Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MickMacNee (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 29 July 2011 (→Drama: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(Manual archive list)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Given your comments in the British Newspaper The Independent here when you said "As an encyclopaedia, we try to document facts taken from reputable sources. We should not be stopped from recording facts". What are your views on the fact that now Nafissatou Diallo has gone public with an interview for Newsweek that has been reported round the world (see BBC News here) that some here still what to hide her name. VERTott 02:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the discussion? I don't think we can or should have a biography about her at this point - if ever - because there is not likely to ever be enough known about her to write a proper biography (the principle behind BLP1E). But if her name is widely reported in reliable sources, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the standalone article, however at both Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case and Dominique Strauss-Kahn it is removed every time her name is added, discussed at both the talk pages and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#DSK and the maid (again). VERTott 03:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment about Nafissatou Diallo, but I'm seeing WP:BLP1E being misused - in my opinion - more and more often. In one case I know of, we have literally hundreds (thousands?) of sources about a person, even entire documentaries have been made about the person,[1][2][3] but we're not allowed to create a BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per the point of BLP1E; that person has no notability other than an event she was involved in. Writing a biography about her is just splitting content for no relevant reason. --Errant (chat!) 08:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ErrantX: No, that's just the first part of BLP1E. The rest of it, unfortunately, is getting ignored. And I firmly disagree that there's no relevent reason to split content. Arguably (from my perspective), she has a more more interesting story to tell than the criminal trial, not to mention that there are some civil trials coming up with no obvious place to put the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not sure it really applies to this maid, I agree with this comment - I saw the same thing at Anders Breivik, where the deletionists simply kept claiming BLP1E banned his article, despite clear language in the policy that allowed it. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on the specifics of any case, I would want to mention that notability and sourcing are two different issues. Something or someone can have plenty of sources about him, her, or it and still not pass the notability threshold for wikipedia; at least in theory. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same going on at Talk:Murder_of_Milly_Dowler#Move_to_just_Milly_Dowler. VERTott 04:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that, it appears that the mere mention of her name is verboten in the two articles listed above. VERTott 03:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some editors even invoke original research as grounds for removal :) . Count Iblis (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement added was not in the citation provided. The edit summary from the user reveals the original research, "it strikes me as totally obvious that she has waived anonymity," - it may well do but please provide a citation to supports that statement. The maids name is now in the related articles as I see since yesterday, after she gave an interview telling her story there was a strong case to include her name and limited detail about her, that inclusion seems to have stabilized now. Prior to her giving an interview as a one event alleged victim otherwise not notable person there was a good case to keep her name out. There are some users that support complete free speech to add anything they can find in a citation, others are very cautious about what they report about people, policy, especially WP:BLP requests a degree of caution, the balance is as usual in the middle somewhere. Users should remember we are not a newspaper - users read newspapers and want to add what they find in them, wikipedia en is not a newspaper and is not governed by the pressures that the sales press are. One of the major problems in these newsy articles is the absolute inability to know, apart from the basic details, what is content that will have long term notability in the story and what ultimately will resolve as valueless. Wikinews is more designed for such reporting. - Personally I would like to add a clause to policy that articles about trials should not be written until after the result is announced and that in the BLP of the subject prior to the result we only host basic detail of the charges, hearing dates, bail conditions. Such content as the prosecutors pre judgment statements that Johnny is guilty and the defense attorney's statement that Johnny is innocent have no long term encyclopedic value at all. The same goes for allegations that an alleged victim is an alleged liar and an alleged prostitute, the ultimate long term value of such allegations in respect to the trial won't be realized until some point in the future.Off2riorob (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to ignore the Trial of the Century and such: In trying to avoid rumors, it is dangerous to suppress all information, especially with high-profile events (some known as the "Trial of the century"). Instead, I think a better solution is to define an NPOV-balanced "article blueprint" (an article-layout format) as to how to structure a crime/trial article, provide a proper WP:LEDE summary (including cause of death, injuries, or major criminal charges), organize forensic evidence for proper levels of detail (mentioned in sources), plus document sworn-testimonies of witnesses (where witnesses are compelled to be truthful), and explain how to avoid or warn of "wild accusations" which are not supported by "corroborating evidence". Plus have a place for sources which report, "It might be a conspiracy...she might be misleading the police". In a sense, these issues lead to concerns about the "WP:Wikirules of evidence", but the information is out there, and it should be possible, in many cases, to get a high-level of dependable information into such articles, including when to allow names. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An NPOV article blueprint, seems like that would be a good thing to discuss and lay out in relation to trial articles. I don't think there are currently specifics in the WP:MOS - well we have this but it seems to be about writing an article about a trial after the verdict has been reached. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal)#Writing about particular cases - perhaps some discussion and expansion would be beneficial there. I think in this case (as in a few others I have seen as regards the names of alleged victims) - policy and guidelines have served us well - although there was a lot of vocal demands from a few users to name the subject for the last weeks, we did not name her in our article until after the BBC named her, and after she gave an interview to the press, this imo according to policy and guidelines is the standard of reporting in regard to sensitive issues about living people that the project can and should be proud of. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, expand from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (legal). There are also privacy issues for juror names. In the now infamous Florida trial of Casey Anthony (set free), the juror names were to be released in October 2011, but the U.S. State of Florida is debating to change laws to protect the names of jurors, longer. When a case involves potential child-abuse, then there is a real fear of vigilantes, as with child molesters in U.S. prisons being assaulted by inmates who would risk additional prison time to exact "justice" to someone who injures a child. Jurors can get death threats. -Wikid77 07:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the trial of the century ya could have fooled me, its a businessman accused of sexual allegations he has lost his job and people have moved onto the next story -See here the interest graph - stats.grok.se/en - Five times more people are viewing his wikipedia biography - stats.grok.se/en - which is one of the good reasons imo that we fork out the he said she said titillation from the subjects biography as soon as it gets excessive in the BLP, less people access it in the forked article and it reduces the violations in the BLP parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of other trials for "Trial of the Century" such as the "O. J. Simpson murder case" for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, where OJ drove for hours on the freeways when contacted by police to surrender. Writing about those events cannot wait until the end of the trial. Also, if someone is arrested, and sent to trial, but then "87 upstanding citizens" say they were victimized by those police, then per WP:RS, such events get reported, mid-trial. WP cannot have policies which conclude, Police around the world can be trusted as never fascist, so suppress all statements from defendants until the end of the trial (no can do). There's a difference between WP:NOTTRUTH and the reality of WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY - WP cannot be "puppets" of the police. -Wikid77 07:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come to wikipedia to be a puppet of the police or a free speech advocate, neither of those positions are encyclopedic imo. Ron Goldman is another person that should not have a biography at wikipedia. Hes not notable for anything apart from getting murdered. Oh well, never mind, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • High notability comes from continued coverage: Although Ronald Goldman was initially "just another" murder victim, in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, he was also the subject of the later civil trial which awarded $33 million to his family, who wrote a noted book about his dreams, as a wannabe star, actor, or budding restauranteur wishing to open "ANKH" as an Egyptian-themed restaurant. When his family won the rights to OJ's book and retitled it as "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer", it became an instant bestseller, with Ronald Goldman mentioned in the book:  more coverage about him. It is important to note how some (most) people gain notability by years of press coverage, rather than by outstanding personal achievements. Meanwhile, God might give a person the "gift of prophecy" to foretell the next huge meteor impact on the Earth's surface, but such a rare accomplishment does not get an article unless it is reported in reliable sources. Hence, Wikipedia has the sign at the doorway, "Abandon all pre-judgment, ye who enter here" where articles are based mainly on the world's attention span, rather than more-objective measures of important major accomplishments. The guy who predicts, or prevents, a major meteor impact might never get an article. But, I do understand your frustrations about it. -Wikid77 19:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break to make an important point

Let's keep separate two very different issues here. One issue is when we name alleged crime victims, particularly in cases that may be personally quite sensitive (rape is the classic example). The other issue is when we have a separate article on a person who is a crime victim.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we/should we write biographical articles about people that are the victim of a crime? Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding those who are famous for other reasons, normally no. However there will be exceptions, for example very occasionally someone becomes notable for being the victim of a crime - Rodney King for example. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a biography and shouldn't be under his name. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Rodney King is a biography insofar as it covers widely and independently sourced slices of his life and moreover, notable things happened both to him and owing to him after that first flurry of news coverage in 1991. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, possibly preemptive? User:Rami R indefinitely move protected=admin earlier this year, the article has been under his name since 2003 and only moved once in 2009. If I was to edit it to the biographical content you wouldn't recognize it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What title would you move it to? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not certain and had two or three I was tossing around. Re-naming requires also some editing. I also was considering as I suggested - removing the attachments and leaving the biography and merging the rest wherever it sits better, at least that way we would be able to see if he really is notable and not just notable for one major event with some reports about the rest of his life only due to that primary incident, I think that position is more correct. He is not a notable person that really requires a bio under his name, he is a person that is notable for a high profile event and as such the press have reported other things about him, almost anything they could find it seems. Off2riorob (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biography doesn't mean strictly 'early life', 'education' ... 'death' sections. I'll be the third to say it's largely biographical, and pays due weight to the event with which he is linked (i.e. a large amount of the article) Jebus989✰ 10:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to disagree, imo there is a lot of non biographical content in that article. I don't know exactly were the point is but I do know that is is quite a debated point , users that are often close to the locality or interested in crimes and such issues want articles about these type of people and others don't , personally I wouldn't have put Rodney King under his name but others would - even the added biographical content about him can all be classified as, and then the person that was beaten by the police and the riots started because of him, got a speeding ticket, and then the person that was beaten by the police and the riots started because of him was an alcoholic just like his father. Its all only reported because of the one notability. Users are wanting to create biographical articles about people notablea for a crime or an event all over the wikipedia - Millie Dowler and the child that died Caylee Anthony- and her mother Casey Anthony, the maid that has accused Khan of sexual allegations Nafissatou Diallo and basically all similar people, so some kind of guidance would be good, personally I think BLP one event - WP:BLP1e, or one event (notability) - Wikipedia:ONEEVENT#People notable for only one event insist most or almost all of them do not have a biography created in their name. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia had a chance to use BLP to good advantage by not splashing Strauss-Kahn's face and story on the front page when all we had were news stories about an allegation. There we could have reined things in a bit in the name of caution.
As for the current issue ... it still sounds like this accuser might really be a BLP1E and shouldn't have a separate article. To draw the distinction between her and Bernard Lewinsky, whose article I believe should exist, this accuser is still only known from a few statements about one single event, already covered in another article. By contrast Lewinsky was complaining about the FBI bugging his phones, about being afraid that if he talked to his daughter he'd be subpoenaed, a year later he demanded an apology from a hot shot Hollywood producer and got an answer back (though not an apology). Maybe this accuser will get that kind of by-coverage, but for now, just by the basic criterion of when you merge two articles because they're all about the same thing, she's still pretty much in that position.
Now as for naming rape victims, I think the more important case is to name Anna Ardin in the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article. There's been a fair amount of coverage - though largely from the liberal fringe - claiming that she had some past relationship with the CIA that might have led her to make a false charge.[4] Because this coverage is about her and not necessarily about the rape case, the readers deserve to have her name up front, without having to go back to the sources and hunt for it. I'm not as sure Strauss-Kahn's accuser needs to be named, though as she is speaking publicly I don't see a good reason not to. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories are no reason to name the alleged not notable victim of a crime. The difference between Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin is that Ardin has not sought and publicity or made any statements to the press. - and one of my personal fire tests - the BBC have not named her. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times names Ardin, saying that she made a statement to a Swedish newspaper.[5] Wnt (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have not edited either the article or the talkpage in question, perhaps if you want ot include her name it would be better if you started on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was there a long time ago[6] but was not successful then. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps at that time the article was not under that title as your not showing as contributed there. The NYTimes is not one of my "personal fire tests" - I also do not think the it is a good reason to add the alleged victims name that she told a Swedish newspaper that the claims that pink fairies made them do it is laughable. Ardin is a slightly different case because she has minor dealing with blogging prior to the alleged assault. I just heard on sky a big difference in these two women - the press are commenting a lot in relation to the maid as, the maid Nafissatou Diallo who has "gone public" - the same imo could not be said about the two women that have alleged assault by Assange - I am watching the maid is giving an interview on Sky right now. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the parent BLP - Julian Assange, there is very little detail about the allegations there now, it was forked out of the BLP after the weight and policy issues become excessive there, to Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange - Where it gets a lot less views (stats.grok) - around six percent of the BLP views (stats.grok) - That one is with a hightened degree of cautious editing imo because as it is occurring in the UK it is subject to Sub judice - Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this makes me glad that WP isn't based in Britain. In theory, WP should be independent and uncensored, and should print the whole truth. In practice, we fear national censors hovering in every corner, and the encyclopedia inevitably takes on much of the character of the hosting nation. At least in this case that is not an impediment. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"we fear national censors" - "print the whole truth" - such a position is untenable in a responsible project. The whole truth here is as per our policies and guidelines. We are not a vocal activist organization in support of free speech, thats for other organizations, such as Wikileaks and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other supporters of the First Amendment - this place is an online knowledge base of notable facts and people in the manner of an encyclopedia, its not a online activist group. As for where the servers are located - again a responsible project will also take into consideration local laws. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you're wrong. When a hundred thousand people post information about every topic known to man, inevitably any censorship law will make itself known. If your policies are not drawn to precisely reflect the censorship policies of the host nation, there will be places where they fail to align, and you'll either be at risk of legal action, or else end up with another policy. For example, you could carefully implement a set of policies meant to keep you far away from U.S. definitions of child porn, only to find out that small-breasted women in their 20s count as child porn in Australia. To which you can only say, "good thing we're not based in Australia!"
But your more general error is to say that Wikipedia is not an activist group. The goal of Wikipedia - to put all kinds of information, for free, in the hands of ordinary people - that is as radical a goal as has ever been announced. You can say, well why not make the policies so strict that nothing vaguely resembling pornography - or libel - can possibly slip through no matter what country's laws you consider. But when we consider what that would do to decimate our coverage, it's intolerable. Why? Because we have that activist goal to get the information out. It's an organization of volunteers all sharing that basic motivation. We may not wish to risk the project in challenging one nation's laws by direct civil disobedience - but that nation is the United States, not Britain. We care what the New York Times will print at least as much as what the BBC decides. And as long as we're not actually risking the project as measured by the laws of the one nation where it actually happens to be located, we should not go contrary to our core goal of letting people build articles for the education of the world. Now true, maybe the deletionists have some other goal, and it would be interesting to ponder just what exactly that is, but it's not ours. Wnt (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than one of us being "wrong" I just see two different interpretations of the issue. I see the projects goals and ambitions as very worthy but not particularly radical, and I don't think we are seen in the worlds eye as radical.(at least now they are in action, originally they were radical indeed) I agree we could and should never never adhere to all sorts of countries differing laws of FOI or lack of it in some of them, I just think, as I said, that, "a responsible project will also take into consideration local laws" - into consideration being the optimum expression. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conmebol vs. RSSSF: 1983 Copa America goalscorers

Jimbo,

In the official records of the CONMEBOL ([7]), Peruvian player Eduardo Malasquez is attributed as one of top goalscorers of the 1983 Copa America. The problem is that this information contrasts with the RSSSF, which claim that Malasquez only scored 2 goals ([8]). I took this case to the WikiProject Football, [9], and it was suggested to include the official CONMEBOL records with the citation to note Malasquez is also a top scorer. I included this fix in the English article. However, the problem is that in the Spanish Wikipedia, users "Roberto Martin" and "Gonchibolso12" keep reverting my edits ([10]). They claim that I must first find the "third goal" of Malasquez. I disagree with them since: (1) Wikipedia is not the place to do original research, and (2) CONMEBOL's official records give Malasquez this award, and it's incorrect for Wikipedia to deprive this man from his achievement. Do you agree with me, or have a suggestion/opinion you would like to add? Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have no idea. Are there other sources? Contemporaneous press reports?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising that football records from 1983 could get so confused, especially considering goals cannot be historically interpreted (it's either in or out).
I don't have any press reports from 1983. I do have some recent sources, from different media of different countries, for the attribution. Only the Reuters one is in English:
  • In favor of Eduardo Malasquez (3 goals): [11] (Reuters-Mexico), [12] (Caracol Radio-Colombia), [13] (El Comercio (Peru)), [14] (La Republica-Uruguay).
  • Additionally, the RSSSF contradicts itself. In this report ([15]), written by Roberto Mamrud and Karel Stokkermans, Malasquez is placed as one of the top scorers of 1983. The only problem seems to be with Martin Tabeira's report ([16]) which seems to have omitted Malasquez's goal.
  • To make matters even more complicated, the CONMEBOL source also contradicts itself. When you click on their analysis of the 1983 tournament ([17]), it seems to fit perfectly with Martin Tabeira's report for the RSSSF.
I really have no idea what to do at this point. How do you think this information should be presented in Wikipedia?--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My idea would be to present both points of view. Explaining that while Malasquez is considered a top goalscorer of the 1983 tournament by the official CONMEBOL records, his third goal is not recorded in the statistics of the tournament. What do you think?--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CONMEBOL held the tournament, and their official records are...official. RSSSF isn't official. Group 3: 1 goal against Colombia, 2 goals against Bolivia. Which means Eduardo is credited with all 3. Email Martin Tabeira so he can fix his mistake. If he thinks he's correct, he can fight it out with CONMEBOL. 75.60.18.64 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that CONMEBOL's records are the same as Tabeira's (Both have Malasquez scoring once again Colombia, and another against Uruguay). Yet, for some crazy reason, CONMEBOL's official records also have Malasquez as scoring 3 goals. Further adding to this soup, RSSSF's general records also attribute 3 goals to Malasquez, and various newspapers also attribute 3 goals to Malasquez. It's a confusing situation which ultimately deals with a living person ([18]). The people at the Spanish Wikipedia want me to find the third goal, otherwise they won't let me add Malasquez into the top goalscorer's list. I believe this is unfair from their part since (1) they're depriving Malasquez of a record he deserves (given the benefit of the doubt), and (2) they are imposing their own view on the subject without allowing for all the reliable sources to provide their information.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then email CONMEBOL so they can fix their mistake. The point is, they're the official record keepers. We can only report what they report, so if it's wrong the best solution is to ask them to fix their count or add a footnote explaining what happened. That's more sensible than writing a dissertation in the Wikipedia article trying to explain the unexplainable. 75.60.18.64 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried emailing CONMEBOL, but they wouldn't even send me a message receipt (confirmation) e-mail. Considering they're not Wikipedia members, I don't assume "good faith" from CONMEBOL's part. I'm not judging whether CONMEBOL is right or wrong. My point is to include both points of view, using a footnote to explain that "despite Malasquez is considered a top goalscorer by the official records of the CONMEBOL, his third goal does not appear on any of the individual match records." That seems to me like easiest way to clarify a strangely complicated topic. I've made some positive ground with one of the users in the Spanish Wikipedia, but they still refuse to add Malasquez as one of the top scorers (i.e., they agree to having the footnote, but want to keep him as only scoring 2 goals).--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2011 - Is Israel really an acceptable place to be hosting the Wikimania conference?

Hi Jimmy,

I'm an agnostic defender of Human rights (that's a brief description to try and highlight my agenda here). I was quite saddened to read earlier on in the year that the very popular Wikimania gathering is to be hosted in Israel this year. I want to keep this brief but my view (which I am sure that I will share with the majority of the free world here) is that Israel is a country that is at a very stark contrast with the core principles of Wikimedia of freedom and equality. Israel does not allow freedom (as you or I know it) for the majority of the Palestinian people it is responsible for as an occupier of their lands under the Geneva conventions. Equality is another major downfall of the Israeli regime, it is transgressing far beyond the inequality of the South African Apartheid regime, I mean there are separate roads for Israeli's and separate roads for Palestinians - There were no separate Roads for Black people and White people in Apartheid South Africa (although there were separate buses for White people and separate ones for Black people).

As a defender of Human rights, I am calling on you to rethink your decision to host Wikimania 2011 in Israel as to do so would be to take a political stand in favour of Israel and show the world that Israel is a normal law abiding country. This is not an issue in which indifference will be accepted by the world. Come August, Wikimania will already have taken sides in this most contemporary of major world problems and that is a position you do not want to be in as it will be a view which history will not take kindly to.

Kind regards, Abu-bakr. Abu-bakrUK (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had Wikimania '08 in pre-Arab Spring Egypt, where human rights issues were both a problem for attendees and much worse than the situation in the occupied territories, and that wasn't seen as an endorsement of the Mubarak regime. Sceptre (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we never allow a convention in Britain, or in any of the Allied powers, who held these lands in the British Empire and divided them up as they are now? I mean really come on. Obviously the issues there can't be solved in a day, but my goodness, you can't step outside in tons of countries without some kind of problem existing with human rights. Look at a place like North Korea, and tell me how bad people have it. It seems obvious that Abu-Bakr is super biased in this situation being "quite saddened". You want Israel to relax and allow more rights, then the Arab nations there need to make it feel like it can relax. Talk about rights in many Arab nations and its a bit a 'sadddening' thing also. As for me, I think its an excellent opportuinity for people to mix, mingle, and spread new ideas, and generally just get along, but hey if you think just shutting people out is a better answer..... -- Avanu (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Wikimania is attended by lots of good photographers and amateur journalists whose pictures and articles can go straight from the camera and laptop to the public domain. Israel might not be getting the better end of this deal... Wnt (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More people going to Isreal and interacting with Isrealis will only serve to improve Isreal in the eyes of others. Isreal's image in the international community is so tainted by distortion and ignorance that anything "amateur journalists" and Wikipedians do to spread the truth will only benefit Israel. (And I suspect that's what probably concerns people like Abu-bakr.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia foundational intentions

Dear Mr Wales, in a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Comment_from_an_outsider I made the following assertion -

... I hope it’s legitimate of me to assume that the founders of Wikipedia sought to leverage a clear technological and aspirational, idealistic US leadership in the world to give something to the world that wasn’t proprietary.

Having posted the comment, and reading it back one last time after posting, I realised that I should have just asked you whether something like that was on the minds of the people who made this whole thing come into being. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that the rest of the world considers the US a leader in anything? Wikipedia is an international project, developed using technology and talent from many parts of the world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point I had hoped to make a little less confrontationally for this particular debate, since my reference is to a debate in which wounded American pride is so prominent. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say that no thought remotely similar to what you propose has ever crossed my mind. I don't agree with AndyTheGrump if he's implying that the rest of the world doesn't consider the US a leader in anything - that's just not true. The US is widely (and, I suppose, properly) considered a leader in all sorts of things, and a laggard in all sorts of things, too. I do agree that Wikipedia is a fully global project, using technology and talent from all around the world.
But I can also categorically reject the idea that I ever thought of Wikipedia as having anything whatsoever to do with US leadership in anything. I just don't think in those terms, and find such thinking to be curiously quaint in a global world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for whatever it may be worth in the substantive debate about logical (British) versus traditional (American) punctuation it is my fervent desire that people relax a notch or two. Very little depends on the result, and time might be better spent worrying about things that actually matter. As for me, I will continue to simply write as I see fit, and if people want to change it, I won't moan about it. (But I use the British/logical style which is, apparently, currently recommended by the Manual of Style.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that makes a lot of sense - I think that maybe I read more into Peter's post than he intended (in fact I'm sure I did), and evidently I overdid the 'gut reaction against US imperialism' thing too. And regarding punctuation, I have to say that I don't have a clue as to whether one style or another is 'correct' - I just throw in a comma when I run out of breath, A full stop ('period' to our transatlantic brothers and sisters) when I run out of ideas, and a semicolon if I think of something else half way through a sentence. Somehow, this works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Systems founded from a distinctly American viewpoint often focus on so-called American values, with "individual rights" such as the U.S. constitutional freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms (against aggressors or stalkers), etc. Also, U.S. decisions are often made by win-lose voting, where the majority rules, and there is only limited concern to "reach consensus" with the others. Sometimes, systems have a "User's bill of rights" which clearly explain limits to intrusion (or oppression), but Wikipedia does not, currently, have very much of that. In fact, I have seen some American editors get blocked because they begin to "demand" their rights to be heard and treated with "justice" and "fairness" as if they were in an American system "with Liberty and Justice for all". Demanding fairness tends to be seen as "legal talk" which gives the impression of legal threats, so those conversations get stopped. Meanwhile, because talk-pages typically focus on verifiable article text, there is little forum-style, free-speech writing where people might chit-chat, for hours, in extended sessions of derogatory remarks about other people (although usernames are often insulted in brief exchanges). There is no user's "right to privacy" so most pages are universally read, and hence, most rumors and gossip can be detected, and stopped early. If Wikipedia were changed to support wider "freedom of speech" (or other American-style rights) in wide-open forums, then there would need to be more moderators to beware long, slanderous "comical" rants. Currently, the focus on wiki-policies or verifiable text reduces the level of wild accusations being discussed on Wikipedia pages. Plus, strong actions by fast-acting admins tend to shut-down talk of "Let's get 500 editors to vote and make the decision". Considering there are so few US-style democratic processes, it is almost comical to think Wikipedia was founded as being American or US-led, rather than as self-governed by small groups of people writing policies, controlling articles, or seizing power wherever they can. -Wikid77 06:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't agree with much of this at all, not as a description of the US and American values, nor as a description of Wikipedia. But thing I do agree with is that there is no very strong sense in which Wikipedia is an "American project". Both of these statements are false: "Wikipedia succeeded because it embraced American values" and "Wikipedia succeeded because it rejected American values". Both are political causes in search of non-existent facts. The truth is that Wikipedia draws deeply on human tradition and wisdom that exists in all cultures, and American or not has virtually nothing to do with anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What?!? Wikipedia isn't American? I quit. Just kidding. The thought never actually crossed my mind and I don't know why it would cross anyone's mind. I know people love to label things these days, but trying to put a political sway on a global encyclopedia? Maybe thats what Conservapedia is for. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikid77's post was an article, I would feel tempted to put the "citation needed" tag after many of the sentences. I would be interested to see someone prove, for example, that editors from the UK, Australia or Canada are less likely than US editors to ""demand" their rights to be heard and [be] treated with "justice" and "fairness"". To the contrary, I think they would be just as likely as I am to wonder why you would put scare quotes around words like "justice" and "fairness." I find it difficult to believe that the "culture" regarding things like fairness is really that much different between the US and, at least, the other English-speaking countries. Neutron (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all good points, because the terms "American values" and "US leadership" can have many different meanings, and can be used as labels trying to connect certain ideas as being specific to the United States. Hence, some people think "US imperialism" while others do not. Instead, the U.S. has collected such a diverse mix, of international cultures, that the term "American values" could be redefined in many ways. No one born in America has to take an "American" test, unless they were considered foreigners seeking American citizenship. Mandatory public education only goes so far. In some areas of the U.S., people rarely speak English, as in border towns near Mexico (or in parts of Miami!). The U.S. public policies maintain the U.S. Bill of Rights, but in small companies, depending on current labor laws, an employer can be free to discriminate against people in many ways, and the boss reserves the right to fire people for any reason, or any word spoken, with no such guarantee of "Freedom of Speech" -- it's still America, but many people get fired for what they said (re Jimmy the Greek, Whoopie Goldberg, Bill Maher or Gilbert Gottfried's Aflac Duck, etc.). For those reasons, there are many different ideas about what "US leadership" could mean. -Wikid77 16:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Wikipedia itself as a whole of its parts does not have legal or political leanings, individual editors I would say do in fact bring their biases with them, some more than others. "Racial profiling" or in this instance what is going on in this thread should be called "nationality profiling"; which just as with racial profiling at an airport sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, it's a crap shoot. It's simple political generalization from Comparative Politics 101 that Australia as a whole is one of the most conservative-leaning of all English-speaking countries (and not because Rupert Murdoch is from there, he's a product not the cause). Do Australian editors bring biases from their lives? Everyone does, we are human. Americans I assume are bring their ideas and generalizations about how the world should/does work to Wikipedia and other nations do the same. I like Jimbo's international approach and fairness to all, it is reminicent of Ted Turner's original approach with CNN (ban on the word "foreigner" or "foreign country" and an international as opposed to American viewpoint), I'm curious if Jimbo was aware and consciously copied on Turner's philosophy.
  • I have to disagree that Americans would be more combative, insultive, or want more drawn out debate because of the constitutional arrangement of our Congress. Anyone who has watched "question time" in British Parliment can attest to their very unique insultive manners (what seems to be a ten minute speech ending with the question "Is it true your party is incompetant?" probably is not the unwritten constitutional arrangement that was originally envisioned).Camelbinky (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-American I've been always been struck by what seems to me two strong American influences in WP, but probably those are the only two I've noticed: one is positive, one negative. The positive is the sense that 1st Amendment trumps all, or nearly does. It can be seen in the way WP:NOTCENSORED has such a strong role, for instance. The negative, IMHO, is a quasi-litigious approach to dispute resolution e.g. the bureacratic and formal approach of most of the dispute resolution processes - the worst being ArbCom. To me that's distictively U.S. Related to that is a quasi-legalistic attachment to divining and defining the meaning of WP:policies (i.e. = The Constitution). DeCausa (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

Recently, your comments indicated that even in a contentious confrontation, an editor should be allowed to walk away from the project with dignity. The comment was made in response to a request to look at a particular individual's conduct and has turned out to be quite telling, as the editor in question has disdained your sage advice and left the project in a most deplorable manner. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You have a conflict between different people who have put in a lot of time and effort into some project. Because of the conflict, one or more will have to be removed from the project. In this case, that could be some restriction like a topic ban or a site ban. In such a situation, it is very typical for the person who has to go (but till the end was arguing that he/she is right), to leave while slamming the door shut. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure advertising the case to ~2400 watchlisters is the best way to avoid further dramatisation Jebus989✰ 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rant is now removed, but the damage was done long ago... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
He is upset and ranting that is a pretty normal reaction, what did you expect - oh thanks for the rejection? The comment from Jimmy was imo more relating to the users left behinds actions, as in, let such users go in peace and although their relationship with the project has broken down, thank them for their extensive and valuable contributions and wish them well in their future projects. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. Bzuk reminds of a more naive time, when I believed arbcom would actually spend the time to investigate the sort of things people like him get up to on Wikipedia in their efforts to divert people away from examining their own arguments, that are the true root cause of so many conflicts here. This guy is a classic example of someone who addresses the tone and nothing else. You can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 for a classic example of what is killing this project, particularly now the committee has ruled that out of all these people, it's me who's the clueless asshole. All that effort in one Afd just to get a merge of one article, even when most of the governing principles are written in black and white, particularly how you do and don't make a good case at Afd, and only after IIRC it got some publicity at ANI leading to the late slew of clued up opinions. There are countless others which are just default keeps because people realise Afd closure isn't about strength of argument any more at all, if it ever was, and the tactics of admins like Mjroots et al really are effective, its now all about 'civility', only leaving out all the parts that deal with not ignoring the arguments of others, or not using it as a weapon, etc etc. As we see with the rapid cessation of my editting career, there is a terrible price to pay for not putting up with the faux offence of people who engage in these games, who treat WP:CIV as if it was a charter for their opinions to be weighted equally alongside all others, whether they had any grounding in policy or fact whatsoever. That's why this encyclopoedia is being turned into a fully comprehensive database of every airliner crash that ever happens, violating both a core pillar of the site, and making it completely unusable by any actual aviation historians who might be tempted away from their proper information sources, into 'new media'. There are failures like this all over the project across multiple topics, and arbcom are clearly not interested in investigating the hows and whys at all, even though the causes are 110% behavioural, they seem to simply exist to eliminate the loudest complainents, when of course the likes of Sandstein fail in their attempts at handing out summary justice. Sure, people can try the proper route, I tried to conduct an Rfc on Mjroots for his disgraceful behaviour, to no success, he's still out there making it up as he goes along, asserting black is white and generally smearing people just because they have disagreed with him, etc, etc. Go find it if you want a good laugh at what are considered professional standards around here these days. In my case there's been many oddities, which I've documented elsewhere. More come to me every day, every hour, as I try and fathom what goes through their minds. A topical example - they have found that Delta materially added to the conflict, and once again affirmed what our admin standards are. Yet there's no mention at all of the admins who enabled and rewarded the behaviour. Not in the slightest. This was over his tenatious restoration of the very attack you advised I just have to ignore and retire from the project over, presumably as I'd obviously get no satisfaction from arbcom over it. Forget other venues like ANI too, it's apparently the done thing now for admins responding to reported attacks, to simply repeat them, or otherwise ignore them in their twisted games of payback. I definitely should have listened to you. I had a naive belief that arbcom investigated things though. Thus, on the outcome of that, I've got no problem anymore in calling you, Jimbo, a thief, because that's what you are. Four years of my life you've stolen from me with my labouring for this project under the completely false pretenses that the admin corps exists to ensure all rules and guidelines are followed, and that ultimately, DR is not a popularity contest, at least supposedly not once you reach the pro-team of arbcom. What a moron I've been for believing that. Still, thanks to the mailing list leaks I had a good idea before hand that the case had been prejudged, that the bizarre way it came about was no problem at all, and so I only wasted the 5 days on giving evidence, in return for their measly input to the case of what, 100 words max all in. I've had more contact with my dentist this past week, and he seems to do far more work in far less time than these people appear to do, and ultimatley causes a whole lot less mental stress to boot. So, adios, farewell, thanks for the memories. I had infact expected the formalities to be done by now, but as with everything they do, progress is glacial. If it weren't for her rougeness Bishonen I suppose you could have delivered the coup de grâce yourself. Maybe she'll turn up and do it herself, I know she'd love to being best friends with the one non-admin on this site who gets to complain about what they think is really wrong here without any sanction at all (Sandstein, bless his cotton socks, has been labouring under the delusion all these years that I have the sort of friends Giano does, which he thought explained why his multiple attempts to bump me off all failed in the past), that is if she can remember which cartoon account she's operating right now. Yes, professional standards is apparently where it's at these days Jimbo, That's the way you'll apparently reverse the decline in contributors, and raise the intellectual level of debates here. Good luck with that. You might as well just require id registration, to make people really accountable for when they start talking complete bollocks and the admins who encourage it. Or at the very least start tracking the admins who look at a particular debate and think 'ooh no, don't want to get involved in that' and walk on by looking for the next place they can 'contribute' with a max 5 minutes of thought. What you have now is a rise in the power of these half-wit class of editors who barely know anything about our actual policy concepts down to real details, but who can just about manage to write some buzzwords, and if it all gets a bit technical for them, hide behind WP:CIV at the first opportunity, which pisses off both clued up contributors like me who despite the smears have all the time in the world for respectful people whatever their competence, leading to their ultimate demise, voluntary or otherwise, and also ensuring all prospective new editors who know nothing at all, rapidly conclude this is not a place they want to be, because the bullshit/sense ratio is now way off base and completely unmoderated in nearly every area, except possibly FAR. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=442088546"