sources) are being addressed on appropriate boards for those matters. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• If this is on the "Top 100" list of the greatest threats to Wikipedia, then everything is A-OK at #1 Montgomery Street. Read the applicable Creative Commons licenses. People (and corporations) are allowed to "abuse" Wikipedia to make money, and courts have repeatedly ruled that parody is protected free speech. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• The parody is protected. The paid editing, which is very real and part of a major problem on Wikipedia, is not protected and subject to our rules and the Terms of Use. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• What "paid editing"? I've read the discussion at the COI noticeboard but I can't see any credible evidence for the claim that someone is being paid to edit. It looks like some people see paid editors lurking behind every bush. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wired article about Bassel Khartabil--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears you were awarded this institution's President's Medal on Wednesday night for

facilitating the spread of information via [your] work creating and developing Wikipedia, the world's largest free online encyclopedia.

Congratulations.

This prompted the claim that Wikipedia's "entries can be exceptionally misleading" - it's a sad fact that the more worthwhile an enterprise becomes the more enemies it acquires. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement is true, and Jimmy says so frequently. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe critiques are opposition and those who know they are support. 80.169.30.228 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, I am wondering what your views are regarding the recent decisions by Facebook/Zuckerberg in this matter and what effects upon Wikipedia or our Trustees, this whole event(s) may have? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for some background see Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit America’s racial and religious divisions and Twitter called to Capitol Hill to give details on Russian election interference

I've long thought that there has been some Russian government editing on Wikipedia, and have mentioned it sotto voce (or maybe not so sotto) on this page a few times. One big problem is how you separate out ordinary Russian activists/nationalist from gov't operatives. Another problem: if the WMF is going to fight Russian gov't influence here, how do they communicate that to regular editors. After all, if you're going to fight the FSB/KGB, you don't really want to tell them how you are doing it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have seen some pretty stupid posts on this page but the above is in a class of its own. This is a multi-national project and posts such as the above do nothing but stir up racial disharmony. Are we to assume that every daft post promoting the rather odd views that come from Donald Trump's mouth are a secret plot from the FBI? I really think that both Putin and Trump have better things to do with their time than oversee edits to Wikipedia. We have sufficient protocols in place already to ensure that impartial views are screened out. Giano (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some more background BBC Twitter's Russia briefings 'inadequate' - US senators

Well, it is clear that several countries beyond the US have accused Russia of meddling in their elections, e.g. France and Germany. And the alleged meddling in the US elections via social media has been taken seriously enough that there are investigations by the FBI, the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. My question is - If the Russian gov't could have operations on Facebook and Twitter, why wouldn't they try to operate through Wikipedia? We should at least recognize the possibility and be prepared for proper action if it did happen, or if it seems like it is going to happen. I don't have proof that it did happen and I don't know what the appropriate action would be, but I'm sure we should consider the question thoughtfully.

So if Jimbo or Katherine were called to testify to Congress, I'd hope they'd have something more to say than "We assume that Putin has more important things to do than change information in Wikipedia." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Giano is inadvertently, I think, pointing out an increasingly common and important mistake in public usage of English. A mistake which is also being aggressively and, I think, intentionally, used and promoted by Fake News outlets and/ot their "reporters" and "experts". I refer to the use of the Race card where it linguistically and obviously can not even be twisted into any sort of reasonable application. "racial" disharmony ? So now Russia and by extension every country is a race of people? Well, CNN might want to have us believe that, as well as that every religion is a "race", but lets try to stay real. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid, like it or not, Russians and Americans are not the same race. This may come as shock to many Americans, but there is another St Petersburg beyond the one on Florida. Claiming that there is Russian Government interference on Wikipedia, casts an unjust cloud over all of our excellent Russian (and former USSR) editors. It would be far more helpful if you cited a diff for where you fear this propaganda is being made, and then an individual editor could be subject to the witch-hunt which you are so obviously relishing. Giano (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm astounded at this. First, all Americans and all Russians are of the same race - the human race and that's all that matters "racially speaking." Second- I lived in Moscow, Russia for over 7 years and travelled extensively around the country. I never saw anything that I thought could be describe as a "racial difference" between the two majority ethnic groups (call them WASP and Rus). Even the minorities in both countries are pretty similar (Russia probably has more people of Asian and Middle-eastern descent, the US more of African descent).

None of this means that I can't criticize the Russian gov't or the US gov't - both of which I suspect have interfered with Wikipedia in some ways. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the dumbed down social media that has dumbed down the US public, making them susceptible to Russian propaganda. As I point out here, the ultimate cause of this problem is the attitude of the Bush Administration w.r.t. the media. They quite successfully pushed the view of a politically biased media, that academia is politically biased, and that the judiciary is biased. It was ok. to criticize an expert, not by rebutting factual points but by merely saying that the expert is an elitist, that the t.v. program was biased for not having invited someone with the opposite views.

Also the very reason why Russia itself has turned out the way it is today is also largely the fault of the Bush Administration, I've explained that here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biggest defense is that it is an old fashioned throwback to the days when the Web worked. Specifically, we cranky editors have thrown massive tantrums every time the developers want to dust off some nice shiny Social Media Web 2.0 nonsense and shove it off on us. As a result, this is one of the last sites around where you can say something and I can say something and Jimbo Wales can say something and everybody who views the forum has to wade through all that crap, rather than helpfully seeing the Most-Upvoted Comment showcased at the top and everything else deliberately made unavailable behind 370 pages of "click to see the next 10 results". That means that - unlike better-designed modern commerce sites - it does you comparatively little good to have a publicist or a Russian troll farm behind you pumping up your comments as soon as you post them and giving everyone else's the Lone Stupid Downvote of Oblivion to ensure they never get read by anyone. Here, you're going to post something, most people will ignore it, the discussion will get closed as "no consensus" and life will go on as it always does. It is enough to make a grown troll cry... or a manager want his money back. Of course, defending the Wiki against bots takes more effort from that by a cadre of unsung heroes whom we vigorously distrust, but I think the lack of up/downvoting is the most important thing. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

just so you know...so so sad

and art forgery page

Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so. Make an edit – or even several! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.183.239.7 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI to editors who may be interested: A straw poll is underway at the Village Pump concerning whether the policy relating to "breaking news" articles should be changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Straw_poll_on_the_current_view_of_WP:NOT.23NEWS Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The solution to paid operatives is some kind of incentive reward system whereby editors can receive bitcoin micropayments on the basis of merit, rather than external sources of income on the basis of promotion. Jimmy they are coming for us, like they are coming for every single other major internet platform. Lets set up the appropriate defenses now.

Jimmy (or some other initial small subset) could pass some bitcoin to whoever they trust for doing meritable work at their leisure. Then that editor can move some coin to another editor they think deserves a reward. And so forth, all publicly verifiable. See how good that would be? We could set upper limits or other transfer constraints if needed. Its not paid work because there is no agreement. Just incentive and reward, a tip or a gift, if you like. If a micropayment is not deserved we will work out a solution. They might loose trust and the system will punish, for example. The system will generate trust consensus. It will be self-reinforcing. With this we can also destroy our backlogs. We need the extra motivation to do the hard work now and to get it done sooner. There are lots of benefits. Think of it as taking WikiLove messages to the next level. We could create bounties, pools for prizes that jackpot for difficult tasks, other groovy competitions, bonus rewards, leaderboards and whole host of incentives to encourage existing editors and to bring in new editors who want to be part. Think of the buzz this would create. This way, we control the gifting economy rather than external forces by marketing and promotion. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice how the Village pump discussion has been misconstrued as paid editing, shut down and the problem forgotten without being mentioned? Not addressing this is like Youtube doing nothing about pornography. That problem, like the political propaganda and paid operatives here, would not just work itself out. It will only get worse. I predict my solution would fix this and make a whole lot of others things better around here. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it Jimmy. I will support you from the paid operatives who are against protecting Wikipedia in this manner. Trust me, on this, please. What I have suggested is Web 3.0, not digital restrictions management promoter Tim Berners-Lee suggests is the Semantic Web. If the foundation doesn't do this, someone will fork and have the original content as well as their boosted content that gets better than the original, because of a real incentive. Like a growing blockchain Wikipedia 3.0 will have more proof-of-work. It will be qualitatively superior because my invention means the goals will be maintained better than the original version. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some appeal to this idea -- I've suggested something similar myself, with the exception that I think Wikipedia could simply its own edit-backed currency made up out of thin air, rather than joining Bitcoin's pyramid. That said, I fear the tyranny of the majority is not much better than the tyranny of hidden elites. If editors start tipping each other, then someone will emerge to "help" them - help them track their contributions, help by suggesting their own leaderboards, help by implementing their own blacklists of editors who have done something wrong. Just as the vast unorganized mob of the internet soon became the property of a few companies, your commercialized editor network might find itself winning or losing solely based on a single company's smile or frown.

Wikipedia does have reward from within, truly within - editors who take pleasure in trying to get information together for themselves and exchanging the value of building this knowledge with others. I think any system of reward from without would need to shy away from mob rule and be very uniform - simply offer a small payment to all active editors above some neutral and easily attained threshold, mostly to improve penetrance to Third World communities. I mean, you could pay $30 a month to 10,000 active editors for $300,000, which is well within WMF budget possibilities; or by trimming the pay a little and getting some of the First World editors to donate it back you could expand it to a larger less-active group (but that might invite too many sheer spongers). Really, this wouldn't be budget-limited but disruption-limited. Some will say that the offer of free access to databases is the same thing in a less abusable way, though I like to hope the true information-liberating Wikipedian is more comfortable on a "pirate" site than with even a free subscription. ;) Wnt (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The original discussion is at WP:VPP#Our policy on political propaganda is failing and how to solve this problem forever. It's a form of paid editing however you spin it. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to fight "paid editing" or "organized advocacy to push inaccurate, misleading, fringe, or undue viewpoints?" 2.99.64.75 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The latter, but most of the time the two are indistinguishable. Paid editors who adhere to the requirements are few and far between. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Trust me. Paid editing will evaporate because of my invention. No paid editing. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Trust me. Paid editing will continue here and anywhere marketing results in more revenue for a company. Ravensfire (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Marketing is evaporating. My invention will speed up the process because it will manage knowledge in a way that makes marketing obsolete. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow - that's so insanely opposite of reality I can't quite figure out where that comes from. Marketing is getting more pervasive, more camouflaged and more available to smaller entities. Wikipedia is a major target for paid editing because it's easy to pay someone to create an article about any given subject. That's not going to stop. Your idea will do absolutely nothing to stop that from happening. It can't. The editors that do paid editing generally aren't knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies or lack ethics to follow them. They either won't be reward by your system or will abuse it to the point of seeing it end. And you cannot stop that. Ravensfire (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, with Ravensfire, and its interesting that he says "revenue" instead of profit, because revenue is a lot more marketing sensitive than is profit. And, since revenue has become more important than profit for many of the largest and fastest growing international companies, that means marketing has become more important and pervasive than ever, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Just quietly, but you may have the wrong forum for spruiking Bitcoin or similar. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why just quietly? I am at the right place since I am discussing improving Wikipedia in a fundamental manner. I emphatically deny the implication that I am promoting anything other than good governance. Use any token you like. I only suggested what I thought was the best for the purpose. I don't know a lot about the alternative digital currencies other than Bitcoin Cash. Ethereum or any other coin suitable for micropayments with significant transaction capacity may suffice. I will never suggest or promote one single digital currency for my project. From now on I will only mention reward. That reward would be for participation in my mechanism, not in the editing process. I will let the experts select the best means of exchange. Trust me, this is the answer we seek to our problems. I will continue to discretely work on my invention for improving Wikipedia here. So no payments for editing and no spruiking. That is what I am saying my invention will provide but there is this strange reaction that suggests I, myself, am doing this. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BTC aside, I'm hardly the most original of thinkers, and if the thought popped into my mind, there's likely to be a fair few ahead of me. And if you'll forgive me a little pedantry, but just quietly is "discreetly", rather than the word you used. --Pete (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We already have barnstars for an informal intangible internal reward system, that works well. Lets examine for a minute what would happen if we were offering money for paid editing. Firstly the editing community would expand, at least by enough to absorb any money made available. It is a big world, the number of people available for paid internet only work is effectively limitless. Secondly we could lose our volunteer community; Mixing volunteers with professional staff is never easy, probably our only viable model would be to pay people to do the things that volunteers want to have happen but aren't willing to do. The net result? Far from undermining paid editing you have recruited and trained a vast army of poorly paid editors, many of whom will lack the altruism and commitment to the values of the project that prevents most of our regulars from going to the dark side. Far from undermining the spammers you have created a pool of people from whom they can easily recruit simply by offering a little more money than Wikipedia pays. There are some circumstances where I would support a modicum of paid editing. But I'm not so naive as to think good money could squeeze out bad. ϢereSpielChequers 04:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why must I repeat that I do not want payments for editing. Why? I would never facilitate that. I agree with all the comments that say the same. Its not a comprehension thing because I have made my stance on that clear. You really think barnstars create integrity? My invention is being developed so please do not form false conclusions before anything is finalised. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I really didn't want to prolong this by editing again, but how would editors use the rewards? If they can be exchanged for goods and services, that's paid editing. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

All rewards will remain in the ownership of the WMF until dispersal. No reward can be redeemed arbitrarily. Prior knowledge of the actual amount of reward should be an indication only. The dispersal time should not be known to contributors. Dispersal should occur chaotically so that contributors may expect some reward at any time. Upon dispersal notification to receiving contributors should also be provided. The highest rewards should be paid to the contributions that generate the most knowledge. The system should attribute greater reward to those who are quickest or the best at assessing knowledge. All of these sorts of overarching parameters can be worked out together in a transparent way. The only thing a contributor needs to know is that the better they do they work they more likely they will be rewarded. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia paying some editors to make (presumably) neutral edits, simultaneously prevent low-rent marketers and non-notable executives paying other editors to make biased ones? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Because there will be the expectation of reward for removing bias. Whatever is seen as most useful will be most rewarding. I would rate the removal of bias edits more highly because I see that as a priority. If someone is rewarding biassed editing the secondary assessment of their first judgement will push their reward negative. The expectation of reward for any useful work will be incentivised, not paid for. Wikipedia is susceptible to the 51% attack. As long as the trust consensus remains true we will not be vulnerable to that attack any more. We may need a negative reward threshold that acts as some sort of trigger for tertiary assessment. This is why ensuring the users not knowing the exact reward in real time is important. - 20:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shiftchange If you make a suggestion that includes the phrase "incentive reward system whereby editors can receive bitcoin micropayments on the basis of merit" don't be too surprised if others focus on the words " reward - editors receive bitcoin". If instead of Bitcoin you are now proposing some sort of internal wiki currency that lacks the convertability to cash inherent to Bitcoin then I'd suggest you present your idea differently. Gamification with a "currency" only valid within Wikipedia, a two stage currency which you give and receive in the form of barnstars, and a second stage currency that you gain by spending the first, the second stage being one you can convert into extra tools. Like most Wikipedians I'd oppose that because of the downsides of gamification. But it wouldn't necessarily be paid editing. ϢereSpielChequers 08:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a good idea, you can also consider creating WikiMedia Loyalty points, this is how StackExchange works. In case of StackExchange, the points cannot be redeemed for money, but the system still works quite well. WikiMedia could decide to let the points be worth more money when it's spend in its own WikiMedia shop, or when used to participate in WikiMedia events. That would be similar to how Loyalty programs work in general, e.g. if I exchange my Club Carlson points for a gift card, I would get perhaps $100, but if I use it to book a hotel room, I could stay in a $500 per day luxury room for a week. Count Iblis (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, nobody has to receive any reward (gift, tip, token or digital currency) until the system is proven. This would allay all related concerns. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this stuff a lot lately. That isn't as satisfying an answer as if I had some genius solution to it all, I know. Shiftchange, there are several elements that I'm liking about your approach, but I have a great many additional reservations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It is with the greatest of relief that I read these words. Now that I understand that there may be some acceptance I can diligently work towards a final specification and do the required research. This will iron out the rough bits and hopefully produce what others will eventually call an elegant solution. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to read that you're thinking about it. Points could be redeemed to pay for travel expenses to Wikimania, and free admission to all Wikimania sessions. That would be a start. Too many scholarships are handed out to people who don't edit all that much. Sure you can give some credits for organizing events and recruiting editors but the balance needs to be tiled more towards helping the high-volume contributors. wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a big problem with a tradable cryptocurrency in this context: it is tradable. Assuming something quite difficult to start with, that we have a plausible mechanism to award and share "points" internally, which are redeemable for things like support from the WMF for conference attendance, the question is whether or not to encourage or discourage an open market in the points. Encouraging an open market gives rise to the potential for abuse of various kinds - for example, a community member wishes to go to Wikimania, a "sponsor" (PR firm) wishes that community member to use their social power to make edits, and buys points on the open market and transfers them to the community member. There are mitigating factors (transparency being a very important one) but those are actually better handled not using a cryptocurrency but simple entries in a database. User:David Gerard is something of an expert on such things.

One of my tools for thinking about cryptocurrencies is to simplify the problem: is this a good idea using some more traditional method, and if so does crypto enhance or detract from the proposition.

Here's what I'm tempted to like: a kind of formalization of a "kudos" or "barnstar" process. Here's what I'm tempted to be wary of: normalizing "doing things for pay" rather than "doing things because it helps in some small way to make the world a better place while having some intellectual stimulation at the same time." Or as WereSpielChequers aptly puts it "far from undermining paid editing you have recruited and trained a vast army of poorly paid editors, many of whom will lack the altruism and commitment to the values of the project that prevents most of our regulars from going to the dark side."

I think that's a valid concern, but I do wonder if there aren't ways to avoid it.

Worth studying is Demand Media, which I haven't looked into for some time, but for a while they were really being annoying in my personal opinion by paying people tiny amounts of money to write about various random things based on algorithmic analysis of search engine traffic. One way to get quality writing is to pay people proper salaries. Another way to get quality writing is to let people have genuine control and write about things they care about with a motive of the joy of knowledge in itself. One of the best ways to get very very bad writing is to pay people small amounts of money to write things they don't care about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I'd say for any sort of internal point system is to make it (1) not convertible (2) not tradable. One thing I've been fascinated by lately in cryptocurrencies is how economies and complex credit systems emerge in all sorts of places you might not expect. (This is, I think, part of why Bitcoin recapitulates the history of financial regulation: the Bitcoin ideology is that a rigid gold standard is good and works, and credit and debt are bad and evil, so they're in denial about how credit emerges, so they make all the mistakes all over again.) It's not clear to me how a fascinating economy of tradable points, with credit and other forms of creating something like the tradable points, would be useful to the process of writing an encyclopedia. I could be wrong of course - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

How about a barnstar-like system, with this difference that one doesn't get to "keep" a barnstar-like accolade after giving it to someone else? Currently, giving a barnstar to someone else is like giving away Monopoly money of a type anyone can print in their own basement with a free printer, free electricity, free ink and free printing paper. To get the system started one could hand out some of the unique barnstar-like accolades to the winners of writing-contests or the like. Then whoever receives one can keep it or give it away. Currently there's only merit in receiving barnstars: in the improved system there would also be merit in giving them away. So your user page could say something like "I gave my super-barnstar No. (...) for expert writing on the topic of (xxx) away to (user y) for expert writing in the domain of (zzz)" (with a system, maybe exactly the system Shiftchange has in mind, that impedes printing of fake money, i.e. a system that makes each "barnstar version 2.0" unique and traceable). Not sure whether the extra overhead would be worth it though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's brainstorm that for a bit. Suppose every active user in good standing (by some definition, but let's be liberal about it) is automatically given the ability to give a barnstar to any other active user in good standing for any reason every 3 months let's say. But it actually transfers to that person, who then can pass it on, or not. The transfers are made public, in no small part because the whole point of it is "kudos" - a public thank you. We could even require that it doesn't actually exist until it is first given, that is, you can't keep it for yourself. Then, the WMF could make available rewards which could be auctioned (to avoid the necessity of a centrally planned price guessing exercise) for barnstars. The rewards might be, by policy, restricted to things that are intended to help with building the encyclopedia, although of course we wouldn't have to be completely humorless about it. A camera for photos. A laptop. Subscriptions to online archives of important sources. Travel to Wikimania or regional conferences. My point is just that "a fabulous trip to Hawaii" wouldn't really make sense and to me anyway wouldn't quite feel right.

An interesting thing to think about is what this would look like under various budget scenarios. If the total support auctioned in the system costs $10,000 a year, then this is a cute little side thing. If it's $5 million a year, that starts to seem formidable.

The upsides to this seem obvious to me, but the downsides are probably strong as well. Will we get people coming into the project just to accumulate points in order to get free merchandise? Probably not so much, since you have to impress other community members to get anywhere. Will we get people gaming the system? Maybe - my thought is to have it be "one person gets one barnstar to give away per quarter" but this incentivizes very active users to split their work into multiple accounts. Accounting in the distribution for "total work done" seems like an ugly and very problematic problem. Will we get people campaigning to be given barnstars because they want prizes? Maybe, and in some cases this wouldn't be bad. Community members have gotten together to buy things for other community members in the past, and that never seemed to me at all unseemly in the cases that I heard about. But we might get a few people coming in, doing just the minimum edits to be eligible to receive barnstars, and then campaigning to get a free camera.

Oh, and suppose 'active user in good standing' means 'with no blocks in the past X months' - does this create a new incentive for good behavior, or does it create a new incentive to be liberal about handing out blocks... to keep the pool of eligible barnstar recipients down?

These are all things worth slowly thinking about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Gerard, not generally tradable or transferable. That is an extra complication. My proposal mutated away from that into a system wide approach to quality control. Its a wave of issues, not isolated problems. Using an external token means its administration is not a duty or expense of WMF. The solution has to mean something to both users and readers, holistically, not on a per edit basis. The reward incentive system I suggest means better product as well as better editor experience overall, automatically regardless of any specific article by article issue. I think reward should remain on-wiki until it is user exited to an external wallet. While it is on-wiki it should allow for some very selective redeeming for travel expenses Wikimania or the wikishop as suggested by User talk:Wbm1058. We don't want a system that attempts to tackle things bit by bit. Instead aim for economic system that will guarantee quality as well as prove it using an invisible hand. I might try to make a diagram or flowchart to demonstrate my preference. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Howabout combining it with the Thank system? After every 12 thanks you receive you get a wikishilling that you can award to another editor. If you get 21 wikishillings you get a Wikiguinea that you can award to another editor. Alternatively we could just give a bit more publicity to people who receive thanks and barnstars. We have lists of people who have made the largest number of edits, blocked the most accounts and deleted the most pages. Why not have a list of who has received the most thanks or the most barnstars? I'm sure signpost would be happy to publicise it. As with list of most edits you will of course have people who opt out of being listed, but I expect most won't. I for one would be interested to see who got the most thanks in the last 12 months. With either system you could if necessary give extra weight to people who receive thanks from multiple others. - so each wikishilling has to contain thanks from 12 different other accounts. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of this now proposed at bot requests ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe all content related issues at Wikipedia will be solved by my invention. The design for the Semantic Web is here. I don't mean to be presumptuous. I'm just determined. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A bizarre problem arose in early TQM methods to give employee rewards to the best-of-week employee. Well, one employee became the perpetual favorite hero of the company, when he could fix all kinds of problems, even mysterious equipment failures quickly, until it was discovered he was secretly creating most of the problems to fix and jamming the machines, while other employees tried to merely focus on doing real work unrewarded. Long story short, the reward system was changed to offer group rewards, rather than individual bonuses, to deter tricks and encourage coworkers to watch for suspicious actions. I saw a fellow employee prepare a solo sales demo for months and then threaten to quit unless given a huge pay raise before a major trade show. In software development, pair programming can avoid similar problems of individual rewards. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The lede of that Pair programming article is dreadful - the idea that s/w dev could possibly work by linearly thinking up code a line at a time and typing it in and having it reviewed like that, and that there is any possibility of swapping the "typing" and revewing roles in the way it suggests, is ludicrous. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the pairing seems to work well with seasoned programmers on routine tasks such as data processing of fields in record keeping or developing utility functions, where one person might notice tedious details of data algorithms. Also, the pairing was limited to appointed meetings of a few hours per day, not 8-hour togetherness. Another issue is to encourage some daily formal discussions to focus the tendency seeking office chitchat as solving work tasks, rather than socializing all-day on off-topic personal hobbies, which some employees seemed to do when putting in their full "7 hours" of the 8-hour day! By contrast, the pairing kept some aimless workers focused, but an intense programmer might work better by formal code reviews after days of lone programming while developing a test suite to verify operation of their software developed during the prior weeks. Another lesson learned was that paired teamwork only applies to team-oriented workers, versus the intense loners who could be much slowed by pairing. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I accept it has some use in some circumstances - some dev tasks, especially more mundane ones, are better suited to it than others. I just think the article lede is really bad in the way it appears to generalise and badly describe the s/w dev process - like implying that the design is done and should be reviewed at the coding stage. (And yes, I know what I should do about it ;-). Oh, and I hate the way people keep repackaging ideas that have been around for decades and calling them "agile" as if they've come up with something new, but that's even further off topic ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the way StackExchange works is that people can upvote good contributions, but that doesn't come at the expense of their own points. But you can award a bounty that's worth a large sum of points, and that does come at the expense of your points. You can also downvote, but that comes at the expense of your own points, and a downvote only changes the points total by a fifth of an upvote. What you gain from having a lot of points is more power. There are thresholds for being able to e.g. edit other people posts there and with a lot of points you can access moderator tools.

What we can adopt from StackExchange may be the way Admin tools are assigned to users. Instead of the RFA system we could award Admin status automatically if certain thresholds are passed. We then only need to remove Admin status from people who are not using the tools correctly. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That would put the deletion button into the hands of some of our sloppiest deletion taggers - and that is saying something. Taking admin rights away from someone who uses them inappropriately is usually more traumatic than denying them the tools because they aren't ready for them. Incorrect deletion tags are bad for the project, incorrect deletions worse. ϢereSpielChequers 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see group rewards, but as I suggested way above, the simplest way to do it is to reward all active editors equally. One big participation award - provided you show up and take a reasonable part in the community, you win, unless you manage to get completely banned. The obsession with trying to help "the best" editor comes at the expense of the Choosers ultimately getting all of the reward, whether on the table or under it. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An interesting article from Mashable was brought to attention at WPO recently: "Facebook taps Wikipedia to fix its fake news problem for them." The basic idea, as I understand it, is that FB is going to be placing little WP links in the form of (i) logos next to news stories on its site linking back to Wikipedia articles on the media sources originating the information.

One potential problem that I see: we doubtlessly have a large number of red links for valid new media news sources, which will raise false "redlink" flags for those hitting the (i) links. Second potential issue might be a biggie: this system could plausibly make WP a target for organized teams to edit war content of articles on news sources or to build false WP pages to "validate" their dezinformatsiia "news" links.

In any event, this is a nice vote of confidence in the reliability of WP information, if you think about it. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

One more step towards the transformation of Wikipedia into AllSourcer – the Internet's go-to site for free, "reliable" information comprehensively compiled from "all sources". wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Facebook is a social-media aggregator, Wikipedia is a social media-aggregator. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

News media have been reporting about Russian propaganda influencing the US elections. While Wikipedia will be pretty much immune to fake news, one method used by the Russians was to create discord. Since there have been quite some number of disputes here, this is vulnerability. It may then not be Russia that's going to cause problems here, any group can create many accounts and start to get involved in disputes with the specific aim of setting people up against each other. Count Iblis (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really immune to fake news, but best efforts are made to prevent it (there are things like unreliable authors getting into reliable or seemingly reliable sources or indexes and the occasional circular issue of Wikipedia-originating content getting repeated elsewhere). Against discord, a possibly mitigating factor on-Wikipedia may be continuing to avoid advertizing, enforcing WP:NOTFORUM where applicable and WP:DENY for known sock puppets and block evading users (actively preventing out of control off-topic debates and soapboxing, repetitive fallacious arguments, editor harrassment). There of course still remains article content and more legitimate content debates which can sometimes be heated and lengthy. And of course off-Wikipedia communication including on social networks; propaganda from other organizations and ad providers... —PaleoNeonate – 05:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My invention avoids the constant headbutting forever while your suggestions are proven failure. The Wikipedia community should start to make a plan with my invention. Ambition, drive and determination is all we need. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, User:Shiftchange, I wasn't really able to understand your design spec. But maybe that's just me.

At to OP's point, it's a problem in real life and an interesting new model for creating disruption generally. But while it's good to be aware of that, I wouldn't worry about it too much here absent some demonstration that it's a serious problem. There are very many people who want the Wikipedia to valorize some position on some subject. But the number of people who just hate the Wikipedia itself enough to spend time on this... they're out there, but I'd be surprised if there are many. Herostratus (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to write about it. I know my writing style can be lacking at times. It is difficult to talk the subject down, if you know what I mean. I think you will find that compliance produced by the Semantic Web will create much valorisation, much benefit and much joy for internet users. Our biggest problem is the lack of internet in some places. That makes it difficult to get the sum of knowledge. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I used to do a little tech writing myself... a lot of people who are very smart at something can't necessarily explain it in simple layman's terms... and nobody's good at everything. We'll get there. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There are too many critical thinkers here for it to be a problem at this time. We mostly are not malleable or compliant enough to not recognise attempts at government propaganda infections or discord promotions . Shiftchange, we all understand your proposal, whether it be bitcoin or grains of sand or Valentine cards, but only Jimbo sees any merit in it, as far as I can tell. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. I mentioned you at the debate taking place at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#Note to WMF and it occurred to me that I perhaps ought to raise the issue with you specifically as well as give other interested editors a chance to comment. I'll try to relate the issue as dispassionately as I can, but that is difficult as I am furious right now.

The background is that WMF developers decided it would be a good idea to take the description field in English from each Wikidata entry and use it as a description immediately below the title of each article in the mobile view of that article in English and on the Wikipedia app version. For example your description in Jimmy Wales (Q181) is currently "Wikipedia co-founder and American Internet entrepreneur", which is reasonable enough. One problem comes if that description is used to apply ethnic/racial/religious labels – "Jewish" is an obvious example – to living subjects who object to that sort of categorisation, and you've been clear that unsourced, contentious information "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Unfortunately, when seeing it on display on a version of an article, not only is it not obvious where someone would go to remove that sort of contentious data, but the very source on Wikidata has no means whatsoever of indicating the sourcing of the description. By the very design of Wikidata, all descriptions are unsourceable.

Following an outcry it was agreed that the descriptions would be removed. However, although they were removed from the mobile view of English Wikipedia, they still exist on the app. We now have the situation where the community has asked for them to be removed, but a WMF employee, DannyH (WMF) has stated "we're not going to take the existing descriptions down, because that would damage the users' learning experience, for the sake of making a point. I don't think that's necessary, or a good thing to do." And that's why I'm furious. I don't accept that a WMF employee gets to make a content decision contrary to our own WP:BLP policy by preferring his own judgement to that of the express wishes of the community, especially as I believe he could be opening up the WMF to action from an aggrieved individual who feels libelled by their description. I'd be very interested to hear your view on this impasse. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It is worth spelling out that when using the Wikipedia App it is usually necessary to search for a topic of interest. Entering "jimmy wales" and pausing for a second or two causes the app to list items of possible interest, starting with:

• Jimmy Wales Wikipedia co-founder and American Internet entrepreneur
• Jimmy Wales Foundation Non-profit organization for freedom of expression

Tapping a link shows the article, with the description at the top under the title. The above descriptions are currently from Wikidata: Jimmy Wales (Q181) and Jimmy Wales Foundation (Q20006792). Not many editors, let alone readers, would know how to find and correct any BLP problems in those descriptions. Sorry to violate WP:BEANS, but once trolls discover that anyone can edit Wikidata there might be a problem. The discussion RexxS points to is currently suggesting that there would be an override where a description could be set in the enwiki article, and if set, the description from Wikidata would not be displayed. I am sympathetic to that idea because the descriptions are essential for mobile readers but thought is needed on long-term BLP problems. I monitor a couple of error tracking categories and sometimes find small articles on people, particularly sporting people, where the only edits in the last year have been from IPs who amuse themselves by adding silly commentary. It would be very hard to find BLP-violating descriptions in Wikidata for such articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why the interface behavior should be different for different people. If I type jimmy wales in the box and hit Go or Return, I get one article, not an ad hoc disambiguation. If I hit Search I get this list. Now people can reasonably argue whether the Wikidata summaries are a better result than this or not, but what I can't see is that one person on one device gets a different outcome than the other. How can editors check the content if in order to know what readers are seeing we have to have the right brand of phone and run the app just such a way? Wnt (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. Two days ago I was inaccurately accused by User:Yamla of empersonating a different user: User:Abnormallylong. I was then blocked for it. The only reason myself and Abnormallylong bumped into each other was because I saw his post immediately above mine in a "article for creation" page. What should I do to clear my name or remove my name from this page? 79.67.88.242 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You could request that someone with Checkuser power look into it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to the founder that he has that privilege. wbm1058 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, there is something wrong with your Wikipedia if two separate editors can be merged into 1 identity, then banned, merely because 1 complimented the other. Especially so if there is a plausible explanation as to how the two editors found one another. User:Yamla should lose his admin status for that ridiculous trigger-happy block. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, IP 79+, if you think that your IP address is your name, then you may possibly have a poor concept of personal identity. I hope that you can come to understand what "name" actually means. My name is James Cullen Heaphy III. What is yours? Feel free to not answer, as that's your right. As for IP 88+, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that you are right and this was a bad block. If you think that an administrator should be ousted for a single bad block, then I submit that this is a formula for paralysis of our group of administrators, which would lead to the collapse of Wikipedia. Is that what you want? You two should edit from accounts. If you want administrators to be accountable, then so should you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So admins such as Yamla who abuse their power should be let off scott-free? Okay then. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

How readily people scream "abuse" when there are more plausible explanations of circumstances... Dax Bane 01:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• @JWales: please see WP:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. For it is they; been over more of north London than the Inter City Firm  :) WP:DENY generally applies. — fortunavelut luna 17:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Great example of wiki-elitism with the above post Fortuna. Someone brings up the abusiveness of powerful administrators and your first reaction is to reorient and distract to a different topic. And then people wonder why Wikipedia is losing editors. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding relevant (IMHO) illustration. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi IP. Your, ahem, choice of topic area to join in the fray isn't helping your case. That's as far as I care to go in assessing the specifics of your case. But, just some general information and comments on the matter of sock-puppet investigations. The Wikimedia Foundation recently conducted a survey on administrator confidence. Part of that survey was a question about admins' confidence in identifying sock-puppets. Some discussion of the matter is here. I have relatively low confidence on my ability to identify sock-puppets because (1) I don't have WP:CheckUser privileges and (2) I personally set a high bar on behavioral evidence before I make such accusations – there has to be a strong and fairly unique pattern of editing. The survey shows that I am in a distinct minority among the surveyed admins on this matter. I was under the impression that CheckUser was the preferred tool for definitive identification of socks. But in actual practice, apparently, "behavioral evidence" is the first and preferred technique for sock identification, due to privacy concerns. CheckUser is only called in when the "behavioral evidence" is not conclusive. But beware that a majority of administrators seem to be confident in their ability to identify socks based on behavior of a little as one single edit, and even based on no edits at all – simply the choice of user name may constitute conclusive behavioral evidence of sock-puppetry. Once sock-puppetry has been determined based on behavior, then CheckUser is unneccessary, and is not used, so as to protect your privacy. That's my understanding, based on my limited participation in this area. I am not a fan of the "duck test". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's forget about socking for a moment. I am wondering whether the concept of wiki-elitism exists. It goes somewhat like this: Bureaucrat (treat wit utmost respect); administrator (treat with a lot of respect); autoconfirmed (treat with a bit of respect); non-autoconfirmed (no need to respect them); I.P.'s (treat like #$%!). That's my definition of wiki-elitism, and if you have any sense of logic in your head you know there's a grain of truth to this equation being a reality on this website. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone that is not under a ban or trying to evade something can easily create a username. Since the vast majority of vandalism is done by IPs and not by those with usernames, it should not be surprising if those using an IP are taken less seriously.--MONGO 18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And yet during Wikipedia's development and heydays, IP's and newcomers formed the core component of its development. Current attitudes are a complete 180°. Way to bite the hand that fed you. 88.104.33.149 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, even though it was back in the earliest years, I was an IP for a year too but it was by choice and that is the same choice one still enjoys today.--MONGO 18:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If we consider Wikipedia to be a sort of academic institution... University President and Head Football Coach (treat with utmost respect); Full-tenured-Professor (treat with a lot of respect); Graduate Student (treat with a bit of respect); Freshman (no need to respect them); Freshman pledging a fraternity (treat like #$%!). lol. It's probably up to the President or Head Coach to change that, if they want to. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I also successfully edited for many months as an IP who did not need to endure harassment (not in the early days, but 2010–11), before I finally registered in April 2011. Hint: the wise IP will start out as a walk-on for the practice squad. Try to butt in as the starting quarterback in a highly-controversial game, sure you can try, and if you have the talent you just might even stick. But don't be surprised if you take some big hits. wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

+1 this. Play your cards small and right and even editors who don't approve of IP editing might even thank you. [34]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved a comment from an anon to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected. Please continue any fuether discussion there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, I don't follow your rationale for that. The protection log shows that the last edit protection to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access to post here expired at 14:41, 18 September 2017. Therefore there is no technical reason necessitating the IP to edit that subpage you created in February 2016‎, for the purpose of providing unregistered users (aka IPs or anons) a place to contribute when this page is semi-protected. The IP may still post comments to this page, though I hope they reconsider their uncivil introduction of racism into the conversation. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. (Feb. 2012)

Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. (Feb. 2012) Carrite (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have come across an issue I know nothing about, but, suspect isn't legal. While working on our article for Heinkel He 112 I came across a source linked here that word for word reproduces hundreds of our articles in at least 11 volumes (per a search I conducted at Merriam Press) and, maybe more importantly, has copyrighted said material. I know it's lifted from us because the book was published in July of this year, but, the material has been there since at least June, 2016 and I can quite reliably go back to January, 2012 with almost all the material still being there. I have absolutely no idea whether this is worth pursuing, whether this is legal or illegal, but I can say, with absolute certainty, that it is a scummy thing to do. Selling material that is otherwise free, and copyrighting it too, I mean. The only parts of the book that might, and I mean might, be original work are the many pictures contained within that pad out most of the source. Though, it's also entirely possible that the photos are lifted from google images too given what they've done with Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If you read the fine print at the bottom of this page, you'll see it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." The Ombox (other pages message box metatemplate) at the top of Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License summarizes the rather lengthy and complicated license which is also summarized on the Creative Commons site. Though the bit that said "for any purpose, even commercially" wasn't repeated on Wikipedia until I added it. Minor details, minor details... The actual license under which Wikipedia content is distributed is here. Feel free to hire a lawyer at your own expense to interpret it for you.

The Ombox Notice says "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/".

I see that the book for sale at www.lulu.com/shop/merriam-press/world-war-2-in-review-no-11/ebook/product-23285144.html is Copyright by Merriam Press (Standard Copyright License). It remains to be seen whether "Standard Copyright License" means "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Attribution may be given "in any reasonable manner"; perhaps this is a "reasonable" manner.

But before you get too worked up about that, note that Wikidata is now directly imported into various Wikipedia articles (it is used in some infoboxes). Note the Wikidata license at the bottom of their main page: "All structured data from the main and property namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License" – "You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission." Is Wikipedia in violation of Wikidata's CC0 license when it "upgrades" CC0 content to CC BY-SA 3.0 content? Or does the inclusion of CC0 content onto a CC BY-SA page downgrade everything to CC0? How is the average content re-user supposed to sort out which content is provided under which license?

By the way, did we ever get a response on whether Amazon Alexa would be modified to give attribution to Wikipedia? wbm1058 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

CC0 you can do what you like with: re-mash it as you wish, include it in your own copyright content, make tea-towels out of it... There is no requirement for attribution (not "BY"), and no requirement for content re-using it to only be released under some similar condition (not "SA"). Jheald (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Wikidata's CC0 license applies to an article that does not use it. My understanding is that the content is CC-BY-SA 3.0 which can be reused at will but only with attribution and only with a similar license. Wikidata isn't used in the article, though Wikidata appears to have an entry in it's system relating to the subject of the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So it seems fair to assume that Merriam Press did not get all of their content from Wikidata. Thus, it appears that they may be in violation of both "BY", by not attributing their books' content to Wikipedia, and "SA", by giving their content a "Standard Copyright License" (whatever that is) rather than the same copyright license, CC-BY-SA. Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any record of ever initiating legal action against such violators of their content licenses? Or are the odds of them taking action similar to the odds that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency will take action against corporate polluters? wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on initial coin offerings (ICOs) at CNBC. The headline there is a bit scarier than the quote (but nothing unusual for headline writers), so I'll just give the quote used.

"I think blockchain is a super interesting technology but there are a lot of fads going on right now ... There are a lot of these initial coin offerings which are in my opinion are absolute scams and people should be very wary of things that are going on in that area,"

I am not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but I'm still wondering why anybody would trust that they will retain their value - which is a prerequisite for something to be considered "money." I'm also wondering why an ICO wouldn't be considered an offering of securities, and regulated similarly to an IPO. To some extent it already has been, and IMHO soon will be in all major trading centers.

I have noticed that there are already things labeled as ICO derivatives being traded. In many cases brought to you by some of the same people who brought you binary options. Please run, don't walk, as far away as you can get whenever you see an unregulated ICO derivative.

At the same time there are reports that the regulated CBOE is planning on offering cryptocoin derivatives. There are also well regarded folks who warn that cryptocurrencies are a classic bubble. In short the whole thing is a huge danger area and we need to be very careful.

I've only taken the briefest glance at Wikipedia's coverage of ICOs. Of course we have some. The ICO article itself probably needs some more about regulation or the lack of it, and the placement of that material should be near the top. We do need to keep an eye on the whole area. Any encyclopedia should stop people from advertising scams in articles, and we certainly have rules that can prevent this.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Some similar ideas about ICOs in general just came out in The Economist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And see Binary.com Announces Initial Coin Offering (ICO) (US investors not allowed.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You're assuming there is some kind of inherent difference between a scam and a good business plan. But sometimes - as with Bitcoins and a thousand other fads - things seem to get more valuable simply by getting more valuable. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between a financial scam and a good business plan. In a financial scam, you send a person or organization some money in expectation of getting it back (plus some interest, capital gain, or other profit), but they have no intention of paying you back. It's a type of fraud. A business plan may involve some risk, but the intention is to pay you back or at least to give you a fair shot at making some money out of the deal. Non-scammers generally follow the law and go through the procedures that are required by society in order to protect "widows and orphans", old folks who are often the targets of scams (and have money in their pension funds), "the dentist from Dubuque" (folks who don't have experience in financial markets, but have come into a profession where they can make some significant bucks), and others. I predict rules will soon come into effect around ICOs, if only to protect the simple-minded. Warning, if you don't see a difference between a scam and a business plan, you are the perfect target for scammers. Watch out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, Jimbo

Shesp (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo After reading the transcript below (the video covered too much too fast for me) I feel like the embedding of Facebook employees in Trump's campaign, and the Hillary campaign turning down the same embedding, was the major reason Trump won. You likely may already know/understand the techniques described by Brad Parscale, but as a retired marketing guy, I am stunned and overwhelmed by the practical application of such targeting of individuals. Is it possible that online news stories could be similarly produced in thousands of different versions to appeal/attract thousands of different individuals and thus effect Wikipedia content?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-embeds-russia-and-the-trump-campaigns-secret-weapon/ Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We need a long, broad article about all reasons, with redirect "Why Hillary Clinton lost" when 3 million(!) votes ahead, and hey, we need 1860 "Why Abraham Lincoln won" with the lowest voter support in decades. -Wikid77 (talk)

Whoever said you can't fool all the people all the time had better like the taste of his hat. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't he just have a wig? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC) n

The left cannot accept that their candidate was so lousy even Trump beat her, so they go looking for whatever fantasyland excuse they can to explain it. Of course entities have "embedded" editors into the website to influence our content. Some websites have openly encouraged their followers to come here and influence content.--MONGO 11:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

MONGO, I agree with what you say in your comment, however, I suggest your comment is a non sequitur (definition 2) in this case. I'd be interested in whether your comment will be different after you watch the CBS 60 minutes interview with Brad Parscale, its the most technologically and marketing related enlightening 15 minutes I've ever spent, as far as I can recall. Also, in this case the Facebook employees were embedded within the Trump Campaign marketing/advertising group, not just a website. This topic has nothing to do with embedding within Wikipedia, but rather the potential for Reliable Sources to use similar individual targeting programs to create many thousands of differing headlines and content of news articles. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Parscale has to justify the 90 million bucks. If anyone is surprised that real truth is what we say it is then that is s pity. Win a team wins, everyone and anyone that had a part in that wants to say "I" won. We all see a plethora of negative ads all over social media about Trump before and after the election but we don't hear about them because they did not succeed. In all likelihood, since the MSM is decidedly left of center, we never would because they surely wouldn't want their candidate to look like they won through manipulation would they? That forces can figure out ways to manipulate our senses to click a link or be stimulated to see various colors and look at an ad is nothing new as this has been done in advertising forever...so why is demographic targeting surprising in social media?--MONGO 15:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems this targeting was individualized, which is new, as opposed to demographic, which targets groups. Parscale seems completely credible to me.

Individualized mass marketing seems like an oxymoron, at first, and yet that appears to be what has been created via technology/algorithms. We might could minimize it by seeing it as simply an evolution of "repeat customer" mailings, but this click based profiling/targeting takes marketing/advertising to an entirely different level; a much more personal level which the target does not know/expect to be so personal. Its not that we're being stimulated or manipulated, its that we are being watched and read and cataloged, its like being spied on. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The best explanation I've heard for why Trump beat Hillary is this: Understanding the undecided voters. Published in the Boston Globe, it's written by a former Clinton insider whose job it was track changes in public opinion.

Read the whole article here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, and I wondered how people would react, if judged in a basket, so we have a crucial topic to find sources and weigh the impact. In general, I remember the warning, "The average person thinks they're above average" and perhaps the worst public statement is to tell people that they are being judged. Few people would want to volunteer for yet another person to "(mis-)judge them" so I believe that topic could have been decisive for the undecided voters turning 2-to-1 towards Trump. In fact the political ads for Hillary Clinton were mostly judgey comments harping on Trump being unfit, mentally, to be President, rather than repeating Clinton's interesting plans to improve the U.S. if elected. That was another big mistake, I thought, as there were some positive Clinton TV ads for many clean-energy jobs (etc.) which could have been repeated, but Trump-unfit ads seemed 90% of ads. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's often said that Wikipedia is not a memorial, but it actually sometimes is. It is announced on the Village Pump/Proposals that User:Allen3 has died, an active content writer. He left more than 40 draft articles behind in his user space, see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_legacy_of_User:Allen3. Please consider taking on one of these pieces and finishing it up for mainspace in honor of a departed Wikipedian. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Current subpages list: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Allen3. In the future, people can count how many of those 40 subpages were finished and moved into main article space. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There are still lots of good article subjects available, some of which just need a little copyediting for style. Try working on one. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

{Unblock|1=Hey sir Im John from florida sir why my account has been blocked..and Your admin saying that is your account virajmishra but that is not my account, and again to again blocking me..Why have I been blocked, tell me what I have done wrong. I have corrected the articles correctly and I have not done any wrong editing. Closing my account again and again. I have taken mobile just two days ago and the new SIM just wants to run Wikipedia to play Wikipedia, so I did not have an account before that in Wikipedia, And this is virajmishra who is shutting down the account of my account, I can not even login to my account, Once more speaking, this is not my account. I have just created an account, my IP address is coming to this account, so what can I do in this account now? My account is no more, my account is blocked, what is this sockpuppet? I do not have any other account except in Wikipedia I bought a new mobile just 2 days ago , Please unblock me from my account and delete it from my IP address virajmishra,this is not my account. Please unlock my account and remove my account from Sockpuppet..virajmishra is not my account god promise this is not my account.And if I ask someone for help then my writing is being removed, no one is helping me, and your administrator knows only to block them, if they ask for help, then block them apart from helping them, Do not listen to anyone, just know to block and help someone do not help me, please remove my account from sockpuppet this account virajmishra because this is not my account. I just made an account for him to block me and so many people run six accounts, they are not blocking them like in the example this account please unblock my account.}

• Unblock request disabled - that template is only supposed to be used on the talk page of the blocked account itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, this appears to be User:JohnRoman (see similar appeal there from same IP), and the IP address making this appeal geolocates to Madhya Pradesh in India, not Florida. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My current location in Madhya Pradesh India but I'm also from florida. Madhya Pradesh is my home town..

Thank you very very much sir..Please help me This is not my Account god promise sir No one has done so much as much as I did because I have a dream to run Wikipedia and I love Wikipedia. but I'm doing wrong with you, your administrator has not blocked me even if I have not created an account. Misusing the post.please unblock my account only one chance I will not make any mistake again and sometimes I will make another account. Trust me only once and remove this account JohnRoman from Sockpuppet.I will be grateful to you.

You have the exact same IP address that was used to make an unblock appeal at User talk:Virajmishra. I've now blocked the IPv6 /64 range. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sir Boing! said Zebedee Jimbo Wales not bhopal my hometown is Shahdol Madhya Pradesh..but I'm also from florida.but my current location in shahdol Madhya Pradesh. Please unblock my account only one chance I will not make any mistake and do not give me a chance to say anything wrong. Give me only one chance. The person who dies is given a chance, but you are a human being or you give me a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:e600:ad1a:eeef:4aa0:f6be:5b47 (talk • contribs)

Which account? You seem to be using more than one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my Account JohnRoman not virajmishra. I will not make any mistake and do not give me a chance to say anything wrong. Give me only one chance. The person who dies is given a chance, but you are a human being or you give me a chance. You are the best person sir but im not best.I want to be like you, I have not made any mistake, I am being blocked again and again, only to ask for help, I am blocking the account of Virajmishra Tell me now, what would I do if I had done some mistake, I did not speak anything but I did not make any mistake. I did not know the rules of Wikipedia earlier but now all I know is now it will not be a mistake 2405:204:E600:AD1A:EEEF:4AA0:F6BE:5B47 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You have used the exact same IP address to appeal the blocks on User:JohnRoman and User:Virajmishra. How stupid do you think we are? Your User:JohnRoman sock account will not be unblocked. (And in any case, a block on an account would not be lifted based on an appeal from an IP address.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear sir Jimbo Wales See, Sir, I am asking for help. I am being blocked again and again. What mistake have I made? I have requested help from you to unblock your account, no help is left to help me. When the IP address of my IP address and Virajmisha is showing beans, what can I do, it remains from the server, no one understands my point. So I am now seeking help from you. If you ask for help then you give me a helping hand, so you can help me. I am not mine virajmishra This is not my account. My account is just JohnRoman Please unblock me.Now my IP address will also be blocked if I asked for help from this IP address. Not helping just blocking.Just give a chance 2405:204:E10F:CA5D:DF6A:33F6:99DA:4370 (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Especially when surfing through foreign language Wikipedia articles, many just list references at the end of the article, instead as done at the english Wikipedia behind the content. Because this can be very time consuming, and confusing, therefore it should be made a requirement for other Wikipedia's to use the english way of citing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 arguments against this

1. We at EnWiki simply don't have the power to do this. Each Wikipedia community makes its own rules, within broad limits. Would we accept rules for EnWiki being made, say by the Arab language or Hebrew language Wikipedias?

2. Some Wikipedia language versions don't have a history of locally produced books, newspapers, libraries, or even online sources. where they can draw on available resources to document each line or paragraph. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mr jimbo, i'm proud that i'm talking with the maker of wikipedia. I'm asking you for help, in arabic wikipedia I'm koussayou003 I'm blocked because i try to entre with an admistator account two times -it's joke- then the admistrator avertiss me . i dosen't try to doing it after that and i said sorry but the admistrator chek me and blocked me for a mounth, It's a long time and really i'v got so much things to do i'v got a bot for creating , two article to traduction in my two sandbox and so much athoer things to do. I realy would to improve wikipedia but the others hate me because I'm different , I always do admistrator things I dosen't now how to traduct them in english . So can you please unblock me.thanks

Now I'm asking for unblocking me so the admistrator blocked me for three mouth, please i need your help

And that was not just about the run-up to the war in mid 2002 till the start of the war in 2003. After the end of the first Gulf War, most of the brouhaha about inspections, presidential places etc. which the media was eager to cover, was to a large degree just fake news. It was how real news became a soap series with Saddam the bad guy being also the popular bad guy that would attract people to watch the news. Since the public do exert political power in a democracy, this had a feedback on real policy and it ultimately led to a real war which had unforeseen consequences. In case of North Korea something similar is going on but the consequences may be far worse because North Korea is a lot stronger than Iraq was.

I explain here how the increased pressure on Kim's regime may end up in a completely different problem than the nuclear war many fear. Biological weapons have been ignored as a possible problem, just like no one was talking about the problems in Iraq from 2003 till 2017 back in 2002. But back in 2002, I did point out to people who were in favor of invading Iraq that it's quite easy to make bombs and you'll never get to a complete acceptance of an occupation, therefore it's not plausible that US soldiers would not face problems due to roadside bombs. Count Iblis (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis, You make one huge mistake, an assumption, when you say "unforeseen" consequences. General Wesley Clark explains here. Our leaders may have been more evil than stupid. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

As Hurricane Ophelia (2017) heads north-east across the Atlantic towards Europe, another aspect of misleading news could be the forecast times of the storm path, if the forward motion changes speed. With the prior Hurricane Nate (2017), a major issue of incorrect news was the expected landfall time as local "5 a.m." based on old speed data. Meanwhile, the forward motion of Nate had actually increased 50%, but the time calculation (distance ÷ speed) seemed to use the old, slower speed, to report a projected later landfall near dawn on Sunday (8 Oct 2017), while the faster rate put landfall near midnight in Mississippi. The projected landfall map was illustrated by computer-model video maps, but news reporters were likely unaware how the computer storm models were using the old, outdated speed data. The 50% speed increase had begun 2 days earlier, but news reports were still claiming a dawn landfall after the final day of last-minute preparations, as if people could drive cars safely across the coastline that evening or sleep until dawn, while the reality was howling winds, flying branches, and high waves flooding the shorelines all night long at the coastal region. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. In your view, was there a reliable source closer to the primary source models that was more accurate than media reports that we could and should look at going forward so that we aren't repeating errors of general news media when better scientific sourcing is available?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: This is (likely) one reason why WP:WPTC strictly adheres to NHC products (or Regional Specialized Meteorological Center products in general) when it comes to meteorological information about a tropical cyclone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps use sanity checks of NHC forecast map & motion rules: Typically, the U.S. NHC forecast map for Hurr. Ophelia: [35] (updated every few hours) could be checked to see if different from fancy animated computer-model videos, even when a hurricane is in other nations (outside U.S.). Also, some hurricane experts predict faster forward speed when turning northward at higher latitudes; see table of Atlantic average forward speed, in NOAA.gov page: "Subject: G16) What is the average forward speed of a hurricane?". By asking the news video-graphics department to run sanity checks against the U.S. NHC forecast map or average-speed table, then such landfall video-map errors could be reduced.

  One woman had a (weak) tree trunk fall into her house during Hurricane Nate (2017), when she should have been in an overnight shelter or such, but also Nate was bizarre as the fastest-moving Atlantic hurricane on record, zooming across Gulf of Mexico in like 2 days, rather than 4 days, as another reason why forecast landfall was 5 hours late, and why people couldn't get the typical "4-day warning" when actual 2-day rapid landfall. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Related [Nate was the fastest moving storm ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico], see also this fairly new article Tropical cyclones and climate change prokaryotes (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Faster movement on Saturday morning: With the expected landfall in Ireland less than 2 days away, the forward movement of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) has increased to ENE 24 mph (39 km/h), per NHC Advisory 21 (0900 UTC, link: [36]), which notes to consult Met Eireann or the UK Met Office. The NHC map of the forecast cone has shown an Ireland landfall before midday on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, but check the movement speed again on Sunday, to compare forecasts. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:40/12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday storm movement: As expected, on Sunday, Hurricane Ophelia (2017) steadily increased forward speed and turned NNE by 2100 UTC, per NHC Advisory 27 ([37]), moving 58% faster at 38 mph (61 km/h), which was even 25% faster than the storm average for latitude 46&degree N. That motion would make landfall near Mizen Head, Ireland on Monday morning near 1000 UTC. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why we couldn't use the most recent NHC forecast rather than media reports based on possibly outdated forecasts? Someone might argue that NHC is a primary source, but that seems a bit silly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. weather news shows these whole-region, radar-in-motion forecasts, such as hurricane bands whirling ashore (across entire coastline), not just the "forecast cone" of the center, but the wide span of spinning rain bands, as a regional map of how landfall will occur. Such whole-region video models can become hours too late when forward motion doubles as expected with Hurricane Ophelia (2017) by 16 Oct 2017. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Really any reliable source that you consider to be accurate should do. Is it really the case that all the usual reliable sources are out-to-lunch? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A related issue has been some "weather-TV" channels which repeat regional forecasts on 1-hour repeat cycles for several hours, as one forecast segment says hurricane winds are now 180 km/h (110 mph), but nearby region forecast repeats old speed as 145 km/h (90 mph), as 2 alternate speeds repeated for hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Wikid77: Your assumption seems to be that weather models use the formula distance/speed = time. This is simply not true; that formula is not valid unless the speed is constant, which it is almost never for weather systems. Also, despite the known limitations of the NHC forecast cone, it is not our job to correct what the most reliable source is saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Now we're back to the issue of a huge size increase of storm radius, as with Hurricane Maria at Puerto Rico but much wider, where the NHC Forecast/Advisory 24 (current: [38]) predicts the width of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to span a 5x times larger hurricane-force area "SE 90" on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, widening 40–90 nmi (74–167 km; 46–104 mi) at south+east of eye. Why does this matter? Well, it could seem like fake news to predict landfall at just "western Ireland" but high storm tide would span the entire southern coast, and hurricane-force winds could reach to south-east 90 nautical miles (167 km; 104 mi), if the NHC prediction for huge storm size on Monday morning is correct. I guess this is an issue where viewers (or readers) want news to tell them the "big facts" in a timely manner, and Wikipedia articles should note hurricane storm area became "5x larger" (or such) on the day of landfall, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Giving information about the expected future evolution of a storm begins to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, especially when it's that quantitative. We limit our coverage of that to statements of the form "Such and such storm is a tropical cyclone impacting such and such country". The disclaimer at the top of the article is there for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems odd given Wikipedia's purpose. The choice shouldn't be between choosing between reliable sources and primary source related to future weather prediction (we're "not news" and certainly not future news). It would be a grave disservice if we calculate incorrectly and it turns out that Wikipedia used outdated information and original reearch for an incorrect conclusion. Our storm coverage should be historical, not predictive. The way the NHC presents data in forecasts is not the same as how they review it for historical preservation. For example, we know the formula they use for ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy). We calculate it on the fly. It is not provided by NHC, however, until after the storm and they revise wind history. Their forecasts, especially regarding current wind speed and projected wind speed is conservative in the interest of preserving life. After the storm they generally review all storm data from hindsight and correct the historical record and then publish ACE numbers. They aren't finalized until after the hurricane season with all data reported as "preliminary." We have very good Atlantic cyclone coverage but the choice should be whether to report or not report rather than attempting to correct a reliable source. If we have doubts about veracity, we should leave it out, not try to divine its truthiness. Never should we attempt to inject facts derived from our own original research especially when people are making decision regarding life and death. --DHeyward (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And hence the prudent advice: always obey the word of the NHC and official government forecasts. TV meteorologists are wrong more often than one would think, and should take a backseat in any potential life-or-death situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• The news shapes Wikipedia content: What we find with WP pages is a form of "recentism is coverage" so that a focus on news is a focus on what WP pages will mention about the related topics. For example, back in February 1861, the news reports in the U.S. could have noted: "The 7 lower South Cotton States formed the Confederacy, this month, as former U.S. slave states, but the majority of slave states remained with the U.S. as voting to soon make slavery permanent in the Union". Instead, in the absense of period news, the Confederacy is slanted in the fake views of the secession of slave states which fought against the Union of free states, as partially true, but a huge distortion from the reality that most slave states remained in the Union when the Confederacy first formed. With hurricanes, the focus on current news helps to provide broader details as the page is written so that a summarized distortion can be avoided later, but then the next news topic will distract attention from a prior hurricane as WP editors try to describe the next topic when readers want more information. Hence, the focus is not to predict weather for readers, but rather, to prepare to expand WP text to cover the whole picture about the hurricane. For Hurricane Ophelia (2017) expect to document storm surge damage along the south coast of Ireland, and the related coastal wind damage, even if the news reports shift to another trendy topic as the storm makes landfall. In a sense, the current news predicts what WP articles should mention, but editors often try to avoid news in vain hopes of later sources to document a fuller picture, which seems unlikely in reality. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wikid77: But we already do document damage by storms almost as soon as it occurs. If you don't believe me, comb through the history of Hurricane Maria. The rest of what you're saying makes little sense. The general consensus of WP:WPTC is that giving explicit information about the forecast for an active tropical cyclone runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL so what you mentioned above about the storm expected to expand 5x in size is not going to be in the article. Our duty is to cover the material as reported by reliable sources and to give appropriate weight and I believe the wikiproject does that pretty well. Otherwise your comment is too hand-waving for me to infer any specific call to action from it. If you have a specific suggestion, you are free to raise it at WT:WPTC - but don't expect to get very far with what you have written so far. There's also {{sofixit}}. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As per the final NHC Advisory 28, on 16 Oct 2017 (0300 UTC: [39]), in an almost miraculous turn, the current Hurricane Ophelia (2017) has veered straight north for hours, as on track to pass far west of southern Ireland, but racing northward at 44 mph (71 km/h). In fact, the path puts the increased area of hurricane force winds over 100 km (62 mi) farther west offshore, if the predicted path continues all morning. Then no hurricane-force winds would reach southern Ireland; however, any boats/ships west of Ireland might be unable to outrun the speeding storm as it races northward at almost double the record speed of prior Hurricane Nate (2017) in the Gulf of Mexico. Note, as the NHC had warned, the size of the storm Ophelia did increase rapidly during the 2-day period, as widening already 40–70 mi radius (64–113 km). Unfortunately, the NHC announced they have stopped any further advisories, so other sources must be used to track the storm path later near Scotland. The main impact this morning would seem any boats still running west of Ireland. The final NHC "forecast cone" map (0300 UTC: [40]) still tried to aim the path back northeast to Ireland, but storm Ophelia has been aimed due north for hours. Would be interesting to see if other agencies shift forecast path more toward north, away from northeast. Again this topic is mainly about news coverage, which steers our editors in what text to add in related pages (check for ships unable to outrun storm). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is a good reason why forecast informaton, even NHC forecasts. Has it been the other way, a northerly headed storm making a right our articl would implcitly wrong corrected. We document what did happen, not what will happen. "External links" exists to point users in the right direct whichis now the UK Met office. --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

May I ask what will be Wikipedia's stand with relation to Wikitribune ?Will we be allowed to use it as a reliable source ?Or should we treat it as we do with references from Wikia ? Forceradical (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This will not be for me to decide - it's a matter for the Wikipedia community. However, our approach and standards involve editorial oversight and a strong ethos of evidence-based journalism and neutrality, so I would anticipate it being viewed favorably.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Think this should and will be considered reasonably if we don't sit on our laurels. From what I can gather, Wikitribune will avoid 'fake news'. That in-itself should make it RS.... but-in-the-same-breath, there is a danger of introducing the phenomenon of positive feed back. This is like, if one places a microphone too close to a speaker and gets a loud howl of audio distortion. Still, nothing ventured nothing tried, so think we can run with it and see how it goes and adjust policies as seen fit. This is too bigger job for one or two admins – it needs the wisdom of the crowds. Which is one of WP's very strong points. Aspro (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikitribune will at least initially lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Reputation (the type of which is valued and respected) only comes from repeated examples of accuracy and NPOV. Which is why I say that just because WP and the WMF has been a success, we should and must not, rest on our laurels. WP & WMF is dynamic. Us, as editors (community), must remain dynamic also -until the seas boil dry. Aspro (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking you for help, in arabic wikipedia I'm koussayou003 I'm blocked because i try to entre with an admistator account two times -it's joke- then the admistrator avertiss me . i dosen't try to doing it after that and i said sorry but the admistrator chek me and blocked me for a mounth, It's a long time and really i'v got so much things to do i'v got a bot for creating , two article to traduction in my two sandbox and so much athoer things to do. I realy would to improve wikipedia but the others hate me because I'm different , I always do admistrator things I dosen't now how to traduct them in english . So can you please unblock me.thanks

Now I'm asking for unblocking me so the admistrator blocked me for three mouth, please i need your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.156.87.227 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP address. This is the English wikipedia. Traditionally one language's affairs are not discussed on another language's sites seeking appeal. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, traditionally Jimmy Wales has passed on or devolved most of his privileges and responsibilities with respect to the operations. As such, it is very unlikely that your request will be responded to. Please go back to the Arabic Wikipedia and engage in dispute resolution to try and resolve the issue. Hasteur (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That's right. I can't read Arabic and I don't have extensive knowledge of the Arabic community, so I am not even in a position to offer helpful advice except of the most general sort. I would recommend in this case not to "try to enter with an administrator account" as a joke, and a month isn't such a long time to wait.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)