User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 244

Archive 240

←

Archive 242

Archive 243

Archive 244

Archive 245

Archive 246

→

Archive 250

Why I am quitting Wikipedia after 16 years

Dear Sir,

I am quitting Wikipedia for good as of today. I first started contributing to the List of country-name etymologies page way back in 2004, and my first page creation was Similarities between the Bible and Koran (good thing I got in early as I wouldn't touch anything to do with religion now). Though I was very sceptical about an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, I thought it showed promise and at the very least was a decent enough place to store my personal reference material which might also be of benefit to others. Since then my edits have run the gamut from London street names, the Cinema of Paraguay, Prime Minister John Major, and most recently international borders. I had been due to go to the British Library last week so I could finish off Africa's borders (the most useful reference for these being a prohibitively expensive, out-of-print reference book) however I cancelled the appointment and I dare say those pages will never be created. I had also planned to planned to upload my 1,000s of travel photos to WikiCommons, and also set about improving the history sections of the Pacific island states (as I did recently with Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands). Again, I doubt the latter will ever be improved.

I have had my qualms about the site for many years. I left the site for six months back in 2014 after somebody started deleting the London embassy pages I had spent the previous three month creating (they seemingly got bored after deleting seven though by then I had stopped caring). I returned on the proviso that if Wikipedia ever again stopped being fun I would quit for good. Several recent experiences have convinced me the site is no longer worth contributing to, that its well-known intrinsic problems are insurmountable, and that the site has a serious problem with activist editors who are destroying it from within. I have summarised my general concerns below, along with some specific examples.

General points

• As someone with a strong interest in global history, one of the things that attracted me to Wikipedia was that it offered the prospect of treating developing countries on par with developed ones and thus overcoming the biases of older encyclopedias, and I have consistently sought to add material for such places. In the early days these pages were distinctly sub-par, and to be frank many of them have improved little in the intervening 16 years. The blunt fact is that if after 16 years these articles are still not at a decent standard then they likely never will be. The end result is a website in which random suburbs of some average US towns get an enormous article replete with numerous images, references and so on, whereas the page for many medium-sized African countries or capital cities are short, poorly-referenced, barely updated and often badly written.

• The non-English language Wikis are a nice idea, but every time I browse through them their poor quality is instantly apparent even when I cannot understand the language in question. The smaller and more 'obscure' the language is, the worst this is. Recently there have several reports of some of these Wikis being effectively taken over by a very small group of individuals (or even one individual in the case of Scots) and being deliberately and systematically skewed. This does not surprise me at all and it highly unlikely you will ever build a big enough user base for each language to correct this problem. Making the world’s knowledge available to everyone for free in their own language is a noble idea but one that has manifestly failed.

• In the early days I learnt how to edit by editing. If I followed any rules it was that 'there are no rules', if they got in the way of contributing. Since then a massive and unwieldy corpus of regulations, guidelines, and policies have been created and imposed from above, none of which I had any input into and which have increasingly turned the site from a bottom-up site 'run' by the editors to a top-down one run by admins. So I am now expected to abide by a set of guidelines which I had no part in devising, and which in many cases actively work against improving the site. The rules on primary sources are particularly idiotic. Throughout my entire educational career from school to university I was taught that primary sources are paramount, with secondary sources a distant second. Wikipedia completely flips this on its head and even just quoting verbatim what somebody said from a primary source can be slapped down and deleted as 'original research'.

• Watching from across the Pond, I have observed the increasingly nasty and bitter polarisation in America over the past 16 years with some alarm and dismay. Unfortunately given US dominance of the architecture internet I am unable to avoid the many spill-over effects. I deleted my Facebook three years ago and was never a user of Twitter and at least Wikipedia seemed immune I thought. However I have noticed an unfortunate trend in the last few years of activist editors staking out certain topics, editing them to fit their worldview and policing them aggressively against anyone who dares to try and edit them in a more neutral fashion. Looking into it, these people are almost always single-issue editors working almost exclusively on topics to do with politics or the 'culture war'.

Some specific cases

• Falkland Islands (2019): in mid-2019 I decided to improve the pages for the Caribbean countries/territories. I went through all of them, updating them, adding references and images, and in particular improving the histories (several of which were decidedly Eurocentric). None of these edits were controversial and as far as I know all still remain. Having done this I decided to do other small territories in the Americas, starting with Saint Pierre and Miquelon – again no problems. I then did the same for the the Falklands Islands, however it turned out that the page had 'owners', who were none too happy about an outsider coming in on 'their' turf. My innocuous edits about the islands' road system and airport were repeatedly overturned, the page owners demanding that any edits go via them for approval. As I had only a passing interest in the islands I just gave up. The only reasons I can see for such aggressive patrolling is because the islands are the subject of a territorial dispute (note that none of my edits related to this dispute). This experience led me to question how other such areas on the site are similarly policed. Could I trust the pages for Nagorno-Karabakh, Kashmir, Israel or Crimea? My fears were confirmed when I came across Occupied territories of Georgia, a page clearly biased in a pro-Georgian direction and aggressively patrolled to keep it that way.

• Spartacus International Gay Guide (2019-20) – this was a gay venue listings mag (now app) which was very popular back in the day. Unfortunately its founder (John D. Stamford) was also a paedophile sympathiser, and in the 1970s-80s it promoted third world sex tourism and paedophilia (in particular by supporting the notorious Pedophile Information Exchange group in Britain). Several newspapers later exposed this scandal, and Stamford was later jailed, with Spartacus being sold to a new company which thankfully disowned him and stripped out the paedophilic material. None of this was covered on the page, so I added it, adding quotes from the publication itself and from various news articles and so forth. A single editor has recently decided that any mention of homosexuality and pedophilia can only possibly be motivated by right-wing bigotry, and has repeatedly deleted the content, spuriously citing it as 'original research' due to the use of verbatim quotes from the guide. At the moment the content is live, however I've no doubt that either this editor or someone else will come along and delete it at some point and I can't be bothered policing it. Looks like Stamford got away with his crimes twice.

• Toxic masculinity (2020) – I'd heard this term bandied about in the media and didn’t really know much about it, other than that it was clearly a highly contested one. So I was surprised to see the topic’s Wikipedia page presenting the concept as undisputed scientific fact with no criticism section (as there is on the equivalent Russia, German, Estonian and Spanish pages). I raised my concerns about this on the Talk page, only to have them instantly dismissed and hat-hidden by the article's self-appointed owner. Looking through the Talk history I could see that at least 14 other editors had raised similar concerns, only for this one editor to wear them down until they gave up and went away. I insisted that my comments be un-hid, and though this was done, I can see that many of the other comments from other users have been hidden away on an archive page, sometimes not even the one for the actual page but instead for a generic NPOV page. So we have an article here presenting a controversial topic in a fundamentally biased manner and patrolled in a way that means it cannot be changed. Again, this raises the question of how many other controversial 'culture war' articles are biased and policed in such a fashion.

• Cultural Marxism (2020) – originally a right-wing conspiracy theory, this phrase has since mutated in popular culture as essentially shorthand for the rather banal observation that ‘some college professors are Marxist and may seek to propagate their views on students and wider society’, often by people unaware of the term's somewhat darker lineage or history (to make it clear, I do not believe in the theory). However this split is not covered on the page on Wikipedia. The theory is also defined in the first sentence as being 'far-right' and 'anti-Semitic'. Further down the page are a list of proponents and, within a list that includes mass-murderer Anders Breivik, one can find Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, neither of whom are far-right or anti-Semitic (indeed Shapiro himself is Jewish). I have my issues with these two figures and their views, but slandering them by association is simply unacceptable on a supposedly neutral site (note also that none of the other language pages mention them). I raised this point on the Talk page, and suggested that it might be best to add a sentence or note on these two proponents stating that they may support parts' of the diluted-down theory but they are certainly not far-right or anti-Semitic, or at least to highlight this point in the intro. My comments were instantly deleted, the first time I have had comments outright deleted in all my 16 years of editing. I then re-added them, politely requesting that they not be deleted. Others then mischaracterised my comments as ‘ranting’ and ‘not making suggestions’ (I then numbered my suggestions, and also pointed out that British-Jewish columnist Melanie Philips also believed in aspects of the diluted theory, and that like Shapiro it raises obvious questions as to whether the theory can be characterised as anti-Semitic in all cases). A ‘conversation’ (pile-on would be a better description) then developed, with a group of editors who clearly knew each other began twisting, dismissing or ignoring my points, implied that I was motivated by anti-Semitism, slurred Jordan Peterson as a racist and misogynist (note that this would be libellous if said in print in Britain, as would the article as a whole without the caveats I suggested), and compared my pointing to Philips and Shapiro as tokenism reminiscent of Jewish Nazi collaborators. As with ‘toxic masculinity’ looking through the edit history of the users concerned revealed an almost exclusive preoccupation with topics to do with US politics, culture war issues and the like and a history of contentious, belligerent interactions with others editors. After taking a break for a couple of days, I saw that the ‘discussion’ had been helpfully shifted onto an archive page on the basis that it was a ‘rant’ that made no concrete suggestions (both lies). The editors did find room however for a new thread in which they congratulate each other on another battle fought and won (wisely they moved this to the archive a day later – I guess ever these people know that no one likes a boaster). I added one response to this thread saying that the whole incident had been pivotal in my decision to leave Wikipedia for good, which received a salt-in the wound ‘thanks’ notification for this from one of the editors involved, which I think accurately sums up the petty, point-scoring mentality of the users involved.

What is the end result of all this? I can no longer trust what is on Wikipedia, not only because it is still full of errors, but also because entire subject areas are now systemically biased and any attempt alter them so to reflect a more neutral viewpoint would require a huge commitment of time and energy and probably end in failure in any case. So you have the people who you least want in charge of these types of articles in charge of them. Single-issue activist-editors firmly committed to one side will always be willing to devote more time and fight their corner more aggressively than a half-interested editor with varied interests and no strong opinions on the issue either way - this problem is effectively insurmountable. Frankly I can no longer trust that the information on Wikipedia on controversial topics is free from bias, and I will stop looking at these articles henceforth.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is essentially a legacy site from Internet 1.0, a more innocent and naïve age when people still thought the internet would bring people together rather than drive them apart. A time when vandalising the page for a Republican president was seen as a bit of a laugh rather than a sacred duty. I'm afraid your site simply won't survive Internet 2.0 which is an altogether nastier and more unpleasant place. I no longer wish to spend my free time volunteering on a site that is becoming just another front of the US culture war - full of falsehoods, politically-biased smears and an utterly toxic internal culture. Just as when I decided to quit Facebook 3 years ago, I’ve found that my mental health has improved since leaving the site. Unfortunately as Wikipedia has become so entrenched in the internet’s ecosystem I will, as with MySpace or Internet Explorer, be forced to watch its carcass slowly rotting away for several years to come. It was a noble endeavour sir but one that I'm sorry to say has failed. Goodbye. WisDom-UK (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of words to say "I tried to tilt articles with unsupported claims, I was rightly stopped, and I'm angry about it, stomp foot stomp foot." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I laughed way too hard at that. This is my userpage^{and this is my talk page} 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

2601: A person who's made sixteen thousand edits over the course of more than a decade is so blown-out by insane politics stuff that they're leaving the project over it, and this is your response? I'd write more, but that comment hardly even deserves the two sentences I'm giving it. jp×g 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Lettherebedarklight—you say "I laughed way too hard at that". What are you laughing at? WisDom-UK wrote "After taking a break for a couple of days, I saw that the ‘discussion’ had been helpfully shifted onto an archive page on the basis that it was a ‘rant’ that made no concrete suggestions (both lies). The editors did find room however for a new thread in which they congratulate each other on another battle fought and won (wisely they moved this to the archive a day later – I guess ever these people know that no one likes a boaster). I added one response to this thread saying that the whole incident had been pivotal in my decision to leave Wikipedia for good, which received a salt-in the wound ‘thanks’ notification for this from one of the editors involved, which I think accurately sums up the petty, point-scoring mentality of the users involved." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

WisDom-UK—you've got to weigh in User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your thoughts on this please. In my opinion it touches on many of the good points you've made. There is a preoccupation with seeming to favor the fair representation of the people mentioned in our encyclopedia while in actuality, to an extent, doing the opposite. Ben Shapiro is a Jew in 2020. Is he represented fairly on our project? But sanctimoniously we concoct essays on WP:NONAZIS. Hey, there is very little overt hate speech on Wikipedia. The real problem is harder to describe. But we know it when we see it. You say "After taking a break for a couple of days, I saw that the ‘discussion’ had been helpfully shifted onto an archive page on the basis that it was a ‘rant’ that made no concrete suggestions (both lies)." This is a common tactic. You go on to say "The editors did find room however for a new thread in which they congratulate each other on another battle fought and won". Virtue signalling. Sanctimonious virtue signalling. In my opinion Wikipedia should stop promoting the talking points of the Left. And in my opinion Wikipedia should stop suppressing in subtle ways the accurate representation of the vocal individuals who push back on the Left. That is what WP:NPOV should mean now. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, what do you mean by fair? He is poisonous to public discourse, would it be fair to pretend that he is an honest broker just because he's Jewish? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—you are simply disagreeing with these people. They push back against the narrative of the Left. Charlie Kirk is not Jewish. You call him a troll ("Bus stop, no, I am making the entirely reasonable assertion that Kirk is a troll") and you say of Kirk that he places anti-abortionism above the murder of Black Americans by police.[1] How can you imply that Kirk is a "grifter"? You wrote "Bus stop, bless your little heart, believing that grifters are engaging in a principled moral stand." Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, have you seen Charlie Kirk's Twitter feed? He's a troll. So am I, sometimes, on Twitter at least. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—it is a problem that you've got a megaphone and you're not reluctant to use it. You refer to "the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism".[2] I don't think you know the "mindset" of "anti-abortion activists". "Hyper-privileged"? Wouldn't that be a thinly-veiled allusion to White privilege? In my opinion the central issue in the abortion debate is a "moral" issue. Bus stop (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, there are women around the world who are dying because they don't have access to safe abortions. The anti-abortion mindset is as privileged as the anti-vaccination mindset - but as always I draw a distinction with those who follow the consistent life ethic, which is very different. Being opposed to abortion is not the same as a consistent belief in the sanctity of life. The difference is easily identified: ask if they support the death penalty, and whether they believe that healthcare should be free. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually not going to debate the pros and cons of abortion. I'm actually not even opinionated about the pros and cons of abortion—I hold no opinion on that question. I'm objecting to gratuitous observations. And I dislike the harnessing of the abortion debate to the flakey notion that black people in the United States are being murdered by the police. ("To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque.")[3] I don't think anybody believes anything remotely like that. But yes, that narrative is promoted by the Left and yes you seem to be lending support to that narrative. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, did you actually look at the Tweet by Kirk that I was referring to? He said "If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood". If you don't see the problem with that then I guess we're done. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—I think Kirk opposes abortion. But he didn't say anything about "the murder of Black Americans by police", or at least not in that Tweet. You are gratuitously larding on the notion that "To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque." Isn't that additional commentary being provided solely by you? Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, of course, no reasonable person could possibly think that BLM is about black people being murdered by police, how foolish of me. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are gratuitously larding on the notion that "To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque." It is a debunked disputed notion that black Americans are being murdered by the police. Heather Mac Donald writes (paraphrased) There is no governmental agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. She is one of many. You can disagree. But it is not your place to promote narratives from the Left. We have a policy of WP:NPOV. This is why we are having the tedious discussion above at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Your thoughts on this please. It is not simply a matter of rejecting Nazis. That happens to be a problem of secondary importance. I consider the gratuitous advancement of the flakey narrative of black Americans being murdered by the police to be a greater problem than the subject of the WP:NONAZIS essay. Note: This post has been edited by me, Bus stop. I struck the term "debunked" and replaced it with "disputed. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to strike my choice of terminology from "debunked" to "disputed". My original term was too strong and I apologize for that. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, sure, sure. I was listening to George Floyd saying exactly the same thing just the other day. Did you catch it? He had Breonna Taylor as a guest.

There are, after all, no books at all detailing systemic racism in American policing and criminal justice. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—I hope you don't mind—I edited the terminology in my above post. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, no problem. We're not here to stop people clarifying their actual positions on things, amending and adding nuance is always good. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop:Even when you edit out the part about "black on black crime" and add fake punctuation—but ooh switch from quotation marks to italics for plausible deniability, what attention to detail!—it's pretty obvious what you're actually saying at the same time you're declaring that opposing Nazis is, to use one of your favorite dismissive phrases, of secondary importance. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to follow Jimbo's advice - in fact, I've kept a few of his comments in quote boxes at the top of my User TP - see 2 of them below - but I'm beginning to wonder if it really means anything anymore because some of the very people who are supposed to be enforcing our PAGs are actually marching with the ones who are being noncompliant.

BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views.
(quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)

I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.--[4] Jimbo Wales (talk)] 3:12 pm, 8 January 2019, Tuesday (UTC−6)

We've lost quite a few really good, long term editors who have thrown in the towel, and that's sad, but what the hey - WP doesn't need us. Atsme 💬 📧 21:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I imagine we will only lose more, as time goes on. We can't change their past experience and everything they have gone on Wikipedia, it is the build-up of the little things I think that pushes someone away, not one big thing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It certainly seems like Bus Stop is WP:NOTHERE for the correct reasons, and their idea of what constitutes NPOV certainly does not match with Wikipedia policy. Especially when they hang their hat around WP:FRINGE individuals such as Mac Donald, to claim that Black_Lives_Matter#Police_use_of_excessive_force doesn't exist despite robust sourcing. Much like WisDom-UK they seem to be complaining not about anything substantive, but more throwing tantrums that they weren't allowed to force articles to conform to their own, non-neutral POV. A fundamental issue of conservative culture warriors, believing that they are the "default" and getting angry when they find out that isn't the case, and seeking to reset things so that they are "default" once more. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:Since all this rancor is happening on a talk page where there was an extensive discussion of Nazism with not all participants being entirely clear that they take a negative view of it, and Nazism is an, ah, political stance, shall we say, famed for its avidity for book burning, it seems pertinent to point out that not all philosophies and political stances are a good fit for Wikipedia editing. Since you're talking about marching with the noncompliant.

You're also stating that remain neutral we must but obviously somebody introduced all of the thoroughly-documented racial bias on Wikipedia and gender bias on Wikipedia during the last quarter-century... I of course don't know which users you're talking about who have left, as you have not been specific, but I have to wonder if in at least some cases they were not on balance the "really good" editors. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Bandersnatch, in response to your ping, it appears I mistakenly thought my position was quite clear, but at least you queried and didn't accuse, although you did imply that omission is somehow a statement. If you pinged me because you're sniffing out Nazis, you're barking up the wrong tree. I hesitated to respond to your ping at first but then chose to AGF, so I'll summarize my position by saying that all of my life, I have found it deeply troubling to know there were/still are such monsters in the world. I will simply say that, aside from my actual schooling (which I tried hard to not let interfere with my education), the basis for what I know about Nazis comes from what my Dad taught me as a child, much of which was based on his first-hand experiences in the US Navy during WWII. I was a bit of a rebel as a child, which afforded me frequent room confinements in our home library with the Encyclopedia Britannica and an incredible WWII photographic chronology in books published by TIME, among others. I also remember a very strong dislike for Senator Byrd, an Exalted Cyclops of the KKK and for Senator Biden who not only worked together with Byrd, he admired him. You are free to accept a politician's apology as being sincere but I consider it naive in this particular instance. It would require an exalted effort, and even then one would be seeing things through a giant blind eye. I'm not one who easily forgives a politician who had a leadership position in the KKK, and that includes his admirers. You won't find anybody like that in the political center (which is where I am) or in center-right, although the goal of the hypocritical political opposition & former KKK members/admirers is to make everybody believe racists comprise the party of Lincoln. I consider it beneath me to indulge in such discussions. I have long since learned to leave my biases at login, it is second nature with me, and that includes editing WP. I simply quoted Jimbo and the BLP process he supports because my views align with his in that regard, and that is all that should matter here. You can read whatever you like into it, but the text in those quote boxes speak volumes, and were not intended to entice the imagination; they are, quite simply, facts based on WP:PAG. I'm one of many editors who enjoys editing WP as an encyclopedia and not as a venue to RGW. I'm quite happy with what I've accomplished for the project - at least I've made one person happy.

I will add that I will not knowingly engage in a discussion with hypocrites, finger pointers, editors who project onto others what they are guilty of doing themselves, and/or who make unfounded allegations against other editors. It's a waste of my valuable time. I suppose the offending POV warriors actually believe finger pointing helps further whatever cause they're trying to promote from atop their soapboxes when, in fact, the opposite rings true, especially when it's flowing through a hypocritical vein; above all, it is noncompliant with WP:SOAPBOX, and that is what matters most to me relative to this project. A somewhat irrelevant thought - Alinsky's Rules for Radicals may result in a temporary win but things always have a way of working out in the end - some refer to it as karma, others refer to it as truth. We are here to help build an encyclopedia, not assume the role of social justice warriors, and it is because of the occasional anarchist-style behaviors, for lack of a better term, that WP has some lost some of its most brilliant minds. And wouldn't you know...we have an essay for that, too: WP:5THWHEEL.

You said ...but I have to wonder if in at least some cases they were not on balance the "really good" editors - while jumping to conclusions is a popular exercise during COVID lockdown, I say take a hike...in the great outdoors, of course, because it does wonders for clearing the mind and you don't have to wear a mask. I don't judge my colleagues based on their POV or political convictions but rather, as a former publisher I look at them from a publisher's POV and what they are actually contributing or have contributed to this project. In an effort to satisfy your wonderment, I will qualify my "really good" editor choices by distancing them from this particular topic, but not from the disruptive behavior we have evidenced in recent years which may or may not be related. One good editor who left the project and quickly comes to mind is Tryptofish - his reasons for leaving are expressed on his UTP. Tryp often sees things from a completely different perspective from my own, and that's fine - variety is the spice of life, is it not? Another lost editor is MjolnirPants, who actually created the No Nazis essay. He's not gone because he quit, rather his frustration led him to stray off the beaten path of acceptable profanity, and while he and I disagreed on certain topics (particularly Captain Kirk vs Captain Picard - and he even threw me under the bus once) we still got along, and were of like mind on many other things. Another excellent editor who left because of the toxic environment on WP is Petrarchan47, a WP "Editor of the Week" for her contributions to BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and there is a long list of others. Not all got along well with each other, but I got along with all of them, and we respected that about each other. We're not seeing that same kind of comaraderie or collegiality on WP today, and that is sad. In the real world today, we're seeing people who verbally and even physically attack anyone whose views don't align with their own - which brings Alinsky back to mind, Rule #13: target, freeze, personalize, & polarize. From my perspective, that type of behavior raises red flag memories of Nazism (Hitler), and so does turning on one's neighbor to further one's own selfish goals. I have my own beliefs as to why things have changed, and will qualify it by saying my overall perspective is based on years of diverse experiences on a global scale, along with a good balance of retrospect and foresight. I've already gone on longer than I intended, so I'll end by suggesting the following read: Woke. There is also a link there to Professor Bryce Peake's article about the “hegemony of the asshole consensus”, give it a read if you haven't already because it applies to much more than the topic of his article. Atsme 💬 📧 20:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I, uh, would not worry about Wikipedia becoming too woke, when words like "racism" and "sexism" and "anti-Semitism" do not appear in any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, at least one user above showed up to pretty much be clearly pro-Nazi, and several others made clear that at least they have no objection to the presence of Nazi editors who do not get caught behaving badly.

The article at the link attached as a citation accompanying the Bryce Peake quote on your talk page is certainly interesting, but it does not by any means appear to be saying the same sorts of things you are saying. It faults Wikipedia because [t]he intellectual labor of encyclopedia creation is likened to a fetishised male, blue collar workplace, diminishing and dismissing other modes of contribution, styles of communication, and types of volunteers. It derides entitlement promoting volunteers to place their own personal needs over the health of the project, says that to have a voice in a Wikipedia discussion requires a combination of stubbornness and privilege, and concludes, among other things, that [t]he entitled volunteer resists improvements because it upsets their comfortable vision of how things should be done. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Accomodating Nazism and racism and other forms of bigotry not only drives away existing editors but has resulted in potential editors never even joining the effort—as described in the essay and evidenced by the documented pervasive biases in Wikipedia content I mentioned above.

But of course Atsme—as you must know because you yourself added the citation with full details to your talk page—that essay is not by Bryce Peake; it's an entry from the Wikipedia@20 project by Robert Fernandez. The actual work in which Bryce Peake uses the phrase “hegemony of the asshole consensus” is an article “WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia”, doi: 10.7264/N3TH8JZS, in Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology of the Fembot Collective.

...in which he is describing how a comprehensive effort he made to improve documentation of sexual assault on college campuses in the United States was reversed by a swarm of editors and admins and he was assumed to be a woman because of the nature of those edits. Looking at his user page he seems to have made no edits whatsoever in the last 2½ years and a scarce handful in the preceding years; so there's an example of a really good editor driven away, the one you are so brazenly misquoting. I would suggest that you check your privilege but I know that you will not knowingly engage in a discussion with hypocrites. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch, first of all, I didn't brazenly misquoute anyone; secondly, please stop projecting your misinterpretations onto me; and thirdly, that Nazi stick you keep beating the bushes with is ugly, and you need to drop it. In fact, you cast the following aspersions in your comment above: "...at least one user above showed up to pretty much be clearly pro-Nazi, and several others made clear that at least they have no objection to the presence of Nazi editors who do not get caught behaving badly." Those are hefty, unsupported accusations against colleagues and they don't belong in this discussion on Jimbo's TP. You also wrongfully claimed that ..."words like "racism" and "sexism" and "anti-Semitism" do not appear in any Wikipedia policies or guidelines". WP:PA clearly states: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Do you not see the words you mentioned in that policy? You also completely misinterpretated my suggestion to read the section User talk:Atsme#WOKE, which includes (1) a Bloomberg article about WP's reliance on news publications and lack of diversity, (2) a highly relevant article by Robert Fernandez which also cites in footnote #17 the origin of the term "hegemony of the asshole consensus" by Peake. The footnote appears in the following relevant paragraph: It's more serious when you realize this is the basic dynamic for Wikipedia decision making and control. The logical, sane response to disagreeing with Giraffedata is to shrug and move on. Since decisions are by those who participate in a localized discussion, leaving cedes the decision-making power to those willing to engage in the least logical and sane response. This incentivizes not just obsessive but also belligerent behavior and even harassment, and empowers those privileged with the time and resources to engage in this behavior. Minor quibbles about grammar is one thing, but these techniques are frequently used by political ideologues, ethnic nationalists, and conspiracy theorists. Professor Bryce Peake called this the “hegemony of the asshole consensus.” The Peake article was interesting as well, but not because of the topic itself as I clarifed in my comment: ...it applies to much more than the topic of his article. I was unaware that my suggestion required a high level of critical thinking skills relevant to relevance - but perhaps it does. Facepalm Atsme 💬 📧 02:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

​Wait, wait, wait... so your big absolution of Wikipedia policy for not proscribing sexism and racism and anti-Semitism is that "racism" and "sexism" appear in the wikicode of one policy that is specifically about insults? That's your principled political-center dismissal of any concerns that Wikipedia policy might not go far enough given that it has produced extensive racial and gender bias and can't explicitly condemn Nazism in written policy? To be fair, I suppose it was someone else you described as disliking Robert Byrd, while you were clumsily attempting to imply that I must be a person who naive[ly] accepted his apologies for his KKK activities—oh my, the scurrilous aspersions against me! Fetch me my smelling salts and my fainting couch!

You might note that I pointed out last week that the Alabama Democratic Party did not remove the phrase "White Supremacy" from its logo until 1968. Sorry, kinda beat you to the punch in this talk page on the whole "Dems were institutionally racist too!" schtick, with a much more recent example as the IP editor points to below, even if it weren't a luridly absurd tell for a "centrist" to be breaking that out defensively when Nazism is under discussion.

Gallant of you to be defending Efcharisto's Nazi apologetics and "racism is bad is just propaganda" act when they themself have quit the field. I alleged below that the account is a sock too: perhaps you'd like to haul me up on casting aspersions charges for that as well, and for good measure indict me for biting a 120-hour-old newcomer.

So yeah. You had an opportunity here to say the Nazism is ugly and the Nazism and racism abetters need to drop it. But you chose not to. Instead, you said that opposing Nazism and racism is what's ugly and needs to be dropped. And as if everything else wasn't enough of a bad parody of someone poorly pretending to be a middle-of-the-road politically neutral straight-shooter, you claimed those things don't belong on a talk page where a policy discussion of Nazism is explicitly occurring. I hope your WWII veteran father, whom you also chose to invoke here as a folksy touch or for whatever other unfathomable reason as you decided to pursue this line of discourse, is really proud of you wherever he may be.

This sort of thing, and your reaction and the reaction of other Wikipedia editors to it, is exactly what needs to happen on JW's talk page and which the whole world needs to see.

You also need to get better at what Bus stop calls a linguistic version of sleight of hand: you literally said above of your talk page that [t]here is also a link there to Professor Bryce Peake's article, which is not true in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much of Gamaliel's article you now cut and paste into this talk page or how many emojis you use—because, as I said, you were brazenly misquoting an article from a feminist collective's academic journal to furnish faux-erudite support for your bullshit.

--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch, Seems like your messages persist with misrepresentations and a battleground tone. This may be an example of the type of behavior that contributed to the OP leaving Wikipedia. I don't see any chance for improvement in your messages but I'm open minded and would be pleasantly surprised if it came about. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As with the others, Bob K31416, you reveal more about yourself than you say about me. You could have targeted your patronizing mild etiquette-revering disappointment act and “battleground tone” policing at the (socking) user who claimed that "racism is bad" is merely propaganda, at the one who asserted another user on this talk page has threatened [them] with Wikiextermination, or in this talk page section you could have responded to comments about throwing tantrums or the stupid people or any number of other things (or you could have criticized both these other things and me, for example.)

You instead picked my above comment and its substance to oppose and for a handwavy unspecific claim of misrepresentations. (Though you timidly qualify that it seems that I make misrepresentations on top of the non-specificity, so I have a funny feeling you may demur from backing that characterization up.)

These reflexes you appear to have all developed which activate, and then dissemble and deflect through appeals to and chiding about decorum and propriety, when Nazism or racism come up as issues, may be useful tools in the course of shaping content disputes but they just do not work in the context of actual policy discussion of racism and Nazism: they simply turn your every comment into something irrelevant to the policy discussion—or material to it, but as a performance that illustrates the fundamental problem Wikipedia has rather than as a cogent argument. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you say You also need to get better at what User:Bus stop calls linguistic...sleight of hand. It doesn't matter if I use the phrase linguistic sleight of hand. I read it somewhere. It sounded interesting. So I thought I'd use it. We are all tied to words. This is a linguistic medium. Unless I've said something substantive, the actual specific words I've used don't matter all that much. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

​Unless I've said something substantive, the actual specific words I've used don't matter all that much.—I whole-heartedly agree. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—I find your reference to Atsme's father to be problematic. They wrote "I will simply say that, aside from my actual schooling (which I tried hard to not let interfere with my education), the basis for what I know about Nazis comes from what my Dad taught me as a child, much of which was based on his first-hand experiences in the US Navy during WWII." You wrote "I hope your WWII veteran father, whom you also chose to invoke here as a folksy touch or for whatever other unfathomable reason as you decided to pursue this line of discourse, is really proud of you wherever he may be." You are voluminously engaging in meaningless commentary and nobody needs to respond to extraneous commentary. Just as I do not need to respond to your reference to my phrase linguistic sleight of hand they do not need to respond to your commentary on their father. This isn't a creative writing exercise. We use language to communicate ideas that we think need to be communicated. We don't comment on everything. This page is ostensibly geared toward improving the encyclopedia. Tedious rehashing of unimportant details is counterproductive. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

​If you do not need to respond then why do you keep responding?

It's especially incongruous for you to be making the above argument bemoaning tedious rehashing of unimportant details given your penchant for picking a word that stands out to you and repeating it in comment after comment with a {{tq}} template. (And making this argument while, of course, you're quoting and repeating something you're simultaneously claiming is “problematic” to refer to—except in pursuit of your higher totally encyclopedia-improving purpose of clumsily trying to chastise me for insufficient propriety and decorum, apparently.)

If you don't like discussions perennially circling around the same topic, such as whether Wikipedia and WMF policy should oppose Nazism and racism and other forms of bigotry—on one hand, I'd suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place for you, but on the other hand, you might also want to try responding to the substance of other editors' comments instead of pretending WP:ICANTHEARYOU. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you do not need to refer to Atsme's father. You need not say "I hope your WWII veteran father, whom you also chose to invoke here as a folksy touch or for whatever other unfathomable reason as you decided to pursue this line of discourse, is really proud of you wherever he may be." Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

​But you definitely need to mention another editor's off-wiki family again and again and again, right? Because you hope you've finally found a gimmick you can use for the etiquette-based dismissal of discussion of racism and other bigotry on Wikipedia you so desperately desire. Nope.

I may well not respond if you continue posting quotes and comments about this particular off-wiki topic—because unlike you, I think that even if someone brings their personal life here of their own accord, that doesn't automatically make it fair game for third parties to use as rhetorical fodder. Though maybe Atsme would be okay with it, if you want to bring up this aspect of her personal life constantly as a topic of discussion with me; you should obtain her consent first. (edit: And I'll want to see a diff proving her consent before I'll say anything further on the subject.)

Either way, though, I will not stop saying that Wikipedia should officially, in written policy, oppose and prohibit Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry.

I'll close again with this Johann Kaspar Lavater quote I've grown to love so much—one good thing your craven antics have introduced me to if nothing else: The craftiest wiles are too short and ragged a cloak to cover a bad heart. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

​<chefskiss>--Jorm (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you say "Wikipedia should officially, in written policy, oppose and prohibit Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry." I don't think we need explicit policy on these concerns. We have guidelines on WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:No personal attacks, WP:CIVIL, and WP:Assume good faith. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

​You don't seem so confident about that. Could it be that you realize that simply requiring Nazis to act like they're at a tea party and maybe put an extra bit of polish into their uniforms is not all that is needed to oppose Nazism?

Or perhaps by saying that we don't “need” the policy, despite the fact that you qualified it with the word “explicit”, you actually mean that we should not oppose Nazism; since you have shown unwillingness to even put down opposition to Nazism in an essay, despite claiming that your objection to the existing WP:NONAZIS essay is solely based on its wording.

And of course there's the part where you said you are not troubled by the hypothetical presence of Nazis editing Wikipedia. Bring on Wikipedia Nazi Edition, I guess. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you say "Could it be that you realize that simply requiring Nazis to act like they're at a tea party and maybe put an extra bit of polish into their uniforms is not all that is needed to oppose Nazism?" I think we are only concerned with behavior. We can't gaze into another person's heart. Wikipedia should primarily be concerned with maintaining an atmosphere that is welcoming and hospitable to all—and of course we must adhere to reliable sources and follow a few more fundamental policies. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

​Nah. If someone comes to Wikipedia and identifies themself as a pedophile we first report them to legal-reports@wikimedia.org then gaze into their heart, deem them to be the utterly worthless piece of shit they are, eject their ass from our community with extreme prejudice, and report the incident to law enforcement. We'd do the same even if they were from a jurisdiction in which pedophilia is legal—because their mere presence brings the project into disrepute.

This one is actually in policy for once. No fucking around with “well if it's a pedophile who pinkie swears to always be on their best behavior...” bullshit.

Now if you gaze into a Nazi's heart and you are not troubled by what you see there, that's up for you to reconcile and live with—but the community should kick the Nazis right out on top of the pedophiles and follow them with the rest of the bigots.

An atmosphere we want to maintain is not a reason to be welcoming to pedophiles and Nazis and racists and sexists; on the contrary, as MastCell says up above we can't expect Jewish and non-White editors to tolerate and accept KKK members and neo-Nazis as colleagues here—if anything, an atmosphere that is welcoming and hospitable, of the sort the WMF promises for its in-person events but does a poor job of defining outside of the standard direct insults and incivility caveats, is the reason to oppose and prohibit the pedophiles and Nazis and racists and sexists.

I hope that pedophilia turns out to be one case in which you have the courage for the heart-gazing and staunchly opposing. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been no difficulty blocking people for racism. I'm trying to understand, Struthious Bandersnatch, what purpose you think your suggested language would serve. You suggest we need "written policy, [to] oppose and prohibit Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry". For what reason? Do we not already know that existing policy is sufficient to address the problems you mention? Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Bus stop, you're not even going to issue a pro forma denunciation of pedophilia? That's how strategically valuable you hold not breaking character on this “welcome all without gazing into their hearts” premise, for whatever membership or conduct inclusion criteria you think it implies which you are gunning for in this policy discussion?

But by all means, continue to performatively struggle to understand why anyone would explicitly and openly oppose pedophilia, Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry, and to alternate between saying that we mustn't gaze into their hearts and that we can gaze into their hearts just fine with existing policy. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—I did not literally say "welcome all without gazing into their hearts" yet you are enclosing that in quotes. You say "Either way, though, I will not stop saying that Wikipedia should officially, in written policy, oppose and prohibit Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry." It is not called for. That is because existing policy serves as justification for blocking people for expressions of the qualities you enumerate. Have you looked at the User talk:Jimbo Wales#Blocking section of this page? Bob K31416 shows that displays of references to Nazism results in a person being blocked—based on already-existing policy. For what reason do we need the additional language you are suggesting? Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Yes, I have read the three sentences in § Blocking which mention one user being blocked once over a user page that is no longer visible, and a second user over WP:NOTHERE. Bob K31416, in the course of their investigation or whatever further up the page, made it sound rather like they opposed sanctions against the first user. Let me say you do not present much of a case here.

To bring in another example from contemporary politics, which are really quite relevant although no one on the anti-proscribing-Nazism-in-Wikipedia-policy side of these discussions has responded on those counts: at the United States presidential debate last Thursday, President Trump, when asked to speak directly to black American families about race, and asked about his “White Power!” retweet, responded by telling the black moderator of the debate, and all the non-white people in the audience, that he was “the least racist person in the room”—and all of the white people in the audience, too, for that matter, and I have to wonder how many of them have retweeted someone shouting “White Power!” if any. (question and response at 1h12m in the video and transcript) From there he went on to list a few things he has supposedly done to supposedly benefit black Americans. Overall, it gives the impression that everyone has to let the “White Power!” retweet slide without Trump ever even acknowledging he did it or admitting it was racist, in exchange for his supposedly adhering to his duties towards black Americans as President; or there are several other interpretations, none of them good.

But I'm not seeing acknowledgement, much less condemnation, of that interaction, in American conservative media sources or on social media. I'd love to be wrong—if you can show me white Trump supporters even telling Trump that now he's done the “White Power!” tweet he needs to stop claiming he's superlatively non-racist, or even just, on the premise it was all a crazy kooky accident, white Trump supporters coming together to petition him to use the vast resources he has access to for hiring someone to screen his tweets so that sort of accident doesn't happen again—if you can show me those things it would reassure me a bit and perhaps even restore a smidgeon of my faith in humanity. Though it would hardly erase everything else that has happened.

I do not believe, and I've seen no signs during the past half-decade, that the average political partisan supporting the President would have any intention of asking for either of those two things above. So that's the scale, on the order of tens of millions of English-speakers in the United States alone, of people who have absolutely no intention whatsoever of holding racists accountable for racist behavior. That is why handwavily saying that, here at Wikipedia, a few little PAG snippets about possible characteristics of prohibited insults and vandalism are sufficient to prevent Nazism, racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry from proliferating in our community just isn't true (nor would pedophilia and pro-pedophilia advocacy, which it did not escape my notice you've skipped over commenting on again, be curtailed by such PAG snippets, which is why they have their own policy primarily devoted to them in addition to special mention in various other places in policy and guideline pages) and this is evidenced by, again, the widespread well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia, gender bias on Wikipedia, and other bias in the function of the organization and in encyclopedia content.

p.s. Obviously the non-talk-page-quote-template quotation marks I used above were scare quotes, though I note you are not actually articulating an objection to my paraphrasing, just complaining for the sake of complaining. But as usual, feel free to haul me before a court for unorthodox use of punctuation if you wish. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—please don't misquote me. You enclosed within quotes "welcome all without gazing into their hearts". It derives from something I said. The word "gaze" (or "gazing") appears in both our comments and the word "heart" (or "hearts") appears in both our comments. But I didn't say "welcome all without gazing into their hearts". I am asking you to please not misquote me. A reader who does not double-check exactly what I said would be led to believe you were quoting me. Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

​Right... but... what would a reader be led to believe you had said which you did not say? Sorry, scare quote are an actual, notable use of quotation marks—that's why Wikipedia has an article about it that I was able to link to. You're trying to make a grammar police argument to imply that I've been deceptive, but I haven't been: the deception and disingenuousness in this discussion has been all you.

Strident claims about my use of punct-uation are not going to make any of your points (or non-points) about pedophilia, Nazism, racism, sexism, Wikipedia policy, or other forms of bigotry for you. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—please don't misquote me. Bus stop (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'd believe that you're part of the political center if you didn't parrot right-wing talking points and phrases. Take your example of Senator Byrd and Joe Biden. Setting aside that your link says nothing about Biden admiring Byrd, your telling of the situation is a misleading smear. The facts: yes, Byrd was in the KKK - in the 1940s and early 1950s. But he left them, apologized repeatedly for being part of them, and supported some civil rights - certainly more than a Klansman would. People truly in the center, or those with an eye towards neutrality and NPOV would investigate the smear instead of repeating it as you did. 2605:8D80:626:152D:AAC7:3E3B:4325:E204 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bandersnatch & IP - this is my last comment to your troll-like witch hunt activity - neither of you are sole judge and jury in this witch hunt you've been conducting on Jimbo's TP. What you are doing here is exactly why we have WP:PA. If you have an issue against a colleague, you take it to ANI with your evidence and let the community decide. I strongly advise you to present strong evidence that supports your allegations or you will find yourselves defending against a boomerang. Anything short of ANI and presenting evidence that supports your claims is considered casting aspersions, a BLP vio, and a violation of WP:PA. I strongly suggest that you follow procedures, and do not ping me here again in light of your political defense of a former KKK member and his admirers which, from my perspective, is hypocritical to your advocacy. Atsme 💬 📧 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

​Witch hunt... I think I know which “centrist” political figure you cribbed that one from.

But it causes you the same problems it causes him: the point in calling something a “witch hunt” is that (supernatural) witches don't exist, so no precautions against witchcraft or witches, no matter how extensive, can be effective. Hence manias like burning the Templar Knights at the stake or the Salem Witch Trials did nothing but harm, as would be the insinuation in applying the term elsewhere.

Nazis and avowed racists, however, very much exist and are quite active in 2020, as I pointed out above; and you are not a Templar Knight, and neither is the politician you borrowed the phrase from. Suggesting that for Wikipedia to formally oppose Nazism and racism in policy would be a “witch hunt” is the same rhetorical gimmick the Efcharisto sock was using above in claiming that for Wikipedia to ban Nazism would mean that we want to ban the handful of 110 year olds who were actually members of the Nazi party; it's dissembling by pretending that you don't know that Nazism and overt, conscious racism are real modern-day things.

No one has to bring a case through AN/I before they can criticize you. It's the other way around: if you think criticism of your behavior or the views you've indicated in policy discussions like this has been unsupported or is unsupportable, you can bring a case at AN/I. And as with Bus stop I would relish the opportunity to detail at great length, with quotations and citations and probably even W3C-compliant SVG diagrams and flow charts, how thoroughly I'm able to support the things I've said.

You know as well as I that [a]nything short of ANI and presenting evidence that supports your claims is considered casting aspersions, a BLP vio, and a violation of WP:PA is more of your utter bullshit. WP:ASPERSIONS is an information page, a list of quotes from four unanimous, and one nearly-unanimous, ArbCom descisions elucidating WP:NPA, all of which carefully include qualifying language reiterating the unsupported nature of the definition of personal attacks. But thanks for brazenly lying about five ArbCom decisions and two Wikipedia policies all at once in one compact diff, in case I ever need a link to that. (And I mean... characterizing your talk page rhetoric negatively is the equivalent of improperly editing a BLP about you? LOL. I guess I get to consider myself a poison pen biographer now.)

Since you have turned your tender attentions on this IP editor too, I've got a policy shortcut for you: WP:WIKIBULLYING. It has the appropriately-worded carve-out that [s]tatements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats—but making shit up about ArbCom decisions and policies to claim that you can't be criticized without an AN/I decision beforehand, and that talk page comments by others characterizing your own talk page behavior must follow WP:BLP article-editing rules, is not intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes. Words mean things. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you say "Since all this rancor is happening on a talk page where there was an extensive discussion of Nazism with not all participants being entirely clear that they take a negative view of it..." Which "participant" was not "entirely clear that they take a negative view of" Nazism? Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The obvious sock Efcharisto and the user who referred to Nazism as a thoughtcrime. Don't worry Bus stop, you made the right noises for the most part, up until the point when I asked you to take it all and put it in your own essay on Nazism and you mysteriously went silent, despite the fact that supposedly your “objection to the [WP:NONAZIS] essay is solely based on the Left's misuse of language.”

Though responding to a comment stating that it's a fallacy to say that a Jewish person cannot originate or repeat an anti-Semitic statement by ignoring its substance and instead claiming that the term anti-Semitism “should not even be used” and is “all but meaningless” is not a great look either. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—I have no interest in writing an essay. The first one (WP:NONAZIS) was terrible and I am not interested in writing another. You said to me 5 days ago "why don't you just go write the right version of an essay which condemns Nazism in the proper way conservative politics supposedly would"? The reason is because I don't waste my time writing purposeless, sanctimonious, virtue-signalling essays. Now you are saying "Don't worry Bus stop, you made the right noises for the most part, up until the point when I asked you to take it all and put it in your own essay on Nazism and you mysteriously went silent". WisDom-UK cogently said "The editors did find room however for a new thread in which they congratulate each other on another battle fought and won." Are we really here to "congratulate each other"? Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I have said was meant to congratulate you; and the battle against Nazism and other forms of racist ultranationalism, here on Wikipedia and in the broader world, should not be considered won. You regard opposing Nazism as purposeless sanctimony—<sarcasm>indeed, who are we to, with "excessive piety", say that there's anything wrong with Nazism?</sarcasm>—even to oppose it in the language proper conservatives would supposedly use to do so, which is pretty much what I expected when I proposed such a thing.

I guess pronouncing that intolerance of Nazism or racism is an integral aspect of Wikipedia as you've done above isn't sanctimonious or virtue-signalling at all, huh? Because that's simply checking off a check-box, speaking of meaninglessness and attitudes displayed for public show. It's those notions coming anywhere near written Wikipedia policy, even so far as to merely appear in an essay, which curiously then becomes a huge allegedly-outrageous problem.

You bring cowardice and disrepute upon the names of Wikipedia and conservatism, Bus stop. There's avoidance of signaling virtue, but then there's also failure to display basic virtue.

A couple of lines Wikiquote gave me: The more honesty a man has, the less he affects the air of a saint — the affectation of sanctity is a blotch on the face of piety and The craftiest wiles are too short and ragged a cloak to cover a bad heart. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 01:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to follow this conversation, in the hopes that it was related to Wikipedia in some way, but have become confused. Are you two talking about Wikipedia? jp×g 00:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: Yes. When we refer to “policy” we are referring to Wikipedia policy; when we refer to an essay, that's most frequently a reference to the WP:NONAZIS essay, which as you may note was also under extensive discussion above. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 01:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've read that essay and I've also read the posts above. I am still confused about how the posts that you and Bus stop are making relate to Wikipedia, except perhaps incidentally by virtue of taking place here. jp×g 01:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: I have many harsh criticisms to make of Bus stop, but although I think they are often not representing the truth in what they say, their actual writing is clear. And I think I express myself pretty well. I mean... does the essay appear to relate to Wikipedia to you, or is that confusing too? If you do not understand how what we are writing about relates to Wikipedia despite our constant links and quotes, and the actual content of our prose, I'm not sure I can help.

Also, I have to say that it's a little bit weird that you only thought to look at WP:NONAZIS after I replied to you, given that Bus stop linked to it two comments above your 00:49 comment, I'd linked to it in the preceding comment before that too, and the words “Nazi”, “Nazis”, and “Nazism” appear again and again in the discussion—I think many if not most people would notice that. But whatever. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Like most people, I am aware of what Nazis are. The part of the conversation that confused me, however, was the part where you posted You bring cowardice and disrepute upon the names of Wikipedia and conservatism, and where your interlocutor, @Bus stop:, posted I don't waste my time writing purposeless, sanctimonious, virtue-signalling essays. The reason these posts confused me is because − now, please correct me if I'm mistaken − they don't seem to be about Wikipedia, its content or its policies? jp×g 03:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't strain yourself or anything, but if you press Ctrl-F and search for the word “disrepute” the first occurrence you will find in this page is in a quote from the guideline WP:UPNOT, which states that user page content must not bring the Wikipedia project into disrepute, and gives as an example pro-pedophilia advocacy.

I am arguing that expressing Nazism, racism, sexism, and many other forms of bigotry, even outside of direct insults and vandalism and in namespaces other than User:, should also be regarded as bringing the Wikipedia project into disrepute and should be proscribed in written Wikipedia and Wikimedia policy. (And that, as a supporting point, failing to do this in the past has been a substantial contributor to the well-documented racial bias on Wikipedia, gender bias on Wikipedia, and other bias in the function of the organization and in encyclopedia content.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In concert with points raised above in #Interviews with the British Prime Minister, I think many points raised here has become a problem with (pun unintended) how much weight we have given WP:WEIGHT w.r.t. to current media sources over those that are more academic when it comes to non-objective parts of a topic. WEIGHT is key, we need to keep out random blogs and rants and fringe views, and certainly when there is a significant viewpoint expressed through a consensus of the media after enough time to judge that (such as the general consensus around Trump's handling of COVID) that should also be included due to WEIGHT. But far far too many editors use WEIGHT as a tool to pound the short-term assessments and opinions of the media into articles, outweighing the fundamental and basic academic principles of an encyclopedia that should be the foundation of any good article, regardless of topic. We are not here to be the mouthpiece for the media even if they seem to be what is the WEIGHT of coverage (as is such the case with many many topics on the right-side of the political scale right now); we first and foremost have to cover topics in a neutral manner and then move into what is reasonable and appropriate coverage per WEIGHT.

But further when we get to covering the WEIGHT from media sources on commentary and analysis of current events, we should be focused solely on the universal assessments. Too many of these articles, not only heavily focused on the media reaction, also read like laundry lists of every perceived slight from any random journalist, which again, way beyond what the scope of an encyclopedia should be. The points raised in the OP all ring from what I've seen in these areas, editors are just so focused on how much negative coverage there are of these topics to become over-preoccupied with the matter. Again, this comes from treating WEIGHT as an above-all principle, eschewing rational discussion of any alternate approaches to neutral approaches, when it is one of many other facets of NPOV and the other five pillars about our encyclopedia. I'll stress this is likely not intentional: I think most editors feel this is one of the few ways they can contribute in a manner to fight the ongoing culture war and are doing this unintentionally, but we're well beyond a point and it is getting out of control, costing us long-term editors, and needs to brought back to a tamer position. (yes, I've been on this point for several years, it is very closely tied to the NOT#NEWS problem as well). --Masem (t) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• What this strikes me as is a failure to use our dispute resolution methods. If you think someone is OWNing an article or being biased, we have a great many ways to deal with that. If an editor is hogging a talk page, hold an advertised RfC. If they're removing things repeatedly, ANI. Yes, maintaining pages takes energy. Making pages nuetral is not easy. But throwing your hands up because some pages are wrong isn't the answer. Wikipedia is a SOFIXIT place. If something is wrong, don't complain about it, get to work! If we don't fix it, no one will. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I call your attention to Timbo's Rule Infinity - Let the stupid people congregate among the widely read, News of the Day, general interest type pages and fight amongst themselves. Find something unwritten and write it and improve the encyclopedia on the edges. That's the secret to life at WP. — You talk about writing about African borders. Good, you get it. Then you give examples of your frustrations, which include an eclectic jamboree of hotbutton topics such the Falkland Islands, homosexuality and pedophilia, toxic masculinity, and cultural Marxism.

Hello?!?! Can you figure out what the problem is with this picture? Write about Africa. The world needs you to do that. Leave the other huffy-puff topics for the dumbasses. The world doesn't need you to write a single word about that. Problem solved. You're welcome. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Good advice Carrite. Hopefully WisDom-UK will feel better after a wikibreak and will remember wise thoughts like yours. Their edits are valuable to the topics and worldwide knowledge base, so nice work WisDom-UK! The encyclopedia is much better because of your contributions here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing about Africa is no way to avoid these issues because conflict and controversy are everywhere. For example, see the recent AfDs about Shopping malls in Egypt and Angola. Make some observations about systemic bias and the drama then escalates. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It even occurs in our dog & horse articles! That's what happens in an open editing project. Every person who ever owned a dog is a dog expert and the same with horses. They are free to tell the RL dog and horse experts that they don't know crap, and that's when the back and forth begins. That's WP in a nutshell. Hell, I even ran into an issue with male editors over cleavage, and even maternity clothing, for Pete's sake!! My advice - count to ten, AGF, fix a cocktail, go to the museum and have a good laugh. Sleep it off, and resume work tomorrow. Atsme 💬 📧 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:RANDY. But there is a solution, and I have yet to see it fail in practice: exclude all crappy sources, remove all content that cannot be supported by a source meeting a reasonably high minimum bar. The medicine project have done a good job on this, and as a result our COVID-19 articles, especially, are generally excellent. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you will see it fail if we adopt your proposal because what you just prescribed would leave us with no news media to cite relative to politics and science, which is why we have NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, & BREAKING. How about just adhering to our current PAGs? Now that would be productive, indeed. Atsme 💬 📧 22:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Good that you quit Facebook, but you lost its functions of messaging and interacting with important people. I hate Facebook too, but I use it because it's useful. I can minimize Facebook usage and its harm. So, Facebook is harmful but necessary. So is Wikipedia. We have to use it despite we don't like it sometimes. There is no other Wikipedia, only one Wikipedia per planet is possible. --ssr (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Fish for finance (2020) – Here's another curious case which I came across recently on the main page. It had been put there specifically to coincide with a milestone in the Brexit negotiations. It seemed rather fishy so I looked into it. Here's a table which shows how a political slogan has been puffed up into a whale alongside the more conventional topics which are comparative minnows or absent altogether.

Sizes on 15 Oct 2020

Article	Size (Kb)	Prose (words)
Fish for finance	159,827	13,243
Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU	54,777	3,230
Fishing industry in Scotland	25,333	3,069
Fishing industry in England	2,958	213
Fishing industry in France	does not exist	nor does Fishing industry in the EU
Financial services in the United Kingdom	3,949	78

If WisDom-UK goes away then this may accentuate the trend. Me, I'm not going anywhere. As Woody Allen said, "80 percent of success is showing up".

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, are you particularly surprised that the English-language Wikipedia covers the English fishing industry but not he French? I'm not. Not that an article on the French fishing industry would be bad, or indeed the Spanish, which is probably more on point here. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have the Fishing industry in Spain either but we do have Morocco; it's rather random. But the point here is the stupendous size of Fish for finance, which makes the current FA look small. I'm not sure what's going on but hypotheses might include logorrhea, being paid by the word and search engine optimization... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also tons easier to cover a topic of current events when its widely covered in the media, while the more academic topic (the general fishing industry articles" actually require legwork of going to journal articles and older sources that aren't readily searchable (Even with the Wikimedia library card project) to fill out. It is part of our unhealthy focus on what can easily be created because of online media but forgetting that we're still an encyclopedia. In addition to those other factors. --Masem (t) 13:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, yup, it depends very much on who turns up. But it is a surprise to em that we don't have the Spain one, given the current trajectory of Brexit "negotiations". Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's helpful to divide your criticisms into two types: criticism of policy and criticism of editors. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, policy is designed so that articles summarize information and opinions in reliable sources according to the weight they provide. This is very different from giving equal validity to different views or publishing all information or opinions that editors find important. Personally I don't think the equal validity approach would work. Not only that, but it it's probably not what readers want. If I'm preparing for a biology exam for example, I don't want to read extensive information about creation science.

I agree that some articles on U.S. politics and ethnic/national disputes are dominated by cliques of biased editors, some of whom are highly experienced. I think we should discuss how we can address this problem.

Otherwise, some of your comments are unfair. It's not a rational argument and in fact is an argument also used by anti-Semites that if a Jew agrees with an opinion, it cannot be anti-Semitic. Regardless, Wikipedia editors cannot determine what is or is not anti-Semitic which is why we rely on expert opinion.

Finally, I would point out that there are other fora for getting out information you think the public should know. You could for example write for Conservapedia. It won't reach as wide an audience. But the reason why Conservapedia is less popular is that it's editorial policy, which allows original research greater use of primary sources for example, does not attract the same number of skilled editors or produce articles that as many people want to read. That's been the experience of all Wikipedia's competitors. It's ironic that some editors choose Wikipedia because of its popularity but want to change the policies that account for its popularity.

TFD (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That last sentence sums it up perfectly. As for the rest? More people, more participation, more accuracy. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"More people" is certainly a good solution especially needed in non-English wikipedias (e. g. my "native" Russian one). But there are certain problems with "more people" in Russian one. First, WMF doesn't give money in Russia and doesn't even allow Russian Wikipedia to collect donations within Russia (why? what for?). Second, the community tend to contain a little number of aggressive "Fram-like" active "flagged" editors that tend to distract newcomers by imposing excessive requirements to notability. Much harder than in English Wikipedia (why? what for Russian wikipedia has to have harder notability requirements than English one?). As result, "more people" is a very harsh task that requires a lot of effort and produce a minimum effect. --ssr (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll add to TFD's idea - and Jimbo, please share your thoughts - what if the WMF asked the general public if WP is presenting all significant views in a neutral manner? The questionaire must be wide-spread, and not just targeting coastal/urban demographics like what we see with political polling in the US. Go to the heartland of the various countries - rural, suburban & urban. As to the comment about popularity - I would like to see how the page views are broken down, and show us actual stats that include time spent, locations and if it's possible to separate editing views/previews from actual reader views; i.e., a more nuanced approach to page views. Atsme 💬 📧 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a great way to get both-sidesism. We have always worked on the basis that reliable analytical sources are the gold standard, we don't care if media bubbles disagree. According to antivaxers we are unfair to the "vaccine safety advocacy" community. According to homeopathists we are unfair to the Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine industry. Because we insist on verifiable fact in reliable sources and don't treat rhetoric as truth. This is very much by design. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, glad you brought that up. I wasn't thinking about science/health/medical because those topics already have WP:MEDRS and a vast pool of peer reviewed, high quality sources to choose from; a citation luxury that many other topics don't enjoy. My thinking was focused more on political science, like AP, because of our dependence on news media and why WP has neutrality issues, and/or is perceived as biased. I think the article by Larry Sanger is the most recent online criticism. It attracted quite a bit of media attention as did the scrubbing of certain political articles. On the other hand, at the rate of speed we're seeing news publications and eZines hide behind paywalls, the issues may self correct. Atsme 💬 📧 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Otherwise, some of your comments are unfair. It's not a rational argument and in fact is an argument also used by anti-Semites that if a Jew agrees with an opinion, it cannot be anti-Semitic." Most of the terms like racist and and antisemitic should not even be used, or used with care, by which I mean expanded upon. In many usages terms like these are all but meaningless. They can be expanded upon by including supplementary language that alludes to the alleged racism or antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply to this page. Because every time I visit it, it feels like I'm on a message board that sometimes has limited relevance to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There's discussion of Wikipedia but there is also a witches brew of conflict. If this were a wake for the OP that left, he might be looking down from Wikipedia heaven and take comfort that he made the right move. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo has a solid reason for being cautious about today's news media. We just haven't adjusted to it, yet. For example: Jonathan Turley wrote:

What is so disconcerting is that it would take little effort to acknowledge that this record is highly disturbing and wrong, but not enough to throw out the plea. As I said last year, it is unlikely that Judge Sullivan will toss out the plea. Yet, because such analysis would seem to benefit a Trump associate, the media has aligned itself with an outrageous record of bias and abuse. There was a time when MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post and other outlets were voices against such prosecutorial abuse. However, in this age of rage, even this record is dismissed as “routine” to avoid undermining a crushingly consistent narrative that the Russian investigation was based on real crimes, albeit collateral crimes. The “nothing to see here” coverage sacrifices both legal and journalistic values to to maintain a transparently biased narrative.

Media bias is beyond the pale but it was happening back in the day, and has only gotten worse with the transition from print/analogue to digital:

• Harvard Review - dates back to 1995
• Gallup poll - interesting evaluation on media use
• Gallup and Pew polls about media's coverage of COVID-19
• Pew Research, Trusting the News Media in the Trump Era
• NBC News opinion, but some of it cites academics, including a video
• WSJ - A Half-Century of Liberal Media Bias
• RCP - The Media's Democratic Ties
• Politico - Why Liberals Aren't As Tolerant As They Think

I'm not favoring or supporting one party's position over another - I'm simply demonstrating views that contrast with the systemic ideological bias on Wikipedia. But it's not just bias that should concern us. Left leaning news sources dominate WP because news dominates mainstream media with only a splash of center/center-right/right leaning sources from which we can draw material for our articles. We should not be complacent and accept only those RS that align with our POV. Some of the problems with our articles can be attributed to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, along with some of the media's choices to publish propaganda or spin their articles utilizing the new style of opinion journalism interspersed with factual reporting, not to mention errors & omissions, and just plain getting the story wrong. Back in 2012, The New York Times predicted there would be problems ahead: "Staff members at The Times-Picayune expect that about one-third of the roughly 140-person newsroom will be cut. Brian Thevenot, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch business editor who left The Times-Picayune in 2009, said that reporters had already been told their priorities would shift to writing for the Web. 'They want them to produce more blog posts a day and not even worry about putting things together in a more thoughtful package,' Mr. Thevenot said. 'The Times-Picayune has a sterling tradition of enterprising journalism. That’s why people are so mad. That tradition is being thrown under the bus.'"

From my perspective, these are important points to get across if it will help even a little bit in maintaining WP's reliability as a neutral, encyclopedic reference. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 12:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Has Turley stopped writing for or appearing on any of those media outlets? No? Kinda puts an "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member" flaw in his relegated-to-blog impeachment of their scurrilous lack of integrity... integrity those news sources are evidently lacking because they generally agree with the federal judge overseeing the Michael Flynn case and the first several years' worth of Trump Justice Department prosecutors about a guy who registered himself as foreign agent and unambiguously pled guilty twice to lying to the FBI.

And what makes Turley think of moral and ethical relativism in 2020 is the judge, prosecutors, and reliable media sources being consistent this way... not, say, Donald Trump—who hired Michael Flynn, the guy the above paragraph is about, the Islam is “a cancer” foreign agent of Islamic-dictatorship-curious Turkey, hired that guy as the U.S. National Security Advisor—also having no objection to an Islamic theocracy murdering and chopping up a Washington Post reporter. j/s. But oh woe, this age of rage we're in! Speaking of ‘nothing to see here’ coverage.

So I don't think Turley's position is JW's position, though of course I wouldn't try to speak for JW.

Just to take the first of your other links, the 1995 HBR article is by a guy who describes his professional experience as an executive at a large public-relations agency and bases most of it on his own “insight” and also is reviewing a book by yet another guy who even he calls a corporate propagandist. Evidently, the root of all evil in journalism was Joseph Pulitzer—as in the Jewish immigrant anti-trust, anti-corruption, Pulitzer Prize Joseph Pulitzer. The article author's bio mentions that he was also the head of corporate communication at J.P. Morgan & Company, and guess what: according to the article, the savings and loan crisis was actually the fault of journalists rather than anyone in the banking industry! Who knew! I could go on, but you get the idea.

Left leaning news sources dominate WP because in this era they're the ones who report things that can at least be repeated with a straight face, don't do stuff like “accidentally” have news anchors propose that a candidate for president did a “terrorist fist jab” or constantly mis-label elected Republicans they don't like as Democrats the way Fox News does (still not deprecated, though, because we are in fact lenient enough to overlook such things: it takes even more to get deprecated) and because they occasionally issue retractions.

Media objectivity and integrity are hardly stellar even among the popular press sources Wikipedia does use but on the whole I'd say we're slightly better off than most phases of twentieth-century U.S. media; as I pointed out up above to Darouet the “Greatest Generation” media moseyed along not even ever showing FDR in a wheel chair, he dropped dead in the middle of WWII after being elected for a third term, and then as a country we collectively went “...oops” and passed the 22nd Amendment. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Just for shits and giggles, here is a list of all known previous cases where the Department of Justice has required its prosecutors to request dismissal with prejudice after a guilty plea and during the sentencing phase:

None omitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are amazing and are more than just an admin! Thank you for making knowledge so accessible to everyone, I wouldn't have been editing if it weren't for your website. Ituafmq (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Wikipedia and giving everyone free access to information! Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Random 203-109 (Help Desk (for question)) 04:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You deserve it

AlexCruz289 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised

I'm shocked that there isn't more vandalism on this page. I'm proud.

WildAGR (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The page is semiprotected, so that ip users and nonconfirmed users cannot edit this page. :D -GoatLordServant (Talk) 16:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. 107.242.121.42 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

GoatLordServant, expired hours ago. Enjoyer of World^💬 05:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense WildAGR (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC) UTC)

• Comment: I see his talk page more of a public chat room that happens to have Jimbo Wales name on it. It’s so cool to be able to comment on a famous person page without getting reverted. Zoe1013 (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's sometimes a refuge against abuse and groupthink when the functionaries aren't scrubbing opinions out of misguided political attempts to appeal to corporations instead of accuracy.[5] Some days Jimbo and his followers are more open to critique than others. 107.242.121.60 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's what remains in the section Labor practices, which was affected by the diff of your link. It doesn't look like scrubbing. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

However, I restored the item because I thought it was notable enough to keep. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

/tips cap 107.242.121.44 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden Wins - any comment?

Jimbo,

The NY Times at 12:54 ET - about 15 minutes ago, declared Joe Biden the winner of the US presidential election, as did NPR based on AP, just wondering whether you have any general comment.

Also, specifically on Wikipedia, how do you think Wikipedia's coverage was? Are we spending too much effort trying to cover the news, or is it inevitable that we try to cover it.

Talk page stalkers may also wish to comment, I'm sure.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As one of those normally trying to be a constructive critic of how we cover breaking news, we have had least now 5 active Presidential elections during WP's lifespan and thus we "know" what we are doing; as such our articles covering the election are well structured to represent the long-term aspects of the election and where there are variances, the approach is reasonable (eg we don't have a blow-by-blow timeline of the events of the last few days, but a reasonable summary of all the concerns on vote counting since election day) WP didn't flip to call Biden until the rest of the media did. And we're being careful from what I can tell to call out too much commentary on the lawsuits and actions that Trump is taking that much of the media is calling baseless (where mentioned, its out of wikivoice, and of appropriate WEIGHT). So this is reasonably good because we know what we're doing here.

Its usually when a "new" news situation comes about that we have problems with how to cover it in WP. --Masem (t) 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm definitely proud of our calm neutrality and presentation of facts in a clear manner. In an era when the press has become quite screamy and partisan, I think the world needs this.

I would say that in various ways this election has raised some interesting questions about a potential "incumbency bias" of our notability decisions. My own perspective is that every candidate from any serious party for any major office (which for a start would be: President, VP, Senate, House of Representatives, and state Governors and Lt. Governors) should have a presumption of notability. Indeed, I would find it very very surprising to find anyone running for such positions about whom there isn't quite easily a significant amount of perfectly appropriate press coverage (personal profiles, which are the best for writing biographies for obvious reasons, are very common for political candidates).

I'm taking no specific position on the exact details of how to fix that but it seems obvious that there's a flaw in that such people appeared in some cases to have fallen between the cracks.

In terms of evaluating that situation for bias - well, I think that's a super interesting exercise. It might be fun to take my list of offices above, and go through all the races in this election, and figure out if there is any significant D versus R bias.

As a side note, I said "any serious party" to be slightly more inclusive than just D and R, but I acknowledge that there are definitely cases of (for example) the Libertarians or Greens running a candidate but having zero press coverage about it. I think that a 'presumption' still deals with that quite effectively, i.e. "We assume this person is very likely notable, but if there's actually no press coverage at all, or very minimal, then this can defeat the presumption."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying any major office in any serious country, or any serious office in any major country? Pldx1 (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I said "any serious party" not "serious country" nor "serious office". My point is that in many cases there will be joke candidates or candidates from relatively unknown single-issue parties, and I would not suggest that a default assumption of notability would always apply there. A careful formulation will undoubtably be developed as we move forward to deal with this problem. I would suggest that in the US (as one example), the offices that I listed and the Democratic and Republican parties are a good starting point for a thought process. I think it obvious that we should have an article on everyone who meets those points.

I also think it obvious that we will always find this to be consistent with existing policies, by the way. What I mean is that it isn't possible to be a candidate for Governor (for example) for the Democratic or Republican parties without there being more than sufficient press coverage to write an article. What I seek is to prevent what I fear is partisan efforts to shut down opposition by pretending that the opposition candidates should not have an article due to a lack of *prior* notability. We should firmly say "no" to that argument and shift the burden of proof.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Re "In an era when the press has become quite screamy and partisan..." — The problem there for Wikipedia is that they are considered reliable sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We've used a conservative criteria to decide what we report regarding the election results. If there are major media outlets not reporting a winner or a state going one way or the other, we have refrained from reporting it. In effect, when Fox News reported Biden had won, we reported Biden had won. Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• This point is related to a variety of different threads which have been on this page since I've watched it, but this one seems as good as any for making the point: if anyone really objects to reliable, verifiable information being drawn from ideologically-biased sources, and isn't just saying things like that in an attempt to sneak other non-reliable, non-verifiable ideologically-biased sources through the door, then a great angle of attack for your Wikipedia wedge issue would be through our article mathematics in Nazi Germany. It lists several examples of both mathematicians and academic mathematics publications which were blatantly pro-Nazi and pro-Herrenvolk / anti-Untermenschen, who published valid mathematical conclusions which some cursory searching seems to indicate have been cited by Wikipedia.
  Seems like it might be an easier place to start, assuming this is a valid and sincere argument about sourcing practices, compared to taking on twenty-first-century reliable sources tied into ongoing social and political issues which everyone cares about and may have trouble distancing themselves from in policy discussions. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 22:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

News media

I think the news has become misleading. For example, I was just looking up something and came across this CNN story title: The US just topped 1,100 coronavirus deaths a day. One state is getting National Guard help, and others keep breaking records. The impression to me was that 1100 Covid deaths is a record US high for a day and it's going up fast. I googled to find a plot of daily deaths and found [6]. I think few people would check this and would come away thinking that the US daily death rate is at a record high and is going up fast, although the data doesn't indicate that. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you misread a CNN headline is not exactly the ringing indictment of the mainstream media that you imagine it to be. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI: for a plot comparing the same data Bob K31416 presents for the US to the EU and other countries around the world, see here.

I picked the "New Deaths, 1 Wk. Avg." for a smoother, more readable line, but from the Data: dropdown below the plot you can also choose "New Deaths /Day" to see the spikier data corresponding to the bar chart values overlaid in Bob's link. Also it's set to just show the top 10 places by death rate but the Show: dropdown has other options. http://91-divoc.com from UIUC is a really great data visualization site that has been crunching the worldwide numbers since nearly the beginning of the pandemic. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Although CNN was misleading, there may be a cause for concern about a rising daily death rate for a reason not given there. If we look at the data for daily new cases of Covid-19, there is a significant rise that started about Oct 7.[7] Since on the average, resulting deaths occur a few weeks after onset of symptoms, a significant rise in daily deaths should be starting around now. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Update. It's been 23 days since the beginning of the upsurge in cases [8] and so far there's no indication of an upsurge in deaths [9]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's our article on that web site btw: COVID Tracking Project. They appear to be journalists. The graphing code also doesn't appear to do a good job with boundary conditions; if you move the slider so that it displays from October 5th to yesterday, October 30th (currently the latest data) you get a graph that makes it look like the 7-day-average daily death rate nearly tripled. (Because that starts the data in the middle of a weekend/Monday divot, which the software isn't compensating for.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Side by side Covid-19 plots for comparison of daily tests, daily cases, currently hospitalized, and daily deaths [10]. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Bob K31416 (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Update. It's been about 5 weeks since the start of the upsurge in cases around Oct 7 [11]. The upsurge in deaths may have started [12]. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What I think is a clearly wrong decision

Theresa Greenfield is clearly 100% notable today, and is the front-runner in the race for US Senate in Iowa (see the betting market forecast). There is significant coverage in reliable sources, including sufficient biographical detail to write a good biography. While the initial decision may (or may not, I take no position) have been correct, it is clear that we need an article now. I would personally WP:IAR and move the draft into article space, but I believe doing so would simply generate unhelpful press coverage of an unfortunately disappointing failure of the slow grinding wheels of our policies. I do recommend that this be given fast attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The matter is at WP:AN. So, you could either chime in there or, since you are one, close it as an uninvolved admin. I suggested that if the draft version wouldn't meet WP:G4, it be accepted and AFDed if necessary. You are in a position to judge that as well. I don't know what else there is. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have commented at WP:AN. In terms of the WP:G4 question, I think the answer is clear (and that you are right): "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, the reason for deletion no longer applies, and the content has been explicitly improved in draft, and not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. I don't really understand how we got to this situation, but the discussion has been about hypertechnical internal Wikipedia policy matters, rather than improving Wikipedia. We are in the embarrassing situation where a clearly notable politician who appears poised to win a seat in the US Senate doesn't have an article - a complete failure of our mission to deliver high quality information to the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I even left a second comment there to make sure I drove the message home that it is inappropriate for admins to try and deduce the notability matter to decide about unsalting because that's the job for the AFD. All they need to guide their decision is whether the draft would be speedy deleted as soon as it got to mainspace. And since at least one uninvolved editor in good standing thinks the topic is notable and doesn't meet G4, G4 doesn't apply, hence it needs AFD to keep it out of mainspace.

The heart of the problem, in general terms, IMO, is a disagreement over what notability is. I am new, but it appears to me GNG was conceived as a shortcut to presuming notability (a good shorthand, as it is essential for NPOV when one sets about writing a full-length article), while the notability itself has the real world meaning, but over time, the understanding of the majority shifted towards the mistaken reading that GNG is notability, while real world notability, some of them listed among our WP:SNGs, are just shorthands to determining whether GNG is met. So, we have a situation where people who truly understand encyclopaedic notability have to shrug in resignation when presented with subjects that have received 2/3 news articles without having done anything truly worth noting, while the demand that GNG be met right away sees articles on actually notable topics get deleted. What constitutes SIGCOV for politicians, businesses and sportspeople is one of the other things that's not clear (because almost all coverages they get are easily mistaken for routine coverages, which are discounted for GNG purposes), but that's of minor concern when Notability itself is being misunderstood and misapplied. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

::::Usedtobecool, nope. The problem is that some people think Wikipedia is a directory, whereas long-standing consensus is that it isn't. We can't have biographies without good sources, for obvious reasons, and this causes endless tensions with people writing "biographies" of, say, sports people whose only coverage in RS is results tables. Specifically in this case we have NPOL, which was written because every candidate for dog catcher sent their PR along to write a Wikipedia biography to support their campaign. Sometimes a candidate nudges over the limit after initial deletion, so we get drama. We get the same drama at the fifteenth deletion for a garage band after they finally released a record. Normal for Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we are terribly inconsistent. I went looking this morning. I found the roster for what was arguably the worst team so far in this year's Major League Baseball season, and scrolled down to see their roster. As expected, we have a biography on every single player. I don't know which one of them is least notable, but one of them must be. In any event, whichever one that is, it's very clear to me that they will have less press coverage than Theresa Greenfield, as well as having by almost any way of looking at it that I can think of, less encyclopedic (historical) merit.

I'd like to make the additional point that none of our rules exist in a vacuum or for no reason. They exist solely for the reason put forward in IAR (as a reason any rule can be ignored): to improve Wikipedia. The US is facing an enormous election, arguably (and so argued by many reliable sources, so this isn't just my opinion) the most important one for a generation. The Senate hangs in the balance. Wikipedia exists, in no small part, to make sure that voters can get a high quality neutral article to help them decide how to vote. (I care much more that people vote after having read relevant Wikipedia articles than how they vote in particular. The alternative is voting based on random disinformation and twitter spats, really.)

I think all of us of good will who know Wikipedia know how we got to this point on this article, and your diagnosis is right on the money. It isn't political, it isn't sexist (good thing her opponent is also a woman or we'd quite rightly face tough questions about that as well). It's normal that quite a large number of people will be not-notable today, but notable in the future.

In many many areas we have some very helpful "shortcuts". In the area of Royalty, it's pretty well established (last I checked) that most people who are born of a monarch or sufficiently high in the order of inheritance are notable, even if they are babies who haven't themselves actually done a single thing. I think that's right. Similarly, without formulating the perfect general rule on the fly, people are notable if they are a major party nominee for the US Senate. Period.

Wikipedia is not a directory, for sure. But neither should we have a complex set of rules that gets it as wrong as we did in this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is misused as an avenue of promotion of many persons and things that are not notable. I'd vote to delete those not notable ballplayers as much as I do not support the creation of an article about a not notable challenger for a Senate seat. I'd vote to delete Joe the Plumber. What is your stand on an article about Kara Eastman?--MONGO (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Judging from the drafts, Draft:Theresa Greenfield and Draft:Kara Eastman: the former draft seems to have more body, e.g. including a section on their political positions. The former runs for senator (representing the entire state), the latter for congressional representative (representing one of the three districts the state has). As to Jimbo's on the fly suggestion ("... people are notable if they are a major party nominee for the US Senate ...") the former would pass, the latter not, but it might be worth thinking about if the actual rule is in the process of being carved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, we are indeed terribly inconsistent. On monarchy, for example, we have a cadre of editors who are busily documenting the current Archdukes and Archduchesses of Austria, and the present-day princes of Bavaria and Hohenzollern - a glorious alternate reality in which 1918 didn't happen.

And I agree with you that this decision is wrong, and we should have that article. But it's been endorsed at DRV multiple times, and IARing it would probably set a terrible precedent that we would come to regret very quickly. The rules are probably wrong. At least we should allow a separate Senate campaign article for this level of race - there are only 100 Senators and 50 Governors, it makes sense for a challenger at that level to get an article, and it would also make sense to sweep up failed candidates with no other source of coverage after the election, which we don't really do right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is the difficulty that too many entities (not just political candidates) have figured out that getting an article in Wikipedia is easy SEO, and so in some cases we actively have to fight against what seem to be apparently notable topics when really the coverage is superficial. The editors behind WP:NCORP have done a lot of work in this area to make sure we are avoiding inclusion of companies that are looking for the easy google hits, and their concepts have to extend to BLPs that also may be seeking easy hits, which we have to presume will include running candidates in elections. This is not to say Greenfield herself is seeking this, but this is still a concern. And when the state of the article is summarized that "She is this person with little notability before running for office, she's running for office now, and here's her platform", it looks like a political ad. Maybe there's additional sources and improvements to drive it away from that, but it would not be acceptable to have a political ad in mainspace, regardless of balance of topic coverage, but covering her campaign in the relevant election article is appropriate. That's also the other factor: having a standalone article should not be seen as the epitome of importance on WP. We use redirects and coverage in larger topics all the time, and as long as we are not burying coverage of Greenfield in the relevant election article that we redirect her name to currently, that should be good otherwise; her details are still there. --Masem (t) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: There does seem to be a fundamental incoherence with the concept of notability as implemented on Wikipedia. What I always think about when it comes to modern fame and repute is that someone like Greenfield must already be known to more people, and probably in more genuine detail, than any pre-dynastic king of Ancient Egypt was in their own time, most subsequent pharaohs, and probably even most national rulers in most of human history.

Or if you look at much of insular British history for example, it's incredibly detailed information, to the point of being like a social media scrape when it comes to narratives of court intrigues, about vanishingly tiny numbers of people on any modern scale. Wikipedia's Chinese history articles can't hope to cover things in the same resolution at the same scale of population; not just because of the various kinds of bias (though they surely don't help) but because simply getting hold of English-language sources at that level is no small task. (Not saying there isn't lots of room for improvement on Chinese history and the histories of other population-dense parts of the world, of course; English is probably the most versatile cross-cultural language for it in 2020.)

Maybe you don't have the perfect general rule there but I am inclined to think that an agglomeration of many rules like that is more appropriate for modern notability. The problem would probably be adding such “notability whitelisting” rules at a rate and with a topic and field coverage that did not reinforce existing biases. (And, of course, balancing it against the sort of SEO gaming Masem points to.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch, but a pre-dynastic King of Egypt had genuine power and influence, something a politician typically doesn't get until they are elected. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

​True, but conversely most rulers throughout history exercised completely indirect influence and never met the eyes of subjects who were illiterate and hence didn't even directly read their words, nor heard them speak; so in those respects, even many modern Youtubers who would be considered unsuccessful are more directly taken note of by more people, much less a candidate for a major political office.

(I'm kinda fronting there: I have no idea what the threshold is for a Youtuber to be considered successful. I'm confident though that the number of people who will have seen and heard Greenfield speak is orders of magnitude higher than for any pre-dynastic king of Egypt during their lifetime; the whole thing that jump-started human “civilization”, as I understand it, was remote administration through the invention of writing.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch, I am struggling to see the point you're trying to make. Historical figures are documented in academic and historical literature. The vast majority of YouTubers will not even merit a footnote in history. I would cheerfully nuke all articles on anyone whose main claim to fame is as an "influencer", of any form, including "motivational speaker", because those articles are almost always pure PR - they have to be, only PR sources usually cover them. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

​Wikipedia doesn't just document the things historical and academic literature do, though: per WP:5P1 Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The average town is notable because people live in it (apart from ghost towns and the curious macroeconomic empty-development phenomenon in China), the average school is notable because people attend or attended them, the average hospital is notable because people were born there and have died there. (Yes, technically it's because under GNG these article topics are mentioned in secondary sources, but they're mentioned because of all of that, and the kind of sources in question are not historical or academic literature: we don't have an article on Waghinzoy, Tajikistan because it's of historical or academic interest—I know because I carried out a very thorough search through English, French, and Russian sources.)

Anyhow, I wasn't arguing in favor of articles on Youtube influencers specifically, just pointing out what seem to me fundamental incongruities in our concept of notability because I thought JW was making a similar observation in saying that we're terribly inconsistent and pointing out notability shortcuts; I think the concept is much more shaped by practical concerns and path dependence rather than axiomatic principles as is oft portrayed and, while practical concerns are nothing to handwave away, I think the cobbled-together nature of notability rules contributes to many axes of bias.

But I see below JW has said that our guidelines generally work well, so I'd appear to be in a smaller minority of opinion than I'd thought; and I think I've articulated myself fully at this point. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

In the realm of Royalty, it's pretty well established (I checked last time) that most of the people who voted to shorten the head of Charles I of England ... didn't read the Holy Encyclopedia beforehand. Would the result have been different? At least a reference is needed for such an assertion. The very idea that people do not have sufficient reasons in their personal day-to-day lives to decide what to choose and need to be enlightened ... sounds like a royal disdain. Pldx1 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a perk of being one of the founders of Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger? You post something on your talkpage, and people come to it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works right now Theresa will inevitably get an article. The problem is that our process (including the detours) is embarrassingly slow on this one. Perhaps we could IAR regarding timing issues to speed it up. Or if she could just play baseball or soccer for a few minutes she would be automatically wiki-eligable.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the discussion of Theresa Greenfield is an edge case and that our existing guidelines generally work well. The existing guidance removes much of the subjective judgment of which candidates are notable. In that vein, I do not think your comments are helpful, unless you do believe that being a candidate should be enough to meet our notability standards. In your comments, you use the terms "front runner," which invokes WP:CRYSTAL, and "major party" which may bring up WP:NPOV (and the term also has a specific definition in the laws of many states). I think that the pages about the election has room for improvement, and certainly there is space there for more prose and more information about the candidates. I also think that there is a tendency, if not passion, to have a Wikipedia entry of an unelected candidate be treated as an extension of the campaign, not a high-quality neutral article. --Enos733 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just two notes. "Front runner" is not a matter of WP:CRYSTAL - it is a fact about the present state of affairs, easily verifiable in reliable sources. Similarly, "major party" is not a problem for WP:NPOV as it is easily verifiable in reliable sources. I see no evidence that anyone advocating for this article existing suggesting that the Wikipedia entry of an unelected candidate be treated as an extension of the campaign.

Let me state this plainly: this is not an edge case in the sense where whether to have an article or not is a difficult judgment call. Those cases do exist. The reason this case has caused a stir is that our existing guidelines - which do generally work well - have failed completely. My own view is that it isn't our notability guidelines that failed - she is 100% clearly and plainly notable for all the reasons that nearly everyone has acknowledged. It is a series of arcane processes which have grown organically over the years and which generally do work well, which in this case led to a frankly absurd outcome. I'm sorry if you don't find this discussion helpful. It is important and I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise. Lack of imagination, may be. In any case, you only have to wait a short amount of time, before seeing what is the authoritative opinion of the Iowa electors about the question: "does the challenger deserves an article as an elected Senator... or not". Pldx1 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

She will clearly meet WP:notability whether she wins or loses.North8000 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should just eliminate WP:GNG & WP:N, RECENTISM, some of the NOTNEWS policies, and use only our core content policies, particularly WP:V? If we can verify the information and cite it to RS, simply create the article. It will actually help reduce the backlog/workload at AfC, NPP and AfD because all we'll have to do is check to see if the material is verifiable (no OR, and at least 3 cited RS?), make sure MOS was followed and that the grammar is coherent - click approve, publish, reviewed and move to the next one. We can include all politial candidates, start-up businesses, every school and mall that was ever built, popular trends, fashion, dog and pony shows, etc. as long as they're in the news. It's an endless sum of all knowledge - a kind of WikiAlmanac with breaking news. Why not? Atsme 💬 📧 11:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd not sure if you meant that seriously or sarcastically. But as you describe it it would be a larger workload and larger backlog at AfC, NPP and AfD. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, eliminate GNG? That predates all the SNGs - and this article actually passes GNG. Wrong solution. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Jimbo makes good points and it is good that they have been heard. The stats show that thousands of people are now reading our article and so there is clearly demand from our readership.

When I search for the subject using Google, their Knowledge Graph panel (right) now lists Wikipedia as one of their sources. But notice that Ballotpedia is listed ahead of Wikipedia. If there is demand for information and we don't satisfy it then others will.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, Jimbo has about 14,000 pageviews so I wouldn't get too excited over the pageview numbers. We don't know if those views are our own editors, bots (spiders), or actual readers. I wish there was a way to break it down. Atsme 💬 📧 11:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of the article will have tended to reduce the readership and so it is now bouncing back to its natural level. Compare with her main opponent and Jimbo too, since you mention him. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Now that we're openly making binding content decisions on the administrator's noticeboard, we can surely do away with the polite fiction that sysops don't make content decisions. We should also redirect deletion review to the AN.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's call it strong community consensus that just happened to be at wp:AN. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I take that AN consensus as one to unsalt, nothing more. Any editor should be free to AFD. Yes, I know it is practically impossible to challenge that article now, even to suggest an ATD; I find what admins are doing there, pretending AN decision on content can not be challenged, very concerning. Many users who would participate in an AFD or a merger discussion don't even know non-admins are allowed to comment at AN or won't even if they know they can (or don't watch that page because "it is for admins", and that alone should be enough reason, other than just common sense, why admins should not be making content decisions and then shooting down any further discussion on the matter. But this is not the first time, in my short wiki-experience, that I've seen admins do things like this when it comes to topics of high real-world visibility. And they say (1) Real world doesn't understand how Wikipedia works; it thinks admins are power users when they are just mop-wielders (that's not how they act on matters the real world watches closely), and (2) Adminship is no big deal (what a joke!). Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think the learning points here are: (1) If urgently needing to overrule a community decision because the community is wrong, use the Village Pump and not drama central; and (2) Use a fixed-duration discussion (24 hours?) so the closer can't be accused of tactically choosing their moment to close so as to favour their preferred outcome.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about one point that has been ignored: a stand-alone biographical article is not the only way to include notable (or important) information about people who otherwise might not merit coverage. It's a problem I chronically encounter in developing material on Classical history, where there is a person who meets the criteria for notability, yet there is little or no further information about him -- & far more often, her. Should one simply ignore said individual & pretend that important information doesn't exist? Or should one find another article where our readers would expect to find the information? (IMHO, the problem with Deletionism isn't that some articles are not included, but that the information from that deleted article doesn't stay in Wikipedia.)

This applies to the two articles discussed in this thread. For the sake of my argument, assume neither is clearly notable. Instead of spending time arguing whether to keep or delete the biographical article, add the information to the article about that specific election: a paragraph-long profile, & explain how the candidate effected the election? One thing I've noticed about how Wikipedia presents information is that while there are always well-fleshed out articles on individual subjects, the more general articles are often sketchy & perfunctory in their coverage. We focus on the individual trees while ignoring the forest. -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree. The emphasis by the 'stand-alone-article' argument seemed to be generally misplaced or perhaps some just did not understand: it was not a choice between having/not having these people in the pedia, it is rather a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. It seems NPOL is the guide for candidates in the page decide question, and there does seem little reason to depart from that here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel that there is something that editor feel good about being able to make their own stand alone article (which is certainly a worthy goal, not dissing that) but one made being able to also sorta control that, which is where we tend to get the desire to work on these individual articles rather than the shared, and the resistance to having content in general articles. We have all the technical abilities to support subsections for those non-notable topics (searching, redirect, anchors) to make information readily available, but editors seem to grasp comfort in having their own standalone to "care' for. And that's a problem I have yet to figure out any solution for without instigating the inclusion/deletionist wars all over again. --Masem (t) 13:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For the interested, Greenfield-WP now in WaPo: [13]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think we can simply modify notability guidelines if people are so hung up on the rules. Quite simple, if someone is on the ballot for a US Senate seat, they are notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wired covering this, fwiw. --Masem (t) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Asserting The debate over Greenfield eventually grew so heated that Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s mercurial founder, personally got involved is only a romanced rewrite of the story, even if pontified by a self-anointed professor in Wikipedia Studies. The debate grew so heated because the mercurial founder involved himself in the controversy. And now, we have the result: Iowa voters were not impressed by a San Francisco based lobby group. Or may be they were impressed by how void the article was ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have for years been saying that the major party candidate for a national office should be considered notable for the purposes of Wikipedia; US senators are of such groups the most obvious. This has proven to be exceptionally so this year, where individual senatorial campaign can directly affect the possible significance and accomplishments of the presidential term. But :the word "mnotability" in wikipedia, has no connection with what the outside world means. The only effective meaning, is what the consensus at wikipedia has decided to cover, because the key terms in the GNG, "significant", "reliable" and "independent" can mean whatever the consensus wants at the time. These articles have been kept out only by very distorted interpretation of these terms; this is very strange, because it has decreased our coverage in a area of great importance to a great many people here, all in the service of an artificial principle. This isn't even a case where the political bias of the majority of active editors in the field is a partial explanation--that would at least be an understandable motive, however foreign to Wikipedia's fundamental concept of NPOV. But there's no motive here except the determination of game-players to defy common sense in favor of the invented rules of their game. It's characteristic of games to have rules whose justification is incomprehensible to those who are not players--that's part of the game. Eventually most people grow up, and at 20 years of this, it's time. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Loren Culp

Similarly, Loren Culp, who has a non-trivial chance to be the next Governor of Washington, has been systematically erased from Wikipedia. Again, people are laughing at us over this, and rightfully so. This is absolutely absurd. Red Slash 22:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The two races are not the same. Polling indicates that the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is a toss-up, while the 2020 Washington gubernatorial election would only be competitive if Seattle ceased to exist. KidAd talk 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet, Loren Culp is clearly notable as the candidate for a major party standing for election to a major office. He has been the subject of multiple biographical profile pieces by major media: [14] [15] [16].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to dispute your point, but note that the current version of the article Loren Culp is mainly original research. From the first paragraph of the policy WP:No Original Research,

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

I spot checked the references for the article Loren Culp and it appears that a large majority don't mention Loren Culp. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the wikilink Loren Culp doesn't go to an article about Loren Culp, so I struck out my previous message. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Poorly written is not grounds for deletion. The article was redirected and protected, which is functionally equivalent to deletion. I have started Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 to sort this out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why deletion? Just fix it. Or is your idea to delete it and then create the article without the OR? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. But it was deleted, by somebody else, and protected. So now that deletion needs to be undone if we want to fix it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Forget my comments re OR. As I mentioned above I thought that I was looking at the Loren Culp article when it was actually a redirect to another article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

New era?

Do you think in this new era the Wikipedia community will continue to find excuses to exclude content like Draft:Downingtown Industrial and Agricultural School, Draft:Mystery in Swing and Draft:WRBD and so many others. Even a draft started on Draft:African American cinema was recently deleted as "housekeeping". Not my kind of cleanup. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:African American cinema was deleted because no changes were made after 6 months, which is by our polices around draft articles, standard practice to delete them; you can see that User:Liz's frequently clears out these Drafts as part of their contributions per [17] and this is nothing against the nature of the topic itself. --Masem (t) 20:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As for your other examples:

• As noted on WRBD, the article on WWNN already covers WRBD and there's no really need to create a separate article for the effectively same radio station.
• Draft:Downingtown Industrial and Agricultural School lacks sufficient details to meet our notability guidelines
• Draft:Mystery in Swing is still within the "3 months" that it could take for reviews of drafts could take place. --Masem (t) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Entries on the film Draft:Souls of Sin and dpcuseries Draft:Journey of an African Colony have also recently been rejected. Sad. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Both rejected for lack of notability, which is a requirement for articles. --Masem (t) 14:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I will try to rescue almost anything, but African American Cinema was too sketchy even for draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

User:DGG if these were subjects of Jewish history they would be included and perhaps if they were video game related editors like User:Masem might take an interest. But as they are subjects significant to African American history we can expect they will continue to be excluded from Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a copy of the draft of African American Cinema that we could look at? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

G13 deletions are undone for anyone intending to work on the draft towards creating an article. But if you're interested in context, it was largely a dictionary defintion and this link as a reference [18], plus a couple "see also" type links. You could probably write an article about the topic, perhaps not, I'm not sure. If you want to try, someone can restore it for that purpose, anyhow. WilyD 15:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I just want to look at it. Could you copy it to the sandbox, delete it, then give a link to the copy in the sandbox history? Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It was restored (and substantially expanded) while I was asleep. So, you should be able to see it now. I'm assuming you no longer want a copy. WilyD 06:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

At least with Journey of an African Colony, you probably need to just find more sources given how current it is. You want secondary sources that talk about the work, not just existence of the work - so things like reviews, etc. In the case of Souls of Sin, as the reviewer noted, due to its age, you likely will need to find print sources and thus go to libraries to find similar secondary sources about it - you cannot just rely on Google to help you there. --Masem (t) 15:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, G13 stale drafts get deleted because it was decided that after six months of inactivity they could be considered "abandoned". Many of the stale drafts I delete consist of one autobiographical sentence or are blank pages with only a page title. The drafts are not deleted based on the worthiness or unworthiness of the content and there are several wonderful editors and admins like DGG who go through aging drafts and "rescue" promising ones before they reach G13 status. And if a draft is deleted due to being stale, any editor can request its undeletion at WP:REFUND if they say they are going to be working on it. I know you know this because you make requests at REFUND regularly. The only requests for restoration of G13 drafts I've seen refused occurs if the editor is requesting an undeletion for the 3rd or 4th time while never trying to improve the draft.

As for what subjects get articles and which don't, that is determined by the interest, talent and availability of our volunteer editors. It would help if we had more editors interested in writing about subjects that Wikipedia hasn't covered well so far in its history but that's why there are Edit-a-thons and community outreach, to encourage more new people to write articles. We need a diverse group of editors here and on other WikiMedia projects to write articles on underrepresented subjects. But that is a long-term goal, it doesn't happen overnight and folks at WikiMedia have been aware of the gender and racial disparity of active editors for quite a few years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad someone restored African American Cinema --I was about to, when RL intervened. If anyone is prepared to work on this, it's fine with me. I would be very glad if an excellent article were to come of this. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

DGG, There is already a Black film article. Also, fyi for anyone interested, look to Jacqueline Stewart. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The article Black film is about the term rather than the subject. It might eventually be part of the article Draft:African American cinema in addition to being a stand alone article. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability issue

Hi Jimbo I have been trying to contact you. I would like you to look into a notability and verifiability issue [19] I think it could use the If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. It is very similar to this article [20] only it is a Celebrity instead of a Politician. 128.92.14.178 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is almost no comparison here between your case and Theresa Greenfield I'm afraid. Greenfield was a politician running for Senate. You are...well I'm not sure, a celebrity so you claim. But the only one making that claim appears to be ....you. I could not find a reliable source that talks about you in-depth. For comparison, Greenfield has been written about by the NYTimes and many other major reliable sources. Wikipedia does not exist to promote people, as you are clearly seeking. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You might think you are a celebrity but Wikipedia does rely on notability and verifiability in reliable sources, not statements on personal websites or social media platforms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz, your link, that's cold (lol). And 128.92.14.178, keep working, you'll make it. When I was new here I tried to add myself too and was batted down, so guilty as charged as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Randy, that's his own video. I think he's proud of it. He sells $31 t-shirts with the title emblazoned on it. And the editor has been blocked on Wikipedia for several years and his sockpuppets, too. All of them have been solely focused on getting an article here to promote his career as a celebrity. He can't meet notability standards so he wants an article because of IAR? That's not how IAR is used. I think at some point we need to be realistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's very different, never mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

wt.social

Hi Jimbo,

I tried to log in to https://wt.social and was asked to allow them to "See Tweets from your timeline (including protected Tweets) as well as your Lists and collections. See your Twitter profile information and account settings. See accounts you follow, mute, and block. See your email address."

Why do you need all that information? Some of it is sensitive. Why do you want my Twitter account settings? 50.236.12.33 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That's an error on our part, not sure why, but we're looking into it right now. We don't actually collect most of that information at all, even if the twitter connect api is set up to allow it. (We currently get name/bio from your profile, try to use your twitter handle to set up your profile url, get your email address, and check if you are a bluetick. I personally think we should get the list of people you follow, for the sole purpose of offering those same people for you to follow on wt, if they are there. We definitely do not want things like protected tweets, accounts you've muted or blocked, etc.) It may be Friday before it is fixed, due to the relevant person being on vacation. Thank you for calling it to my attention!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey's testimony

Hi Jimbo Wales, I've been watching a USA Senate testimony of Jack Dorsey and he has said several times that "algorithms" make most of the content and content monitoring and tagging decisions, thus the conversation should focus on algorithms !!

What do you think? Justthinking2021 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the senators are not following up on Dorsey's suggestion in this hearing so I'm wondering whether they feel capable of discussing algorithms. And this algorithms tangent that Dorsey suggests strikes me as possibly being a recognition or concern that, as per sci-fi, the "machines are taking over", of course algorithms are not technically "machines".

Of course, some would say the person/people who design the algorithms are the "controllers" over what Dorsey is suggesting should be the topic.

The whole thing seems unimportant at first glance, but since Dorsey says he thinks it's important, maybe it is? I mean, do algorithms "think"? Do some/they have A.I.? Justthinking2021 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Justthinking2021, Wikipedia doesn't use algorithms much. The only content decisions made by robots are reverting obvious vandalism, like good 'ol ClueBot does. Otherwise, all the work on Wikipedia is done by the best algorithms of all: our volunteers.

Frankly, I don't give one singular hoot about Jack Dorsey or his algorithms. We have no control over them anyway. And yeah, no wonder senators don't follow up on algorithms, doubt they know what they are or how to even ask questions about them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

China netizens punished for Internet censorship circumvention to read Wikipedia

Hello, Jimbo Wales.

Recently, a man was caught by police in Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, China. Authorities say he used the software Lantern to search for information on Wikipedia and was visited by police. This is the first case in which someone was explicitly punished for browsing Wikipedia, the source said.

The official website of the Zhejiang Provincial Party Committee has released an announcement saying that the man was caught by the police on the 24th of October after using the internet censorship circumvention software "Lantern" to "illegally access Wikipedia for information" several times between the first half of 2019 and October this year after downloading and installing the software through Baidu search, and the official announcement also listed the man's name and residence address.

According to the bulletin, the man's actions constituted "the unauthorized establishment and use of illegal channels for international networking", and he was punished by being reprimanded and ordered to stop connecting to international networks on the spot.

I would like to ask whether the Wikimedia Foundation and you will state or condemn this incident? Do you think this incident is related to the Wikimedia Foundation's confirmation that the observer status application submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization was suspended by China?

Related reports:

n:zh:中國網民翻牆上維基百科被處罰

Kind regards, Kit Wong (Kitabc12345) Chinese Wikinews Admin, Chinese Wikipedia Wikipedian --Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Translation to english of webpage at above link [21] . Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Iran's Rouhani Calls U.S. 'A Terrorist' After Rocket Attack on Baghdad Embassy Kills Child

That's quite a gem of a misleading title from today's Newsweek. Here's the article [22]. BTW, Newsweek is an example of a previously reliable source that has become "not generally reliable" according to Wikipedia [23]. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems like Wikipedians got this one right, and nicely illustrates the utility of WP:RSP for quick reference and summary of reliability. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Any scientist tpw?

A conspiracy monger hard at work CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

MIT Phd says an algorithm screwed up the vote, or what are they saying? Here is the video. I have no clue - but start about 14:00 into the video where it gets really bizarre!! If it was coming from anybody other than MIT PhD, I wouldn't bother sharing the link. Atsme 💬 📧 20:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This guy here?--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

So he's not credible, then? What about the other people in that video? Same song, second verse? Ha!! Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Could we please limit the conspiracy-theory mongering to Discord or Parler or something? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, I'm gathering ammunition so I can debunk this crap when people send it to me. Hey - how about AGF? Atsme 💬 📧 21:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh huh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, uh huh! Atsme 💬 📧 21:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If you were really gathering ammunition to debunk the video you could have started with a Google search and found this article. 2605:8D80:624:4FB9:A7FA:B9AB:F390:1E25 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • IP, you just provided a link to an unreliable source to discredit another unreliable source, and you're questioning me? Now that's rich!! Next time check WP:RSP for Medium. One would naturally think someone with 4 degrees from MIT would have some credibility, or do his politics disqualify him? Atsme 💬 📧 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) of no consequence.
      • The election was a referedum on one man, not an ideology, hence the results for the President vs the anticipated results for the House and Senate and it has little to do with algorithums or hanging chads or methane gas or sasquatch or alien abductions.--MONGO (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Whether someone with degrees has credibility depends on what the degrees were in and what the discussion is about. Getting a PhD doesn't automatically mean someone is smart or worth listening to. The article I linked to lays out how your article failed, mathwise. That simple, high-school level math is either wrong or it's right. Using an article that's not a RS to debunk a video that's not a RS sounds right to me. 2605:8D80:624:4FB9:4E89:3807:B040:F227 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I take it you're saying the algorithm theory smells fishy? . While I was at MIT, the advanced technology blew me away, but if MIT is awarding doctorates to any old discredited conspiracy theorist, who the hell can we trust? Atsme 💬 📧 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I wish I was CaptainEek but I'm not. I'm just an IP. Getting a PhD, especially from MIT, is a lot of work but doesn't preclude the person from being a conspiracy theorist. 2605:8D80:624:4FB9:ED8C:C02:2B3A:FB45 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a "scientist tpw", and my opinion is that you don't need to be a scientist, or to hold a Ph.D., to recognize this as obvious misinformation. (YouTube has even helpfully flagged it as such). It requires only a very rudimentary degree of information literacy. Aside from the questionable use of Jimbo's talkpage to spread election-related misinformation, there are implications for our work as Wikipedia editors—if we are manifestly unable to distinguish credible from non-credible sources, then that calls into serious question our ability to edit responsibly and productively in topic areas beset by misinformation. MastCell ^Talk 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering how a PHd guy from MIT could be so wrong. Just goes to show that academics aren't infallible. Atsme 💬 📧 02:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Atsme: The clue is in the fact of how much of a big deal he makes of having a PhD from MIT, as if this means everything he says is true. It's also not accurate to describe Ayyadurai as an academic since he does not work at a university and never has done (only studied). SmartSE (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you SmartSE - I was using it more in the sense of #5 in Wikitionary but having said that, the unassuming internet surfer can easily be thrown-off by the Feb 2012 article in Smithsonian wherein he is referred to as "a visiting lecturer now a professor at MIT". Now I understand why he's a former MIT professor. Anyway, MONGO answered my question at the get-go, and I got a bonus prize from Johnuniq & WilyD, so now I can intelligently respond to the unknowing/misinformed spreaders of conspiracy theories who keep sending me trash iMessages, most of which I've been able to answer on my own. The MIT connection initially threw me for a loop, so now I'll retreat and go lick my wounds. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• An easy-to-follow rebuttal is here. The original video takes certain election data regarding Trump and plots the results from some simple calculations. The resulting curve slopes downwards which, according to the theory, shows fraud. The rebuttal shows two major blunders in the analysis. First, if you repeat the calculations using data for Biden rather than Trump, the result is a graph which looks exactly the same as Trump's. Second, looking at the arithmetic behind the calculations shows that the result has to produce a graph sloping downwards. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that it's symmetric is pretty clear that it's not diagnostic. The plot only shows that people who live in Republican-leaning areas were more likely to vote Biden+R(congress, senate) than Trump+D(congress, senate), and people living in Democratic leaning areas were more likely to vote Trump+D(congress, senate) than Biden + R(congress, senate). This is pretty intuitive when you consider that Trump and Biden get more publicity than local congresscritters, and thus people are more likely to have an opinion about them beyond "Generic Republican/Generic Democrat" than they are about the candidate for congress. I'd expect you'd see the same thing for every American election in the last few decades. WilyD 07:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Johnuniq!! And WilyD!! The lightbulb finally came on thanks to your responses. Humbly speaking, I was hoping to avoid late night research by asking an expert, especially considering the extent of my diagnostic ability is using a thermometer to check the kids' temperature, a food thermometer to see if the turkey is done, and a stethoscope to listen for gut sounds for a colicking horse. Johnuniq, your rebuttal is exactly what I was hoping for, and why I came here. WilyD, your explanation being that it's symmetric not diagnostic is the icing on the cake. MONGO already pointed me to the guy's WP page, so I now have the perfect cocktail. Having been in a self-imposed quarantine on Bonaire since February, I've lost touch with the goings on in the US, but I've always been of the mind that the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. I guess that's outdated now. You've restored my faith in our community and that it hasn't reached the point of rating contributors similar to the way we're rating RS, or worse, that we're entertaining the thought of establishing a mathematical intelligence requirement before one is allowed to ask a question here. You both exemplify what being an administrator/good faith editor is supposed to look like, and I thank you for that. It's simple...AGF. Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, a bigger issue to dismiss is Benford's Law. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that particular example of misapplying maths to promote conspiracy theories has already been amply dealt with: [24] 109.159.88.9 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani earns $20,000 per day defending trump, so there is a lot of money to be made if you can fool Trump and his supporters into believing that you have a good argument. Count Iblis (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to convince those who oppose but harder to exhort those who support - and a good reason to have a valid argument, which I now have. Atsme 💬 📧 12:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of teaching people to fish, there are a number of information-literacy toolkits available on the Web that can help you sort through these dilemmas in the future. For example, the News Literacy Project has some useful resources and frameworks that can help you distinguish credible from non-credible sources of information. While it's encouraging that other editors were able to walk you through debunking this particular piece of nonsense, that's not really a scalable solution given the sheer amount of partisan disinformation out there. In an ideal world we would recognize obvious misinformation as such before posting it to high-traffic Wikipedia pages, so hopefully those resources will help. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Between your sneering and passive-aggressive insults hard to take you seriously. But you had to get your jabs in right? Oh, how administrative of you...most impressive. By reliable sources do you mean ones that get sued because they jump to conclusions just cause some smiling white boy isn't wearing their idea of a politically correct hat? Or spend all their time slanting any piece of news in such a way that someone is equated with a man that authorized the systematic murder of millions? Sanctimonious much?--MONGO (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess you recognize sneering and passive-aggressive insults because you hand them out yourself? ;)

Being able to think critically is an important life skill. Part of thinking critically is being able to identify sites that are more likely to peddle misinformation. Atsme brought an easily-debunked video here and did not look for or evaluate debunks herself. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to search for or evaluate contrary texts, but her repeated mentions that the video author held PhDs from MIT and apparent disbelief that people who hold advanced degrees from MIT could also be conspiracy theorists does not demonstrate critical thinking.

People not being able to think critically is concerning for society as a whole, because those people can be manipulated. It's also concerning for Wikipedia because misinformation should not have a place on Wikipedia and it's up to editors to keep misinformation out. 2605:8D80:627:BB4B:FB46:3E25:A9E:93B8 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

My question was a simple one..."MIT Phd says an algorithm screwed up the vote, or what are they saying?" I said it was bizarre!! Smithsonian said the guy was an MIT professor at one time!! I came here because I was seeking advice from my expert colleagues (programmers, etc.) to explain the algorithm. I thought maybe Jimbo knew enough about it to explain. I have always trusted Jimbo's judgment - and in fact, have his quotes in several places at the top of my UTP. All the other BS about my motives, and me not understanding RS, etc. is just pure BS. I don't need a lecture about RS - I know RS - it was my career for 35+ years, and I've been involved in enough GAs/FAs (promoting/reviewing) to know WP standards. Please, put the politics aside - I don't give a crap about the politics. I already got the answer I needed so hat this frigging discussion! It's frustrating when people either cannot comprehend or purposefully distort a simple question because their political biases have blinded them, and they go off on a tangent instead of answering my question. Give it a rest. Atsme 💬 📧 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's because people are starting to get very tired of having to rebut tinfoil-hattery peddled by self-professed experts on social media, who turn out inevitably to either be non-experts, or actually qualified people who are posting delusional nonsense. I am in the UK and we get a large amount of this regarding COVID. The problem generally is that many of them are superficially believable, but when you drill down you find there's nothing there. Some of them are not provocateurs but people who genuinely believe what they are posting, but in the end the final product is the same. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

For someone who is not up to speed on algorithms looking at a YouTube video by a former professor at MIT who has 4 degrees, one in computer science, is not quite the same as John Doe spewing crap on FB or Twitter. But I understand what your saying, and I appreciate your comment Black Kite. Hopefully, you will hat this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your email

Hi Jimbo

Thanks for the email you sent me this week with an update on the fundraiser. Always good to hear from you! Obviously my main contribution here is through writing content and adminning, but you've convinced me to pop a little donation over anyway. All the best to you and yours, and I hope you have a pleasant holiday season.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Anarchy on simple wikipedia, please explain yourself

Do you ever check what's going on there? There are mistakes everywhere! Those who get blocked here go over there. Did you have any role in creating that wiki? Why you never edit there? Why are you the cofounder of wikipedia afraid to be blocked there? Why do you allow things just to happen/click on their own over time across wmf? Majority being right does not mean they are right! I await your honest and detailed reply. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.250.232.42 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Expecting a "detailed reply" to a jumbled rant with false implied premises/statements in most of the "questions" is a bit much. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the articulateness of the IP, the main question raised by the continued existence of Simple Wikipedia is whether our bar for shutting down projects is too high.

meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (3) in 2018 failed, but the close didn't really address the quite compelling point made by supporters that editor effort spent on it (a lot of which is wasted on duplicating general functions) would be much more productive if redirected here.

I'm sure Jimbo is aware of the quality issues that have plagued SEW for years, and I'm curious if he has thoughts on how we should best move forward. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is anyone bothering to reply to this globally WMF banned LTA? Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass Memorial Park

Greetings Jimbo. I stumbled on this subject and was able to get an entry on it started. I think it's an interesting subject for various reasons and would like to see it developed and brought to greater attention, but I wasn't sure where to post it. I thought maybe User:DGG's page is watched by many and I believe he's a New Yorker? But I had trouble getting that page to load.. I hope he and his family are all well. If anyone is interested please do help with it or point me in the right direction. Of course photos would be most welcome. Thanks. Draft:Thurgood Marshall Academy for Learning and Social Change is another interesting one and also in NYC (Harlem, the cemetery is on Staten Island). Hopefully my fellow Wikipedians im that metropolis can help out. Stay safe. Enjoy lofe. God bless. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll fix my page today. It is indeed long enough to cause problems, at this point, even for me. But I do not see why my user page is a place to put material about your project. You might do better with the talk page for NYC, which I imagine most people working on NYC articles watch. Or approach the chapter directly--we're running our usual monthly meetings, now online of course, and people frequently come to talk about their projects. Next is Dec. 16, 2020. see m:Wikimedia_New_York_City. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius is a powerhouse when it comes to NYC-related pages, so they might be someone to reach out to. But we're all volunteers and no one is obligated to create anything. I agree that this post isn't really topical for Jimbo's page and would be better shared/moved to a NYC-related page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, thanks for the kind words. I can look over the articles to see if there's something else that needs doing, though I agree this is more relevant for WT:NYC, where there are a few of us who specialize in NYC topics. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk about the value of the statement of principles, how to not lose motivated newcomers and a personal request.

Hello Jimbo,

two days ago I wrote you an email, because I was permanently blocked as a newbie by admins at the german Wikipedia for no reason. You might not hear this for the first time ;-) But with me, it is so. The case is now at our arbitration court for decision. However, I do not have high hopes, because as a newcomer you have little importance.

I have already learned and read a lot about the project and its problems in my short time. Currently, I estimate that some good people leave faster and do not stay long, because they encounter massive problems. These problems include the sometimes very rude and aggressive tone among each other. And that some admins - thank god not all of them - do not behave fairly and block very quickly. This seems to me to be not only a problem of the German Wikipedia.

In a nutshell: The rules you have set up are clearly in danger, and I am witnessing and noticing it first hand! I would like to talk to you about how things could be improved in the future. So that not all motivated people run away from Wikipedia again ;-) I would also like to ask you to mediate in my case or simply to keep an eye on my case being decided fairly and correctly.

My goal is a fair and lasting cooperation, but I don't want to be banned from discussions or to be afraid of a sanction of an admin, because I dare to speak my own opinion.

Therefore, I ask you for a talk and, as far as it is possible for you, for your appropriate support.

Many thanks and greetings from Germany.

Von Savigny

In the spirit of Immanuel Kant: If mutual fairness, the struggle for truth and free opinion is lost, then it is no longer worth being a Wikipedia employee...

---

I once read that you also like to read German stuff. Therefore, here also in German ;-)

Hallo Jimbo,

ich hatte Dir vor zwei Tagen eine E-Mail geschrieben, da ich als Neuling ohne Grund dauerhaft gesperrt wurde durch Admins bei der deutschen Wikipedia. Vielleicht hören Sie dies nicht zum ersten Mal ;-) Aber bei mir ist es so. Der Fall liegt nun bei unserem Schiedsgericht zur Entscheidung vor. Allerdings mache ich mir keine großen Hoffnungen, da man als Neuling wenig Bedeutung hat.

Ich habe bereits in meiner kurzen Zeit einiges über das Projekt und seine Probleme gelernrt und gelesen. Aktuell schätze ich das so ein, dass einige gute Leute schneller wieder gehen und nicht lange bleiben, da sie auf massive Probleme stoßen. Dazu gehören vorallem auch der teilweise sehr unhöfliche und aggressive Umgangston untereinander. Und das manche Admins - gott sei dank nicht alle - sich nicht fair verhalten und sehr schnell sperren. Das scheint mir nicht nur ein Problem der deutschen Wikipedia zu sein.

Kurzum: Die von dir aufgesetzen Regeln sind in deutlich in Gefahr und ich bin Zeuge davon, am eigenen Leib. Darüber möchte ich mit Dir sprechen. Gerne möchte ich Dich auch bitten, in meinem Fall zu vermitteln oder einfache ein Auge darauf zu haben, dass mein Fall fair und korrekt entschieden wird.

Mein Ziel ist eine faire und dauerhafte Mitarbeit, aber mir dabei nicht den Mund bei Diskussionen verbieten lassen oder Angst vor einer Sanktion eines Admins haben, weil ich mich traue, meine eigene Meinung zu sagen.

Daher bitte ich Dich um ein Gespräch und , soweit es Dir möglich ist, um deine angemessene Unterstützung.

Besten Dank und viele Grüße aus Deutschland.

Von Savigny Von Savigny (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In Anlehnung an Immanuel Kant: Wenn die gegenseitige Fairness, das Ringen um die Wahrheit und die freie Meinung untergeht, dann hat es keinen Wert mehr, Mitarbeiter von Wikipedia zu sein...

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

• News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"

• Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia

• Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia

• In the media: Relying on Wikipedia: voters, scientists, and a Canadian border guard

• Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria

• Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election

• News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker

• GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large

• Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup

• Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail

• Essay: Writing about women

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy!

The Signpost story (top of this section) came in shortly before deadline, so I didn't have time to check it out with you. But the sources quoted were fine. If there is anything wrong with the story please let us know and blame it on me for rushing it. Also in that case, any comment here or in the story's comment section would also be appreciated, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Related Articles

@CaptainEek, "Wikipedia doesn't use algorithms" is untrue; regular editors often aren't aware of it because we tend to work in the desktop view. When using the mobile version of the site—as more than half our users now do and the proportion is steadily rising—readers are served with algorithmically-generated "you might be interested in…" links whenever they visit an article. (They're not very apparent when viewing the mobile view on a desktop computer, as the links are tucked away below the references, but they're very in-your-face when reading Wikipedia on a phone where the body text is mostly collapsed by default so the lead paragraph, a bunch of collapsed sections, and the algorithmically-generated links are all a reader sees when visiting a page.) The algorithm generates some fairly goofy results—e.g. at the time of writing the suggestions on Jimmy Wales are Bomis, Larry Sanger and Nupedia but not Wikipedia, on Coronavirus it suggests three strains of coronavirus none of which are the strain 99.9% of visitors are going to be searching for, on Black people it serves up a couple of antiquated racial slurs—but the algorithms are definitely there. ‑ Iridescent 10:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, I will look into it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's any help, the documentation for this particular extension is here. As far as I know, it was imposed by the WMF rather than anyone asking for it; what discussion there was was at Meta:Talk:Requests for comment/Related Pages. ‑ Iridescent 13:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, Oh wow, I didn't know that either, thanks for mentioning it... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth as a data-point, two of the three "related articles" to my BLP are about people I'd never heard of. They're American lawyers, as am I, but I'm hard-pressed to see what else relates the three of us. (To be fair, the third related article is more sensible, as I'm cited in it a couple of times.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Brain dump:

• Foundation project page: MW:Reading/Web/Projects/Related_pages and Flowtalk MW:Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related_pages
• Software/Technical page: MW:Extension:RelatedArticles
• I helped the team draft a "feedback only" Enwiki RFC WP:Related_Pages_extension/RfC with responses on the the Talk. The language and style of the RFC is a bit wonky and not very effective. I was trying to get staff comfortable the idea of collaborating with us on an RFC, and I bent over backwards to draft for them whatever they wanted.
• The team's summary of feedback they received from multiple wikis.
• The project initially displayed non-free images. Resolved after objections from various editors, and after I cited the Board Of Trustees resolution on non-free materials. The resolution has a banner explicitly prohibiting staff from circumventing, eroding, or ignoring our limitations on non-free content usage. The PageImage feature can now be configured to include or exclude non-free images, depending on how the images are to be used.
• The project initially had a problem of displaying grossly inappropriate images. If the first image on the page was in a subsection it was often grossly unrepresentative of the article (wrong person or a random place or thing). Largely resolved by restricting PagesImages to only pull from the lead section.
• The project is both redundant-to and inferior-to our human managed related links. This was said by many community members, from multiple wikis. I don't think the team ever meaningfully addressed this.
• The software can select grossly inappropriate "related" pages. Our article for Hard disk drive was given a grossly promotional link to the Seagate Technology brand article. Video card currently displays a grossly promotional link to a specific Nvidia brand chipset. This can seriously undermine public perception of our neutrality. I also know of gross BLP violations and appalling political bias, such as giving a living politician a "related" link to a racist party or racist ideology - even when that person is not remotely aligned with the suggested article. Our NOTCENSORED articles can also pop up anywhere, I recall one of our language articles was given profane Related links. The team responded by creating a {{#related:articlename}} keyword we can use to override the software selections, but I rate this as utterly unresolved. The keyword theoretically allows us to fix any given page, but the software generates these links dynamically. Grossly inappropriate RelatedArticles can appear and change on any page at any moment. The problem is intractable, almost no one knows that it's possible to override it, and basically no one even tries to fix these cases. Noteworthy trivia: The #related keyword was used in the Wikimedia Foundation article, to setting related articles to iron law of oligarchy and Tragedy of the commons. There are over a hundred active page-watchers, and those Related Pages remained on the page 9 months before I found and reverted it. Either the Foundation is even more universally despised than I realized, or no one understands the #related keyword enough to revert vandalism that uses it.

Staff have good intentions but I'd say this is yet another case where they built something we never wanted, where they rolled forwards with deployment after ignoring significant feedback that it's not really wanted. Nobody has opened or suggested an RFC to try and get this shut off, but that might be because it's not visible on desktop. The fact that it's mobile-only means the product (and problems with the product) are pretty much invisible to most editors. I'd say that staff frivolously forking features as mobile-only is itself a problem, but that subject leads pretty far off the current topic. Alsee (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't want to be pedantic but Wikipedia uses algorithms all over the place to do things like convert inches to centimeters. What we are really discussing here is recommendation systems. Mo Billings (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, it may help explain how the discussion became muddled to know that my original topic ( which led to the discussion above, was split off from "related articles, and then subsequently archived ) was Jack Dorsey's referencing algorithms at last week's Senate hearings, as shown below:

:Hi Jimbo Wales, I've been watching a USA Senate testimony of Jack Dorsey and he has said several times that "algorithms" make most of the content and content monitoring and tagging decisions, thus the conversation should focus on algorithms !! What do you think? Justthinking2021 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Also, the senators are not following up on Dorsey's suggestion in this hearing so I'm wondering whether they feel capable of discussing algorithms. And this algorithms tangent that Dorsey suggests strikes me as possibly being a recognition or concern that, as per sci-fi, the "machines are taking over", of course algorithms are not technically "machines". Of course, some would say the person/people who design the algorithms are the "controllers" over what Dorsey is suggesting should be the topic. The whole thing seems unimportant at first glance, but since Dorsey says he thinks it's important, maybe it is? I mean, do algorithms "think"? Do some/they have A.I.? Justthinking2021 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There definitely appears to be some confusion as to what algorithms are being used in Wikipedia and how useful or confusingly unhelpful they are, not to mention the way in which they came to be in the case Iridescent describes. Justthinking2021.1 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've wondered about this feature before; it has very much flown under the radar, so I'm glad to see it being discussed here. Reading Alsee's comment above, the situation comes into focus. I'm not actually too concerned about the quality of the links (there will always be exceptions, but I've actually found them pretty relevant most of the time, and I think readers are very used to seeing algorithm-generated suggestions elsewhere so they aren't too thrown off by them here), but the concern that this duplicates the functionality of see also sections very much deserves a larger hearing, and the lack of coordination with the community is troubling.

One thing I'll add: The second sentence of the MediaWiki page is rather concerning: It aims to drive page views by engaging users by directing them to related content. "Driving engagement" is the sort of goal I'd expect to see at somewhere like Facebook, where the whole point is occupying your attention for as long as possible to serve you as many ads as possible. It doesn't fit for a nonprofit, where the end goal always needs to be actually serving readers. Now, I do think the intended purpose is actually tied to that goal—helping people find content they're interested in fits with our mission—but it's still very disappointing to see the rationale expressed in for-profit corporate-speak rather than in terms of our mission, and it makes me concerned about what other decisions that attitude may be driving. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Most concerning to me is the WMF (yet again) implementing a reader-facing change without community consensus. There's a list of things the community wants and a list of things the community doesn't want, and the WMF seems to regularly work on the latter. Why are resources put towards things like "Related Changes" and not towards clearing Phab tickets, for example? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing how many fantastic suggestions are being made for the Community Wishlist, and knowing that only a fraction of them will be implemented, while meanwhile resources get dumped on things like this, is fairly depressing.

It'd be one thing if the technical architecture of Wikipedia was in a fairly good place, in which case branching out to try some creative experimental new features would be justifiable, but there are really urgent unmet needs just around the basics. For one example out a gazillion, Jimbo, take a look at T217914, which asks for a simple confirmation dialogue to be shown when you click the logout button. It got overwhelming community support at the village pump but has been open for more than a year. I presume that all it needs is a little developer attention to make it happen, but there doesn't seem to be any since everyone at the WMF seems to be occupied with big flashy initiatives of highly variable merit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also surprised at this. As it is, Wikipedia by it's structure as an encyclopedia already drives engagement even for passive users: it is a dynamic click bait. Are the folks at the Foundation so mistrusting how addictive the links we editors create that they need to prime the pump with computer-generated ones? -- llywrch (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Very good point. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Signpost article/ Founder's Seat / Makeup of the WMF board

Jimbo, you need to have two votes on the WMF board, not zero. You are the one that can be most trusted for keeping things from going awry. If you've ever made a big mistake, it was in approving that mess of of set By-Laws that the current ones are and which are facilitating the issue described in Signpost. They are basically the Constitution of WMF/Wikipedia. Just imagine if the US had a Constitution that said that congress could unilaterally change the constitution any way any time that they wanted. And that congress could make the rules any way that they want as to the makeup of congress and who gets to be in congress. And one of the rules that they made up is that half of the congressman are appointed by congress, not elected. The by-laws have fundamental problems that prevent self-correction and need repair. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fourteen Years

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against the visually impaired. See phabricator T6845 and phabricator T241921.

This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was successfully sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 14 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks:

• The name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this,
• A budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this,
• A deadline that says how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and
• A way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

I am left with these known facts:

• For 14 years the WMF has failed to assign a single employee or contractor the task of fixing this problem.

• For 14 years the WMF has failed to budget a single dollar towards fixing this.

• For 14 years the WMF has failed to provide any estimate of how long it is expected to take to fix this.

• For 14 years the WMF has failed to create any requirements for fixing this. (Note: "Requirements" is geek talk for "please define what 'done' is and tell us exactly how how we will recognize that whoever is working on this is done").

• For 14 years the WMF has failed to make a plan for an independent third party (which in this case means "someone with a visual impairment accessing Wikipedia with a screen reader") to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

If the WMF is not capable of solving it, why have we not put out a call for proposals in order to find someone who can?

You can expect me to bring this up again when we hit 15 years of Wikipedia violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as I have for the last four years. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is one of the many reasons why more freely elected community representation is needed in the WMF board of trustees. As this would allow to get the priorities right – for example by making sure that we have indeed a “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” including visually impaired people. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What the fun fact? That's the same day I joined Wikipedia! I wrote "look better eventually", even. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that you have not added "and a pony" to your list of demands -- it would make the unseriousness with which you habitually treat this issue more palatable. --JBL (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the first I've "heard" of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The above snarky "the unseriousness with which you habitually treat this issue" comment (and calling my request that we stop discriminating against the handicapped a "demand" as if I am somehow being unreasonable) is typical of WMF apologists. For years I diligently followed every single "you aren't asking in the right place" or "you aren't asking the right way" suggestion, and the end result was... nothing. If JBL thinks I am somehow approaching this the wrong way, I suggest that they show me how it's done, approach it in what they think is the right way, and see if they can get better results than I can. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You are not making requests, you are making childish foot-stamping demands. Ten months ago, you were suggested a particular person to reach out to who could help with the issue. As below, you rejected taking constructive action in favor of reiterating childish foot-stamping demands. People who hope to accomplish something should be reaching out to potential leads and trying to build a constituency of the like-minded; childish foot-stamping on Jimbo's talk-page does nothing to accomplish this goal. --JBL (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Right. Not discriminating against the handicapped is a "childish foot-stamping demand". You are coming very close to crossing the WP:NPA line. Could you please put away the flamethrower and go back to your previous snarky sniping?

Re: "you were suggested a particular person to reach out to who could help with the issue", that person has zero authority to add this to the WMF budget and zero authority to ask any WMF employee to work on it.

Also that person had already volunteered to "look into it" as an unpaid volunteer so it's not like they were not aware of the problem and needed me to tell them about it. as I said before, I played the "you aren't asking in the right place" game for years, dutifully following every suggestion ov a new place to bring it up, and the result was accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

If you honestly think that there is some different place that this can be asked or some different person who can be asked that will magically fix the problem, do it yourself and prove me wrong. I am done playing Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not discriminating against the handicapped is a "childish foot-stamping demand". No. A person can make childish foot-stamping demands about anything; it happens you are making them in relation to an important issue. If you want to improve the situation, you should drop the ridiculous posturing. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it there has been recent activity at T250227 and T241921 on this. Sam Walton (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Does any of this activity involve anyone who has the authority to give a WMF employee an assignment, the authority to add this to the WMF budget, or the authority to set a deadline for completion? How about someone who works for such a person and thus might be able to suggest that they do those things? Realistically, does anyone reading this believe that is there a non-zero chance that Wikipedia will stop discriminating against the visually impaired any time before the original Phab ticket is old enough to vote? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point by Guy, thank you. Yet it seems Graham87 is doing fine as a top 200 editor (Graham, what is your take on this, anything you'd suggest, or do you know of any tech which the foundation and Wikipedia are missing?) and the WikiMedia WikiBlind User Group may be another group of editors who would have an interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because I started on Wikipedia long before CAPTCHAs were a thing. It's inconvenient but not impossible for blind people to get around CAPTCHAs, either by asking somebody for help or using special programs. Making CAPTCHAs accessible is a very hard problem to fix tdue to the Wikimedia Foundation's (admirable) insistance on using non-proprietary software and the difficulty of making it possible for humans to crack CAPTCHAs while deterring spambots and the like. The current CAPTCHA system doesn't just suck for blind people ... it also sucks for people who don't have English as their first language and probably others. Graham87 13:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this does appear to be a hard problem. If I saw that the WMF had assigned personnel, a budget, and a deadline followed by a report from those working on it that they tried and could not do it, this would have been a completely different post. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the problem mainly signing up as a new member with CPTCHAs in place? Asking for help (either in person or through a sent image to the friend, family member, or to the foundation itself) seems the easiest work around. Taking down CPTCHA doesn't seem a viable or recommended option. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting taking down CAPCHA or any other specific solution. We already have a boatload of those.[25] I am suggesting that the WMF assign someone to the job of fixing this problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Graham, I'm wondering if there are access issues with the alternate Wikipedia:Request an account process. The ADA doesn't require identical access, it requires reasonable access, so the pertinent question is whether this utility meets that threshold, and if not, how it fails to do so. VanIsaac_WS^cont 14:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting thought. If you find a way to solve this with some sort of alternative, please post it here so that the ticket can be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon:, I'm sorry to say, but I had no idea about that utility until I read the thread from January. This does not speak well to your attitude in this matter. If you care about the actual issue instead of holding a vendetta against WMF (and trust me, I'd completely understand if you did), then you really should be reading to understand instead of reading to respond.VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

CAPTCHAs don't just occur when creating accounts; they can also come up when non-autoconfirmed/confirmed users try to add external links, which can happen in surprising ways ... and the software seems to be quite finicky about when it thinks an external link was added. The request an account process, which would work for screen reader users, was at the back of my mind when I replied but the last time I'd heard it was infamous for having an incredibly long backlog. That seems to have been pretty much resolved, which is a very good thing. Graham87 14:44/15:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87; Ahh, I was unaware that you could run into Captchas when adding some content. I'm wondering if there shouldn't just be a link to automatically add an edit request to the talk page when that happens. VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The CAPTCHA help text points such users to the help desk, which is probably the most sensible option here. Graham87 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's a one-off thing, then absolutely the help desk is probably just fine. But if it happens to a user adding that kind of content at every page they visit, then that is problematic and we need to have a workable accommodation to get around the limitations of the Wikipedia Captcha system. VanIsaac_WS^cont 17:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Want to try something interesting? Go to Testing with the NVDA Screen Reader and Using NVDA to Evaluate Web Accessibility. Log out of Wikipedia, run the screen reader, turn off your monitor, and try to create an account on Wikipedia. See how far you get. If you manage to get to the request an account page, instead of actually requesting an account just post a message explaining that you are testing accessibility with a screen reader and then self-revert. (It's OK to print out a cheat sheet for the NVDA commands; presumably if you had no vision you would have them memorized or would create a cheat sheet in braille.) Now try following the instruction in the CAPTCHA help text, but this time if you manage to get to the help desk post a test message and then self-revert. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Donation

I just LOVE it when the donation banner pushes the article content completely off the screen. [26] Benjamin (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thi36 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

For the interested

Quoting Hindustan Times:

"If Wikipedia fails to respond in a timely fashion, officials said, then two legal options are available to the ministry. It can either initiate action under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which can result in the imprisonment of the parties concerned, or invoke section 69A to block access to the website in India."

More at [27][28]. It's about the article Bhutan–India relations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

For me the important thing is that Wikipedia be accurate and neutral. The particular area of interest here, Aksai Chin, is nowhere near Bhutan and has no relevance to the topic of Bhutan-India relations. We should follow the NPOV practice that we follow elsewhere, indicating disputed areas objectively. In this particular case, if you visit the entry Bhutan, another article which has nothing to do with Aksai Chin, you can see that Aksai Chin is shown with a dotted outline indicating the disputed status. And on the articles India and Aksai Chin all maps clearly show the disputed areas as being disputed.

Indeed, this map is the only map that I can find in Wikipedia (there may be others, I have not conducted a comprehensive search) which fails to inform the reader in some way that the area is disputed.

I strongly disagree with threats of censorship, of course. But someone threatening to ban Wikipedia for an error, is not a justification to continue in error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See also this map, which zooms in on the disputed area. Whether India likes it or not, the disputed area is administered by China. Who owns it? Well both India and China say its theirs...like two toddlers fighting over a toy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good map - it informs the reader, and it is neutral about the dispute.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeking topic ban from American politics, post-1932, the easy way

Almost everything I try to do in this area goes sour quickly, leads to more confusion and controversy. I waste people's time, they waste mine. It's not intentional, but it is disruptive and it does happen. I've tried to quit, but it's hard, I lack self-control and can't resist the temptations of correctable half-truths. I tried asking an admin for intervention (in a somewhat creepy way, no less), but then read a rule saying regular admins don't have that authority, only you can stop me from wasting more people's time without wasting even more people's time through a thorough public hearing. I waive that right, and any others that may hinder your verdict. I would ask for a minimum sentence of four months, but will abide by whatever you think fits the above freely-confessed crimes. Thank you for considering this plea, and once again for creating Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear IndedibleHulk,

I would consider it a great kindness and it would reflect very well on you if you choose not to edit articles in the area of American policies, post-1932. Out of your respect for the process - and for yourself and your own happiness - I hope that you will use this voluntary ban wisely. My suggestions would be to pick some random area of knowledge that you've always had a bit of curiosity about, but have no strong views on, and read a few books about it. Or - and I haven't checked your edit history so I have no idea what the problem has been - perhaps you could find a prominent and well-written book that takes an opposite view of your own, and read it with a sympathetic mind, to try to understand things as those who disagree with you understand them. (Have no fear, you won't brainwash yourself or anything but you are likely to come out the other end with a more nuanced and thoughtful position!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Read a book? By one of those people?!? Harsh...but fair. I'll give it my best shot! But I'm telling you, part of me is addicted to chaos, a straitjacket and muzzle might still be in order, should my reading comprehension fail. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you should both come to my Morris dance class. Bring your own hobnails. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a winter activity, meybe later, woof anyway! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you were cyber bullied and didn't have the armor to cope with it. Sounds like you just made honest mistakes. That's a lot better than editors who deliberately mislead. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not even close. The speculation and the assumption, anyway. That last fact's dead on. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Something incredibly right up your alley Mr. Hulk. User:Paptilian/Official_State_of_Colorado,_U.S.A._Article_Project.Paptilian (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern

There are a number of pictures in various articles and on commons that contain sacred temple robes worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The problem with this is that the person behind the photos trespassed to get them. The photographer, known as NewNameNoah/Mike Norton, as previously been arrested for trespassing. And now that every temple knows him, and will call the police if he steps foot on the property, Mike Norton has begun forging temple recommends, and handing them out to people, so they too can enter illegally. My biggest concern with this is, as mentioned above, they often show our sacred temple garments and our sacred rituals. These pictures are offensive and disregard the sacredness of the temple. Keep in mind, we as members of the LDS Church, don't like discussing what happens inside these sacred edifices, we don't like to share what our robes look like, and we especially do not like when people bully us by publishing what we hold dear in our hearts. We as citizens of the world, should be respectful to all religions and faiths. I have gone through so many options, and honestly I am running out of options. I have put my problem on Teahouse, talked with several wikipedians, and even debated the deletion of these images. Is there anything else I can/should do? Is there anyway that these images can be removed on the grounds of common respect? Your help will be greatly appreciated! Matthew.weller (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Matthew.weller, Wikipedia is not censored. We have plenty of photos that some people find offensive. Muslims frequently rankle that we have depictions of the prophet Muhammed, but we don't delete the photos because they are a useful visual aid. We have plenty of photographs on Wikipedia that were taken illegally, but that are invaluable. Take for example the Sonderkommando photographs. Different subject for sure, but illegal, and yet some of the most important photographs ever taken. Many find the photos distasteful, but they are illustrative. Wikipedia does not remove photographs for any of the concerns you have raised, I'm afraid. We are an archive of knowledge, and such photos represent previously unknown knowledge, and we are appreciative of our volunteers who provide that knowledge. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Take this bubble tea for founding Wikipedia. I hope you like it! 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 07:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for founding Wikipedia and giving so many people the ability to learn, discover and enjoy. And also thank you for your trust in letting random people edit your userpage, I know I don't have that much trust! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a nice thought but Jimbo has a large following that protects his user page. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As I found out! :-) REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I must say, it is strange to see this page so calm, for so many days in a row.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you remember back when you first had this idea?

I have this strange compulsion that User:Paptilian/Official_State_of_Colorado,_U.S.A._Article_Project. means something important. Its still in my head all jumbled up, however, Out of Chaos, Order has been accomplished, to a degree that should you call your attention to the link you might choose to respond. You are being advised that I have dropped your name into the call for assembly and before it goes further (with your referenced) I felt the need for proper introduction. I am User:Paptilian, browser of anything Wiki Foundation, Commons, Data, not sure what all, and as such have requested the attention of the Foundation, my mind tells me this is That Big. For it reaches into the Governor's Office, not just Colorado, but the Secretary of State's office, and that all the way to the President's staff. Ok, admitted, I dream big and in color. But it's true. I leave you with the invitation to attend Roll Call. Yours, very respectfully, User:Paptilian. ps May I have an official user name (I forget what its called at this moment as a lot on my mind in happening. registered name. Paptilian (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Paptilian, ....what in the what? Could you explain that in clear English? And also explain what your various user subpages are about? You do know that the state of Colorado already exists, yes? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A submission request for a Draft of the Outline of Colorado for the improvement of the Outline of Colorado, which is requested on the Project page for WikiProject: Colorado has been requested at Wikipedia: Help Desk. I am presently awaiting answers from the desk. This post, answers you question, ....what in the What? I hope this explains my intent, for helping make Wikipedia a beautiful place to learn.Paptilian (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC) This issue has been resolved here.Paptilian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC). Thank you.Paptilian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Cliche Thank You

Thank you for founding Wikipedia and making reliable, quality information available to so many who do not have the money to buy a full set of Encyclopedias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurysith (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Something silly and inconsequential happened (URGENT!)

Essentially, there was some guy who was the caliph of some small sect of Islam, and Google's goofy auto-generated information boxes started pulling his name out (and citing the factoid to Wikipedia) when people were searching for the caliph of all Islam. The article got changed so that it'd stop doing this, but in the meantime, a few pissed-off people were making threads on the helpdesk, ANI, etc about it. Google seems to love distributing misinformation in general (not just with Wikipedia articles). Anyway, it's not a big deal, and you've probably heard about it already, but in case you didn't, now you do. Wow! In all seriousness, though, it might be condign for someone (not it!) to ask Google to quit making other people look stupid by lying about what's on their websites. jp×g 08:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tides Advocacy & WMF $8.7 million grant

According to the 2019-20 financial audit FAQ question 2.2.1, the WMF has provided an unconditional grant of $8.723 million to Tides Advocacy to launch the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. It is for the purpose to invest in new grant-making opportunities in support of groups that are advancing equitable, inclusive representation in free knowledge. Tides is a left-of-center $470 million revenue San Francisco-based grantmaker that operates as donor-advised fund, funneling money from anonymous donors to activist non-profits or political campaigns (sometimes called dark money due to lack of IRS oversight in DAFs). Tides is distinctively partisan because it donates to organizations like the Democratic Party ActBlue and People for the American Way. Indeed, the suborganization that will be used to launch the new fund, TidesAdvocacy.org, describes themselves as seasoned political advisors, financial experts and legal counselors, we know the rule book inside and out. With our infrastructure and ongoing support, our partners can hit the ground running with the right strategies for successful ballot, electoral and legislative campaigns. That sounds awfully unphilanthropic.

I'm aware it's been public knowledge for a few of years that the WMF has established an endowment at Tides, but this seems like a step further. Do you have any views on why does the WMF need Tides to run the Knowledge Equity Fund and why was Tides chosen? Is it not a problem to tie the WMF to a particular political grantmaking network? --Pudeo (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This fund has nothing at all to do with whatever political advocacy Tides or any of their other customers may be doing. This explanation from Lisa Gruwell at the WMF explains it well. "We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed." We think a lot about safety for the movement, and this is part of that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone with further questions, there are a lot of answers in that mailing list thread now. Lisa has explained quite clearly that this is a purely functional/administrative service of Tides, it does not give them any grant making decision authority at all. (This is what 'donor advised' means, fundamentally.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost 20 years and approaching one billion edits

Hello Mr. Wales, just curious, when you started Wikipedia did you ever think that it would become this big and so ubiquitous? Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 20:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I always say that I'm a pathological optimist, so I thought it could be great. But I didn't really fully understand what it meant to be this big and so ubiquitous!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that, now Siri, Bing, Google, and all other major search engines default to Wikipedia. People, in general, just default to Wikipedia when they have a question now (at least in my experience). Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_contribs 13:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Password security

Could Wikipedia please start leading by example? Our login system uses passwords that are transmitted to the server, which creates abundant security risks for our users. Instead, we should implement a zero knowledge proof system such as Secure Remote Password protocol so that the user typed password is never sent to the server. This would make Wikipedia more secure. Standard libraries exist so implementation would be straightforward. If there is a cost, I think I could raise the money to cover it. Jehochman ^Talk 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh gee, I think Wikipedia could let loose of some of its $165mill+ net assets (at least as of 2019...) but yeah, maybe you're right, we could always set up a GoFundMe or something. Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful to offer multi-factor authentication to all users. Currently it is only available to "administrators and editors with advanced permissions". Correct use of 2FA makes remote hacking into an account almost impossible, while username/password combinations are never 100% secure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can request 2FA at Meta. It's still, in effect, in production pilot so it is not switched on by default. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I support efforts to roll out MFA to everyone (as an option, some people may not want it) but I note that other than admins (where a break-in could be potentially destructive) the risks of single factor authentication are very much lessened by the lack of any private information (like emails or private messages) in our system. I don't think there has been any major problem with stolen credentials.

In terms of the original question, passwords are not transmitted to the server unencrypted. Everything is https. So I don't think "abundant security risks" is an accurate description of the situation. Having said that, I would support transitioning to a zero knowledge proof system - I'm not familiar enough with our exact infrastructure today to know what complexities would be involved in that transitioning. As noted by others, money is almost certainly not the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Jehochman, I just read (some of, didn't work through the details!) the Wikipedia entry that you referenced, but it raised in my mind a practical question or two - I wonder if you can point me to a good article about the protocol including any downsides? In particular, if the system relies on a large shared public key, then what happens if I lose or break my device? What happens when I want to log in from a friend's computer? That is to say, if the protocol is such that I can only login if I know my password, *and* my computer knows a large random number, I see some (not impossible, but worth considering) practical downsides to this method.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I had this same question. My understanding from the article is that The shared public key is derived from two random numbers, one generated by the client, and the other generated by the server, which are unique to the login attempt. (emphasis added) I believe that the solution is completely transparent to the user. It looks like the current password login scheme, and requires no permanent local storage of keys, meaning that it should work on a guest computer. The big security problem is that users often reuse their passwords on multiple sites. HTTPS secures data in motion, but if one of the endpoints is compromised, then the passwords can leak, even if they are stored in hashed form, because there are hash crackers. Once a malicious actor has stolen credentials from Site A (such as Wikipedia), they can then go to Sites B, C, D,..., and try those credentials. A not insignificant fraction of them will work, allowing further destruction to spread across the Internet. Although this is not Wikipedia's direct problem, as good citizens we want to stop this, and we want to encourage others to stop it too. One thing we can do is to lead by example. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Recommended reading http://srp.stanford.edu/. Unfortunately the site appears to be down at the moment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

draft restoration or undeletion

dear User:Jimbo_Wales ; please undelete my draft Draft:Rakesh Kumar Sinha. it has been deleted by User:RickinBaltimore . My draft Draft:Rakesh Kumar Sinha is about my personal and professional life as computer research scientist, government of india, asia, world. my pages are generally maintained by government of india, asia, world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockyrocks48 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rockyrocks48, (talk page stalker) have you tried contacting RickinBaltimore on their talk page? Furthermore, this draft is unlikely to be undeleted as it was a copyright violation and was promotionally written. If you want to recreate it, you can re-create the draft there ensuring that it is written from a neutral point of view and uses your own words. I suggest you also read the guideline on writing autobiographies before writing your draft. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi I'll chime in here. As stated just now, the article was a copyright violation, which was the main cause for it being deleted. It was also extremely promotional, but that's likely due to it being taken from the source. I'm also going to say that we highly suggest you do not write about yourself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Jimbo Wales, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 23:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Der Grüne Wagen

Any opinions people on the notability of this Austrian theatre company? If you think it's not notable feel free to say so. It was relisted for deletion!† Encyclopædius 16:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, Not sure the benefit of canvassing here, nor do I imagine Jimbo will chime in about a random Austrian theatre company. For my two cents, I'd say that merely asserting notability without giving evidence is not notability at all. Saying that there is probably offline coverage in another language is not very helpful. There could be offline coverage about a lot of things. Who knows, I could be notable based on offline coverage nobody has found. But of the sources that have been found, PMC's analysis reveals they are mostly garbage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Probably the user is noting the fact that this talkpage has half amount of watchers as the Teahouse, but contains only one-thirteenth of discussion compared to the teahouse. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not canvassing, simply looking for wider input on why we wouldn't include such an article. Aymatth2 is as baffled as myself. † Encyclopædius 20:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

William Dieterle, the director of The Life of Emile Zola which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1937, was the director of the theatre when he returned from Hollywood. Aside from being the oldest touring German-language theatre in existence it regularly has big names in theatre in its cast. It shouldn't have been relisted for deletion, sadly there's been a marked drop in people participating at FAC and AFD since the start of COVID.† Encyclopædius 13:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, Okay, so point out some sources that show it meets WP:GNG if you believe it so obviously notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Augsburger Allegemeine full article
• full article
• full article
• Nord Bayern newspaper dated 14 Sept 1963, full article
• Zeit one of Germany's main newspapers, full article behind a paypall.
• And Zeit again all I can access in a search is "Salzburger Regiegastspiel will William Dieterle die "Medea" von Robinson Jeffers für den "Grünen Wagen" " Sources which cover it extensively will be in newspapers and theater journals like those offline.
• Like this Die Bühne, Issues 340-351 p.37 snippet all I can see is "Hollweg gelang GRÜNER WAGEN es , das an sich undramatisch starre Schema ohne Denunziation der frühen Frommes ... Auch wenn vor szenischen Kalau E inst von William Dieterle geleitet und Richard Strauss : Zwei Premieren ern nicht ".
• Also covered in Dierterle's biography over several pages which I can't access. If somebody had access to German newspaper archives we'd find much more from the 50s and 60s.

There's enough to pass GNG though given the actors who've toured with it you'd expect more extensive coverage in contemporary papers online.† Encyclopædius 20:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopædius, I suggest you add all of that to the AfD, as that is what will ensure the article is saved. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! TigerScientist Chat wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 16:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

New ArbCom

Hello Jimbo, just FYI - the 2020 ArbCom election has concluded, you may view the results here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Results. The full slate of 7 candidates has been approved by the community, and we had a record setting year of all standing candidates clearing a 50% approval rating. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Board questions

Hi Jimbo, would you please update as to when Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections are expected? I know there are always exciting changes with the Foundation, and bylaws have been amended to lengthen board members' terms. Will we have a board with all members elected, an oligarchy, or something in between, and if the latter two, what is the plan to guard against neglect of the many for the benefit of the few? 96.90.213.161 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

And if the former, what is the plan to prevent the needs of the many from outweighing the needs of the few? 107.242.121.3 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Touché 96.90.213.161 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the specifics of when the next elections will be scheduled, I shouldn't speak off the cuff as I am unsure. In terms of the overall direction of travel my view is that our traditional system of some board members being selected for expertise, other others being elected either by affiliated organizations or editors directly on the site has mostly worked reasonably well. I do believe that any failures have been the result of insufficient community input, which is why I am personally in support of ideas which will lead to much firmer community control. That is to say: the detailed mechanisms are to be worked out, and none of this is up to me, but my belief is that even appointed seats to the board should be primarily sourced from the community, and there should be some kind of community oversight of the process. It will never be acceptable to me for the majority of the board to not be community members, and my ideal board would come both in the form of direct elections (as today) and some (as yet unclear to me) indirect process for the "expertise" seats.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's Christmas!

Enjoyer of World — Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas).

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

— 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Xmas & Merry New Year ...

... for everyone who founded, edits and/or loves Wikipedia and her sister projects. Healthy 2021 and beyond y'all! Klaas `Z4␟` V 23:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to Jimbo Wales and family.

May this Christmas be your best Christmas ever and you achieve everything you deserve in life. Merry Christmas to everyone at home! RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Jimbo Wales! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

It's that time of year, apparently

Pakistan threatens Google, Wikipedia over 'sacrilegious content' Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

• News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

• In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

• Arbitration report: 2020 election results

• Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

• Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

• Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

• News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

• Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

• Essay: Subjective importance

• Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

• Gallery: Angels in the architecture

• Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Plan B for server location?

I've seen people suggest before to move W?F servers and/or the organization for copyright reasons. They are generally told (sometimes by myself) "yeah uuuh no" and I understand that, as US copyright law is "the devil you know".

After seeing this thread on a village pump with links to articles that say that "new requirements will essentially mandate filters", an opt-out copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office will feed copyright trolls and plans that will allow notice-and-staydown of fair use content I have to wonder: is there a serious plan B? We know some copyright claims are made in extremely bad faith and some are downright moronic. If such "violations" can cost Wiki editors up to the "truly small" sum of $30,000, wouldn't it be irresponsible to continue hosting a wiki in the US? We can only hope that Biden will be able to halt Tillis' plans, but if that fails the W?F has a problem. I'm not sure how a wiki could legally operate if filters are required, or if it's even technically feasible. All fair use surely goes out of the window if monitoring uploads becomes mandatory, as fair use uploads for very obvious reasons will trigger those filters.

So to come back to the original question.. Is there a plan B, just in case legal operation in the US becomes legally or technically unfeasible or irresponsible in regard to fines for end users? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In terms of jurisdiction, we should always remember that sensible copyright rules are a critical part of the legal infrastructure but not the only part. We must also consider a wide range of other issues and the US remains a great jurisdiction due to the First Amendment. And we've been through these kinds of copyright scares before - and emerged victorious. As a result, investing a huge amount of resources in a "plan B" for moving the WMF and all legal and server and staff infrastructure to another country would be premature. It's certainly an interesting "food for thought" mental exercise that many of us have engaged in over the years, but we are very far from needing to make that actual. Even if copyright rules took a turn for the worse in the US, as they already have in Europe (though not really implemented yet, the European Copyright Directive fight that we lost means that bad times are looming in Europe) - there would be time to evaluate seriously and figure out next steps.

What needs to happen now is not planning to lose, but planning to win.

I'll add one more thing - it is my personal intention (though of course not within my personal power at all) that Wikipedia will survive and thrive, no matter what we have to do to make that happen. If it's moving to another jurisdiction, then it's moving to another jurisdiction.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your level-headed response! Your "planning to win" comment is inspiring. As the EFF commented on the DCA draft:

Do not worry too much, though; as ever, EFF will be fighting for the Internet every step of the way, just as we did during the SOPA/PIPA fight with the help of countless Internet users and a broad coalition committed to the free and open Internet. This proposal is far worse than SOPA/PIPA, so our coalition will have to be stronger and more united than ever before. But we can meet that challenge. We—the Internet—must stop this terrible legislation in its tracks.

Where do we start? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Jimmy Wales Timofeib (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking to violent extremist sites

Hi Jimbo, I've been concerned by links to violent extremist sites on Wikipedia, like Stormfront (website) for example, a site connected to hundreds of racially motivated murders and mass shootings, we link straight to it and I can't see any encyclopedic value that outweighs concerns about promoting such a website. As co-founder of Wikipedia I was wondering what your thoughts were on the matter. Totally understand if you wouldn't want to touch the subject with a thousand foot pole. There's an rfc here

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_active_violent_extremist_websites_(hate_groups)

Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: As co-founder of Wikipedia I was wondering what your thoughts were on the matter. I was seriously so confused because I initially thought you said you are a co-founder of Wikipedia. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Tip: one might say it is reasonable to believe that co-founders of Wikipedia, have some sort of communication lines to each other, apart from talk pages on Wikipedia.

You were confused (about Bacondrum's post) - and the condition has passed. Excellent! (So now we can all continue to contribute to building Encyclopedia Wikipedia.) 89.8.71.4 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. (and if they did, would we have had this gem?) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As almost all links leaving Wikipedia are set to nofollow, which Google respects, then linking to something doesn't really give it any additional boost (for the most part) beyond whatever traffic Wikipedia happens to be sending directly. So I think this significantly lessens the concern that we might inadvertently be "promoting" something rather than merely linking to it informationally. There can be exceptions, of course, and there are things that I do think we should never link to (most prominently, abusive content, pedophilic images, snuff films - this is not intended as an exhaustive list). As to Stormfront itself, I am vaguely aware of it but I don't know the content well enough to make an informed judgment personally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoax in infobox. Another issue: a reformed sockpuppet

A Scandinavian municipality [29] seems to be having (for at least the last half year), a hoax listed as its mayor. Please see infobox.

Perhaps the following (linked) user [30], should be offered a time-limited unblock (on English Wiki), if Wikipedia needs one more expert's help?
(For the record, he seems to have had a minor (formal) upgrade of his/her status, at German Wikipedia, where he/she never has been blocked, it seems.) Happy New Year! 89.8.94.194 (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

[31] Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

Hi Jimbo, I've responded to this request on WP:RFPP and semi-protected your userpage indefinitely for persistent vandalism. This is in response to multiple protections this year, most recently for six months. Indeed, the user page has spent most of 2020 semi-protected. As this goes against the "You can edit this page!" ethos on the page (but not the "please don't vandalise" subtext), I'm leaving a note here so people are aware of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's sad to see that this is necessary, but I guess it is. If the semi-protection is to be indefinite, the banners at the top should probably be updated. Jimbo Wales, would you like us to handle that? I notice that the unprotected subpage seems sparsely used or monitored, so it might also be helpful to have a notice there directing people to places like WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) if they have a general comment they'd like to be seen. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you simply continue to follow Jimbo's "You can edit this page!" when it comes to semi-protection, banners, etc. If editors watching the page don't like a change it will be reverted and you can discuss it here with the reverting editor. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh oops, I mixed up this talk page with the associated userpage. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: we already have blanket base userpage protection, so if this is needed for long-term, just remove {{unlocked userpage}} - actual page protection isn't needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My last couple of edits and my Wiki Anniversary

Yes, things are a bit rough in the states right now and January seems to be a bit of a month of reminders to me and my US/Hawaiian roots, on top of all of todays historic events. I have fallen behind on my edits but they remind me that Wikipedia takes its name from a Hawaiian word or phrase. Thank you to all who keep the free flow of encyclopedic information. Thank you to you Jimbo for your patience with me as an editor and great thanks to User:Drmies. Once upon a time Wikipedia saw a huge insurgence of political activism invade our space. While this editor wanted to do the extreme (or, at least what I saw as such) he heeded my words. I cannot tell you how humbled I am by that. It wasn't really much but it was still something I remember.

Coming up on avery sad anniversaries for my ohana. I am not at all happy that these days fall on such close dates but I can tell you that Wikipedia editors welcomed me as if I were their own family...in so many ways. I will always see these things as gifts. Huge thanks to User:TParis for your wonderful patience while I screwed up our meeting at Pearl Harbor but it was still kind of you to help me see my old home. And of course...bacon to User:Dennis Brown. Giggle. I am so honored to be associated with him and Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Also, Jimbo.....if you have time please look at User:Steven Crossin's attempts to reolve onflict at DRN. He should be held in much higher esteem in our community but I have truly failed him and our attempts to resolve conflict through that venue as I have ben too controversial. I make mistakes and mostly from trying to push the envelope. I know you have had to remind me more than once not to go to far in my edits. Thank you for your caution and words as so many have offered. I will never be a perfect person or edito but...Wikipedia and it's community have truly made me better...all around. Mahalo to you all.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Mahalo!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we/WMF make a statement about US events?

On rare occasions, we should speak out on world events. Is this such a moment? Perhaps we should be encouraging readers to lobby the congress and cabinet to initiate a peaceful transfer of power? Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• The reality is probably that Wikipedia won't effect any change by being an advocate, but probably does the most good in the world by being a non-partisan (which doesn't mean balanced, of course) source of information. On issues that've directly affected our ability to do that, it's of course impossible to not be advocates. WilyD 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• No We only make statements on issues that directly affect Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• There's nothing en.wiki can do. The only thing that WMF should review is if any major contributions should be tracked to Trump or those Congresspeople that supported the challenge to the EC and consider returning said donations, and speak on that matter. Though doubtful we'd see such contributions. --Masem (t) 16:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, thanks. One of the last things we need from the WMF is more political advocacy outside its core mission. --MarioGom (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we are going to have our hands full enough as it is in coming years dealing with political attacks on section 230 and other things that are directly meaningful to our very existence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the days of anonymous accounts may be coming to an end. For platforms to be exempt from responsibility for user content requires that there is transparency about who is responsible for the content. We can no longer endure the situation where nobody can be held responsible for criminal, slanderous or harmful content. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My take (as I have strong interest in the Section 230 article as a primary editor on it), is that its more likely that we're going to see more responsibility placed on Big Tech to monitor for hateful content based on the way Democrats have spoken of change to the law in contrast to the GOP. That doesn't necessarily mean elimination of anonymous accounts as long as they still have IP tracking (as we do) as to assist in forensics, but it will require more proactive measures. To that end, WP is already in a good place since nearly all editors are equivalently moderators too. (If we were to be going by the GOPs route, that would have been requiring a stronger heeding of neutrality or forced balance which would have been much harder). --Masem (t) 14:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they might add a requirement that the platform needs to make good faith efforts to moderate properly or else they lose immunity. That's an approach. We all know that when a user gets banned, the next thing they try is sock puppetry. We use telemetry to identify sock puppet accounts (IP address, software fingerprints, device identifier). Preventing sock puppet attacks is a hard problem. At minimum, section 230 should require transparency around paid advertisements. It should always be clear who is paying to transmit a message. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Another aspect may be that the party in power can get political opponents banned from social media sites by using the potential to remove company liability protection from section 230 to influence the company. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Heard you on Radio 4 this morning, and just wanted to say thank you and everyone else for creating this site. I wouldn't be doing anywhere near as much good in my spare time if it didn't exist, and I'm sure the same can be said for quite a few of the, what is it now, over 40 million users? Wikipedia will forever be immortalised as the first, real, proper attempt at free information anyone can access.

Again, thank you.

Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 09:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Editing Wikipedia is a thankless task—as is a good editing philosophy, no-one else is going to do it so we have to do it ourselves. Thank you, Jimmy, for all your work in creating this site, maintaining it and spreading awareness; thanks to everyone reading this for helping make the world a better place one piece of (reliably sourced) open access information at a time. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Details of Twitter's ban of Trump

Jimbo, I agree with Twitter's detailed reasoning in their blog at https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html. Do you and why or why not? BillRogers2021 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that things were as bad as this at Twitter. Twitter management's action and propaganda-like interpretations at that link are what one would expect in a dictatorship. For reference, according to Twitter management, here are the tweets that were the reason for permanently suspending Trump's account.

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Pardon me for being suspicious, but this makes Twitter management look so bad that I wonder if you are a Trump supporter rather than a supporter of Twitter management. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Right—I can't think of a more frightening threat to American democracy in the past week than Twitter's terms-of-use enforcement. Your sense of perspective and moral clarity are always refreshing. Just like when you advocated that Wikipedia should be more welcoming toward neo-Nazi editors. MastCell ^Talk 05:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy of relative privation. PackMecEng (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about Twitter is that it is a property owned by someone, & anyone who uses it does so solely by the owner's permission. While Twitter has a Terms of Service -- like Wikipedia -- the company can still forbid access to their website to anyone for any reason they want -- much as you can tell anyone on your property to leave for any reason you want. (That's a wonderful thing about capitalism & owning stuff.) So the people at Twitter can terminate anyone's access for any reason at any time; however, because they want to encourage people to use Twitter, they avoid doing so arbitrarily. Nevertheless, they can. And users of Twitter can be kicked off at any time just people who edit Wikipedia can be banned at any time, even for reasons you & I think stink. It just looks bad to do this arbitrarily, so they don't do this unless there is a good reason -- such as a user makes himself infamous. Association with infamous people could harm Twitter's reputation, so it is understandable they terminate Trump's account: a lot of people think he is a crook & a racist, & people don't like associating with people who have that reputation, nor with companies that do business with them. The bottom line always wins out. -- llywrch (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line always wins out. Uh, huh. Without even looking, I can tell you that this has hurt Twitter's 'bottom line'. With looking, I can tell you their stocks have tumbled by 10%.1 He had ~88 million followers. The 'good business' argument here has no grounding. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A one day, or one month, or one year movement in a share price is zero evidence of whether this is "good business" or not. The question is will the fundamentals of the company be improved by this move. Longer term I guess that having a more ethical business model - including banning rightwing hate speech - is likely to be better for business. Years back the UK made a big effort to ban soccer hooligans. These devoted supporters of their clubs brought in lots of revenue, but banning them was good for business as it returned soccer to being something whole families would watch and enjoy. As for the 88 million followers... don't fall into the trap of assuming they are Trump supporters. Many of them follow to troll him, or laugh at him and many will remain on Twitter to troll Biden. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In one sense, I obviously support and agree with the sentiment behind it. Twitter does a terrible job of enforcing their terms of service, and is a hotbed for conspiracy theory thinking and falsehoods of all kinds, and Trump has definitely had a terrible impact.

At the same time, I do wonder/fear if this ban (and similar things like Amazon AWS kicking off parler) will simply entrench people who are in a "Q" state of mind, turn Trump into some kind of martyr, and ultimately do as much harm s good.

I definitely agree with LLywrch that it's a good thing that a private organization can set standards and enforce them, even if arbitrarily at times. My own view is that twitter's moderation model (anonymous staff moderation coupled with no real power for community norms to develop in a healthy way and be enforced) inherently doesn't scale. I hope to see more competitors arise who are looking for ways to create a platform which both serves as a platform for discussion and debate that the public finds fun and interesting, while at the same time not serving as a platform for radicalization and division. It's a hard problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue raised by the OP was whether or not the two tweets of Trump were justification for Twitter management's permanent suspension of Trump's account as they claimed. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I think that's really up to them, not me. I think twitter has had a very complicated relationship with Trump for a very long time. He's surely made them tons and tons and tons of money. And yet, his behavior has often been terrible. Twitter struggles with a bad reputation as a vector for misinformation / disinformation and he's very problematic in that regard.

If I were advising twitter years ago, they should have kicked him off years ago. But I think their business model thrives on controversy, being in the news every single day, etc. I can understand that it's hard for them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter gave Trump free rein when it suited their growth objectives. Now that Trump is leaving, and can't use government power to retaliate, it's expedient for Twitter to ban him. I'm sure advertisers have told Twitter that they don't want to underwrite violent sedition. I disagree that there's a risk in making Trump a martyr. He and other culpable parties should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to demonstrate that this is not acceptable. In addition, Parler should be exposed as the Russian psyop that it appears to be.[32] Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The GOP's political agenda since about 2010 is the political analogue of a Ponzi-scheme. A political movement that's viable on the long term has to address real world issues based on facts. The public can and is often misled by lies and half-truths, but this only works as long as the main political; agenda is still solidly based on facts. Telling lies is then similar to borrowing money that you can spend to invest in your company. It only works as long as you'll generate enough revenue to pay off the debt.

The GOP has had no viable political agenda since 2010, they needed to make more and more propaganda to sell their talking points, which then could not be covered in the mainstream media, except FOX NEWS. But even FOX NEWS had more and more problems with being the GOP's media outlet. Social media was never meant to be a media outlet for political parties, it was only because the GOP couldn't get it lies published as easily elsewhere that it ended up becoming the main pillar of the GOP's media operations. But as with any Ponzi-scheme, what then happened is that more and more lies needed to be published and the nature of the lies also become more and more extreme. It was then inevitable that a conflict would arise with the GOP and the social media platforms. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

From the responses so far, editors haven't mentioned how there was anything wrong with the two Trump tweets that would justify permanent suspension.

On another point, I've been unable to find the full video of Trump's Capitol speech on the day of the riots. I sometimes like to check the context of excerpts that the news media take to see whether their excerpt is misleading. For example, in remarks Trump addressed to seniors months ago about Covid, there was an excerpt in the BBC TV news where he said that they weren't vulnerable and the BBC went on to discuss this and how Trump was wrong. I looked at the full video and the BBC had cut out the part that immediately followed where he added: but for Covid-19 you are. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I found what appears to be the full video of Trump's Capitol speech [33]. The Washington Post published it Jan 11, the day of my previous message. Also, I listened to some of the House impeachment debate, which seems like a good source for both sides of the issue. One of the representatives referred to a part of Trump's speech at 16:22 in the video where Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey's statement: "I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all." Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Count Iblis, still waiting for his statement on Iran and China. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

All users are subject to the same rules, heads of sates have a special status where the rules are less strict. Khamenei's posting on COVID vaccines was removed, and if he were to start behaving like Trump, he would be banned as well. But if he sticks to the rules, he can continue to post on Twitter. This proves that Twitter has no political bias. The same is true for the other platforms. E.g. on YouTube North Korean propaganda channels are allowed as long as they stick to the rules, like this one Publishers from China, North Korea, Iran etc. are used to having to stick to strict rules, and they will end up not getting banned while Western publishers are more likely to rail against the rules, they have more of sense of entitlement to violate rules they don't agree with. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's speech in the right context. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

One needs to be careful about excerpts from speeches, interviews or reports that can be used by sources in a misleading way. Regarding the potential for manipulating excerpts, years ago when the movie Brokeback Mountain [34] came out, there were parody trailers which took excerpts from another movie to make it seem like something it wasn't [35]. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As a mob attacked the Capitol, Wikipedia struggled to find the right words

Interesting read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

One more: Wikipedia is twenty. It’s time to start covering it better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post is saying that it "might be the safest place online". Axios has an article. CNET is saying that we need [Wikipedia] more than ever. Another article by CNET also says that Wikipedia is "an unlikely beacon of reliability". Seems like other outlets followed the trend. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia 20

This is the new WikiPedia! Happy birthday! To celebrate 20 years of Wikipedia in this time in 20 years ago, I, award Jimbo Wales "The Founder Barnstar" as a co-founder of Wikipedia. Wishing this encyclopedia to a place for knowledge biggest than the universe. P.S. I hope there will be "The Federation of International Encyclopedia" in the near future. UuU! — I come form Thai Wiki 19:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations on 20 years and 1 billion edits 😃👏🎊 Linguist111^talk 20:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Male vs Female number of editors petition

Much admired Jimbo, I am reaching to you because, although I love wikipedia, I feel there are too many male editors, who often are prejudiced against women and therefore also edit articles with prejudice. I would like to ask you please to equalise the number of female and male editors to reflect the world we live in.

I have felt their prejudice in my editing of Mary Magdalene. Prejudice has been used to justify a sexist sentence in the article. I have been deleted and threatened. I know you will recommend that I go to the Wikipedia:dispute resolution but my trust has been eroded and I suspect the people in charge of resolving the dispute will also be men. When it comes to the undertones of a text accused of being biased against women, I can only accept a resolution from women. Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…

The article says "Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male”

- We know Jesus never excluded women. Quite the opposite. The 12 were probably men because at the beginning he only had male followers (women were most likely stuck at home with babies, cleaning, cooking and serving others). Later, we know Jesus named women amongst his main followers: Mary Magdalene, Susanna, Joanna… These women happened to be wealthy which could explain their availability to follow Jesus and even support him financially.

- In this website we have many articles that show how often women have been ignored or simply written out of history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists). Considering how the church has treated Mary Magdalene until recently, i really doubt the men who wrote the gospels also went out of their way to ask the women who followed Jesus whether he had also asked them to be their apostles...I can imagine Jesus often talking to the group of men separate to the women, simply because the women would have felt threatened by the men (Gospel of Mary, chapter 9). So we will never know what Jesus told the women who followed him. We do know however that Pope Francis (and the Vatican is not known for their equality), called Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles in 2016.

- By including these scholars opinion, Wikipedia seems to agree with the fact that because the 12 were male, OBVIOUSLY women were purposely excluded by Jesus. Girls are reading this. They may think that if an organisation is only men, it specifically excludes them. We know this is not true. It may be because no women applied or were available. It may stop girls from trying to become part of it thus creating a vicious circle and causing their own self-fulfilling prophecy. It is important they consider other most likely scenarios such as women not having been available before, or their input simply ignored by those writing history.

- Those references may quote scholars but not all scholars opinions should be used in Wikipedia, specially if they use discriminatory undertones when talking about such an important woman as Mary Madgalene.

Again, please, in order to keep Wikipedia fair and balance, I beg you that you balance the number of male and female editors and have a team of women monitor those articles that talk specifically about women. Sofiairiondo (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer-created encyclopedia, and Wikipedians consist of people who volunteer. There are no quotas, preferred sex, or anything resembling authorized balance. You sign up, you edit, and all are respected and treated, hopefully, with civility. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Randy, I have not been treated with respect or civility, thus my post above. Do not try to deny my experience. What do you propose we do to reduce the gender bias? Sofiairiondo (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a VOLUNTEER activity, your notion is completely untenable. It's also likely illegal in the country Wikipedia is incorporated in. Sorry if you feel undervalued, but when one isn't happy with an activity they participate in voluntarily, the usual response is simply to leave. And I'm sure your departure would have less effect on Wikipedia than the number of editors that would leave if they were told their edits had to be reviewed prior to publishing. Never mind the ridiculous sexist assumptions you've made. 174.254.193.246 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Treating other editors with civility and a concept of accepting them as acting in good faith are central guidelines of Wikipedia. If you've come upon editors who don't do that (case in point, the IP above) a reminder and link to those points can be used but, remember, treat them with the same courtesy (or at least keep it in mind). Would be nice to have more women and men editing, and an advertising outreach to colleges, scientific organizations, elderly communities, and the hundreds of other places where potential editors roam can be further utilized, with celebrity editors (rock stars, nobel prize winners, science fair celebrities, gaming superstars, athletes, princesses and princes, etc.) endorsing the idea of editing Wikipedia by showing how easy it is. Just a couple ideas. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo, We know that we don't have a diverse enough editor base, and are working to attract a more diverse group of volunteers. Our volunteers are also working to give better coverage to disadvantaged groups, see for example Women In Red, which has increased our coverage of women significantly since it began.

For better or worse, we reflect the biases of society at many times. If you think a quality source is biased, the answer is rarely to remove it, but instead to add another source that balances it out. Looking at this issue in particular, I see you were trying to make this edit. In my opinion, that sentence is already fairly neutral. It doesn't say it in Wikipedia's voice, and instead attributes the quote to the authors. And the very next sentence notes that Jesus' ministry brought greater liberation to women.

The best solution here is not removal, but instead additional research. Try to find a scholarly source that disagrees directly with Ehrman and Schaberg. Or that disagrees on the principle. Then you can include it and provide a counterpoint to theirs. But we do not often wholesale remove information from reliable academic sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sufficient expert in this area to immediately know the right answer. If Ehrman and Shaberg are eminent scholars whose opinion carries significant weight in scholarly circles, it would be wrong to simply exclude them from this article. If they are anti-feminist activists posting in random blogs and publishing populist tracts, then they probably aren't relevant for this article.

If there is a legitimate scholarly question here (again, I know too little to even guess) then there will surely be valid references to give the reader the full context of the debate. (Remember, Wikipedia doesn't take sides on controversial issues, but attempts to present readers with the full understanding of the state of the debate.)

I would suggest to you that finding like-minded high quality editors can be done in various places here: the Women in Red group is great in my experience.

The last thing that I would say is that the very complex questions around Women in Christianity - including historical questions of how women were treated during the earliest Christian times and throughout the history of various Christian churches - surely means that our articles are not likely to show any very simple one-dimension conclusion. What we have to do is grapple with it all, fairly, and with a spirit of inquisitiveness and kindness towards each other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimbo Sofiairiondo (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo You don't know me, but apparently we have a mutual acquaintance in Gråbergs Gråa Sång who sent me this link in hopes I would chime in because I am a female user who was harassed until I felt I had no option but to leave WP for almost two years. He knows I sympathize and even empathize with your struggle here, and since you requested female input, here goes.

In the two years I was gone from WP, my harasser was banned from WP for his behavior. I learned a lot from that. I learned that the wheels of justice on WP turn slowly but they do turn. If you have a problem with an editor, document and report it, even if it goes to a male arbiter, and even if it doesn't go your way at first. I believe truth will out eventually. Have some faith in your fellow man and their desire to do the right thing.

I use that phrase fellow man advisedly. This: Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc… is a bias of its own. One misogynist pig does not a universe make. Most human beings, including men, are decent and try hard to be as moral as they can, and that includes being fair to others. The fact men might not be able to imagine what it is to be female doesn't equate with automatically being unjust. This statement of yours is unjust to most men, is not supported by any real facts, and is an attitude that can never do you or those around you any real good.

Your example of a sexist statement - and it is a sexist statement - The article says "Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male” must be included in the article. CaptainEek is absolutely correct in his response. It's on you to do the work necessary to find alternate views. I can personally guarantee they are out there, because religion is my field of study and my avocation on WP. There are references that discuss Ehrman and Schaberg's view. This one discusses Ehrman, [36] while this next one discusses Schaberg. [37]. I believe you will find theirs is not a majority view.

It is a fact that, for 200 years, biblical criticism was dominated by white male Protestants, and we also know now that, since everyone has biases, their white, male, Protestantism impacted their interpretations. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says, "Christian male theologians have formulated theological concepts in terms of their own cultural experience...". Your sentence is a good example of that. Leaving out the women who were also disciples in Jesus' group of followers who were also personally taught by him, reflects a bias. Therefore, demonstrate that in the wiki-way: Present all the information from reliable sources, giving each view its due weight as the sources present them. Here are some places to start: [[38]]; and ; and

Find those references that say something entirely different from Ehrman and Schaberg. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion The Power of the Hysterical Woman is a book by Margaret MacDonald that uses anthropology and sociology to document pagan reaction to the importance of Mary Magdalene and other women in early Christianity. MacDonald analyzes how female initiative in early Christianity frightened the stew out of Rome to such a degree that it is probably what produced a lot of the early violence towards Christians!

Origen responded to the Roman critic Celsus' complaints about Christian women by saying that Jesus and his followers were supported by women, including Magdalene, but critics denounced Jesus for it, and insinuated these men took more than money from the women. Of course that's what they accused them of! This is called enemy attestation, and it is especially useful in demonstrating the importance of Mary Magdalene and women because it comes from an enemy. It proves Mary Magdalene had a central enough role in early Christianity that even opponents two hundred years later were trying to discredit her.

MacDonald does a good job of arguing that Celsus' misogyny reflects a "second century controversy over the importance of Mary Magdalene in Jesus' circle and the implication that importance had for the leadership of women. Several apocryphal and gnostic texts provide evidence of this controversy". The challenge portrayed in the Gospel of Mary "has been evaluated as an indication of tensions between 'the existing fact of women's leadership in Christian communities, and traditional Greco-Roman views about gender roles".(page 106)

Jimbo Wales is spot on. our articles are not likely to show any very simple one-dimension conclusion. What we have to do is grapple with it all, fairly, and with a spirit of inquisitiveness and kindness towards each other. That's the best statement I've heard in a while, and I don't think I can improve on it!

I, a woman, who has also experienced harassment, attest to the wisdom of Jimbo's response, and to the good-heartedness and fair-mindedness of the majority of the men here. I assert as a fellow woman, that we don't need special favors, we don't even need other women to get fairness, because we wikipedians are all committed to that concept by the very nature of the work we do here. Fight for what wiki stands for by doing it, fight for the NPOV. In the end, it really is the best approach, and it doesn't matter if it is undertaken by men or women. Don't run, don't whine, work; that's how we counter bias here. I wish you all the best.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jen, Many thanks for all the information. Really useful.

Firstly, unlike you I am not an expert. AT ALL. I just know that, when I read that sentence, it shocked me as it is obviously prejudiced. I tried to edit it various ways, and i think it could say:

”Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, because he named twelve men to be his apostles, which in their opinion means women were specifically excluded. However, this would mean gentiles or members of other nationalities were also specifically excluded. Moreover, it would mean that Jesus chose Judas Iscariot to be one of the original Twelve, presumably knowing that Judas would later betray him John 6:64, 70-71. Since Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, this makes the argument untenable that Jesus intended the Twelve to be some sort of precedent or paradigm for church leadership."

But I was deleted and threatened. I never questioned that Jesus named twelve male apostles, but the obvious sexist assumption by the scholars that he did not name twelve or twenty or fifty female ones. Or twenty or fifty Gentiles in Tyre and Sidon. And were they really the paradigm of leadership when one, Judas, betrayed him for money and another one, Peter, denied him three times before the rooster crowed…? How do we know the men writing the gospels did not simply ignore the women Jesus may have also given instructions to? We know how many of them felt about women (Gospel of Mary, chapter 9). We have many reasons, as you mention, based on experience (god forbid i make this up) to believe many men (not all of course) have ignored, deleted and even stolen women's input from history.

I am afraid, denouncing the injustice committed to women by those with power who have been, throughout history, overwhelmingly men, is not being unjust to men, it is just stating a fact. "Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…" is a fact. Read history, or ask your grandmothers, ask any minority races. Women can ALSO be unfair against other people, however, we have rarely been in power to do so. When that happens, I will denounce us women, don't worry. This article is much about Jesus. We humans, he said, are sinners, only by looking at our sins in the eye, accepting them and regretting them, can we all change. Can you please give me examples of men in history that have fought or given their lives to protect women and girls’ rights? Those of their sisters and daughters? And I am afraid, yes, women are needed in order to have a fair outcome when it comes to women's justice. It is not surprising that only in recent times, when women have been able to have a say (for many reasons including our own fight for the vote, the fact that we are not burden with childcare or farming work, our going to Uni and studying hard, the list is long), have women rights and justice improve, even though they still have a LONG way to go.

It is all very good to congratulate Jimbo for his suggestion that we act kindly. The question we have to ask ourselves is what it is to act kindly. Being kind is NOT being polite. Do you remember Jesus? Do you remember him getting really p-ed off and knocking the merchants' tables at the temple? Do you remember him shouting at the pharisees calling them hypocrites and white-washed tombs (Matt 23)? Kindness involves, above all, the denouncement of injustice, protecting the vulnerable, at the risk of being killed on a cross. If you know so much about this subject, why did you not edit it? Where are the female editors? Where are the female experts? I know we are often bullied but then, can I say this without being accused of sexism???

Finally, As you say, I do not run. I am trying to denounce injustice the best way I can think of. As you seem to know so much can I please beg you to keep an eye on articles that refer to women. Could I also ask you to contact these female scholars you know so much about and ask them to edit articles on the subjects they are experts on please? All the very best. Sofiairiondo (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo I must say, this is an interesting response. As someone 'who knows so much' I can tell you there is more than one error here. Your rewrite of the sentence from E and S contains two, and so I can safely assume it represents original work, and is not a researched and supported scholarship. I know of no scholar who would argue the gospels don't give the impression Jesus chose Judas Iscariot intentionally and knowingly. I know of no scholar who would argue that one can assume the women among them were treated unjustly because the men weren't perfect paradigms of virtue. I would have contacted you on the talk page and asked you to revert yourself, because I have a personal policy of not reverting others, but I would not have let this stand as it is. All of this smacks of OR. That is no doubt why you got reverted.

How do we know the men writing the gospels did not simply ignore the women Jesus may have also given instructions to? Well, the obvious answer is because the only reason we know about these women is because the men that wrote the gospels included them. There are no other sources.

One of the important things to learn on WP is to be careful when interpreting what others have said. I am afraid, denouncing the injustice committed to women by those with power who have been, throughout history, overwhelmingly men, is not being unjust to men, it is just stating a fact. This claims something I didn't actually say. Has there been injustice in history? Absolutely. Does that prove those on WP have been unjust to you? No, it does not. If you were reverted for OR, then there was no injustice. The paragraph above indicates you responded to someone else's bias with your own biased OR, thereby countering injustice with injustice and bad scholarship and a violation of policy. There is no higher ground for you to claim there, and no evidence of injustice toward you specifically. I'm afraid history doesn't qualify as evidence.

"Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…" is a fact. No, it isn't. There would need to be some actual data, a study of some kind, that demonstrated this as a dependable fact for the majority, and not simply personal perception based on partial information, and my grandmother not withstanding, there isn't. One person's personal experience does not prove anything about the breadth of experiences across society. That's why personal experience is called 'anecdotal'.

If this were in any way an established fact, our entire society would lobby for law that would ensure no female was ever judged by a male and so on. But the truth is, men can and do give fair and balanced opinions involving women - on a regular basis - and still that does not prove there have not also been abuses of power in history. The two do not equate or counter each other; they coexist.

It is all very good to congratulate Jimbo for his suggestion that we act kindly. First, that isn't primarily what I agreed with him on. It was the rest of his statement that was a brilliant summation on how to approach controversial topics on WP - that part overlooked in this response. Your theology is a bit confused, and you have an interesting definition of kindness, but I don't completely disagree. Kindness is being considerate of others, which certainly does include good manners, but may also include preventing or fighting injustice, sure. Following his advice can only benefit you. If you know so much about this subject, why did you not edit it? Where are the female editors? Where are the female experts? is a good example of a failure of kindness that perpetrates an injustice of its own. I personally have never seen the article you refer to. I tend to edit articles that are heavily tagged, but someone who knows me - or I myself - have to actually run across the article for me to descend upon it with my red pen in hand. All of us female editors are out there working, but I doubt any of them limit themselves to articles about women. I don't, and I would think it an injustice to be expected to do so by any man, woman or child.

Denounce injustice all you please, just don't do it by posting original research on WP. And the Women in Red don't need me to tell them what to do. They do a fine job already. I think I have now said all I have to offer that might help you, and won't be writing more. I wish you the best of luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A nice new donor

Hey Alabama, I thought you'd like reading this email I just got from a buddy: "I made my first donation to Wikipedia this afternoon. I thought you would enjoy hearing that.

I did some research on the internet this afternoon and their information was fantastic. I felt strongly

about making a contribution. I recall a few years ago that you were very big on the Wikipedia model.

Anyway, it is an excellent website and I certainly plan to make more contributions in the future.

Like they say, it is important for humanity to have the information they are able to present."

Itain'teasy2021 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Always be happy.

Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Jan 2021

Just out of interest, how much data is currently being stored on Wikipedia's servers, as well as across all the Wikimedia projects? GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not personally in a position to even be able to estimate it. I'll just note that there's a difference between "the size of the live databases (including all the history)" and the total data being stored on all servers, which would surely include a vast number of database replicas as well as backups, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

by Wikipedia:Database download and very approx - 1 Terabyte would suffice for all wikis; in modern times it is something big but far from exorbitant --Neolexx (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

This section is never got archived probably because there's no timestamp. I'll go ahead and archive it. Enjoyer of World — Talk 04:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV as a system of communicating vessels

Hello Jimbo,
Sometimes I have difficulty deciding if some phrase about Wikipedia indeed appertaining to you or imagined / built upon by myself. Like with "Productive editor — conflict person" (now in archives of this page, confirmed to be altered by me but overall yours ""Annoying user, good content").
This time I'm wondering if you ever compared NPOV and Communicating vessels. Something like "one vessel contains a dark blue liquid, the other - transparent, connected together so mixed (consensus search) - light blue". Did you ever say anything like that or is it my own imagination? --Neolexx (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, not that I recall. I'm going to think about this, though, and perhaps it will come to me over the next few days.

I just read the entry on "communicating vessels" and it isn't really a mental model that I think fits NPOV. But it is, of course, a powerful idea (in plumbing if nothing else haha!) and I'm intrigued.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then and the score in Thus Spoke Jimbo becomes 1:1 (this my miss - that my hit) :-) --Neolexx (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Goat for good person

Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

100 million doses will be administered in 100 days

'Move heaven and earth': President-elect Joe Biden's COVID-19 plan calls for 100 million shots in first 100 days

Although Wikipedia relies on reliable sources in the news media, sometimes they are not forthcoming in politics-related subjects. I was interested in how the current rate of administering Covid-19 vaccination doses compared to Biden's goal of 100 million doses administered in the first 100 days of his presidency.

I was able to determine the current rate from data at [39], which is the website of Our World in Data and uses a research team based at the University of Oxford. The data for the total cumulative number of doses administered can be displayed by deselecting "per 100 people" in the choices above the plot. The numerical information from a data point can be obtained by hovering the cursor above a data point on the plot.

From the plot, the data for the recent trend of the total number of doses administered in the US up to a given date is: Jan 12, 9.33 million; Jan 13, 10.28 million; Jan 14, 11.15 million; Jan 15, 12.28 million. Thus the current rate of doses administered is 1 million per day, i.e. a rate of 100 million doses in 100 days. So at the current rate, in the first hundred days of the Biden administration there will be 100 million doses administered in 100 days.

The 1 million per day rate is consistent with a statement put out by the White House Council of Economic advisers. "As of January 11, the US has delivered the first of two doses to 7.7 million individuals with a rate of administered vaccines now approaching 1 million per day."[40]

Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Not sure why that's relevant on this page, but it is interesting. I suppose if your point is that the 100 million in 100 days matches what is already being done under the Trump administration, it may not be as bold a claim as some think. I'm sure there will be sources to attest to that if true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AI generated text

Wired has an interesting article about the growing dangers of AI generated text possibly being used to manipulate online fora that would seem to be relevant to Wikipedia: AI-Powered Text From This Program Could Fool the Government. Of possibly useful note: "OpenAI and other researchers have released a few tools capable of identifying AI-generated text. These use similar AI algorithms to spot telltale signs in the text. It’s not clear if anyone is using these to protect online commenting platforms. Facebook declined to say if it is using such tools; Google and Twitter did not respond to requests for comment." 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would love to see some controlled experimentation (transparent, on clearly identified test pages) to see how well or poorly those tools would perform in this context. I suspect extremely poorly.

It isn't hard to mimic a facebook comment in many cases, even one that has a political aim. Let's say some nefarious dark money operator wants to push a narrative that Joe Biden has some cognitive impairment due perhaps to Alzheimer's disease. To get that idea into Wikipedia would require robust argumentation and solid sources. But to inject it slightly subtly into a random facebook group doesn't seem that hard. All the usual trolling techniques like "just asking questions" are pretty straightforward to automate I suppose. "This reminds me of the many times when he's behaved in this way, I saw this video the other day..." is considered to be an acceptable level of discourse on Facebook - not here. I hope.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

For the reasons you outline, adding mainspace content via these tools may not be likely/possible (at least so far). I am somewhat more concerned considering internal decision-making fora such as AfD or RfCs where the argumentation style is often more abbreviated and where the addition of numerous reasonable sounding comments might sway the outcome. I do not know if we are using any of the identification tools mentioned in the article, but it might not be a bad idea. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Also, please make a little userbox for Encyclopedia Dramatica Usres

Wyyzrd.guy (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Baa!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

kitten

Acronymical (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Meow!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for making Wikipedia! It is an extremely useful resource!

superMinecraftL (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Baa!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe even "Scream!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)